A Falklands (Malvinas) Compromise

Has the Falklands Referendum solved anything?

The people of the Falkland Islands will go the polls on 7 November to vote in their General Election.  The year 2013 will best be remembered in this remote South Atlantic archipelago though for the referendum back in March which overwhelmingly endorsed the Falkland Islands' status as a British Overseas Territory. 

The referendum was always going to give the British/Falkland Island position a bit of a bounce in the short term, but a most crucial point could be that the Obama Administration has resisted and will continue no doubt to resist any pressure to jump off the fence.  So was there a point to a referendum in which the result was never in doubt?

If anything, it has merely demonstrated that there are other issues at stake other than self determination.  With other issues such as mineral wealth potentially becoming more significant in the years ahead, all the 2013 referendum will serve to do is confirm a stand off between Britain and Argentina for some time to come!

I believe that the Falklanders do have a right to some form of Self Determination. However, there is also other British Territory in the South Atlantic in which the argument of Self Determination simply does not relate to.  This does in my view suggest that something has got to give somewhere along the line.  I have my own views as to how a potential compromise could develop.  I may be proven right or I may be proven wrong.  There is only one thing certain about the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, that being we have certainly not reached the end game at this point in time!

A potential long term solution

Should the time come for all parties to get to the negotiating table, there are a number of various solutions which have been previously suggested.  One such proposal is Joint Sovereignty between Argentina and the United Kingdom.  There is nowhere on the planet where Joint Sovereignty has ever worked!  As with a Football Team with Joint Managers, who would ultimately have the final say if there was a point of disagreement between the two Sovereigns?

My own belief is that a long term solution could see the two main islands eventually split into separate British and Argentine territories.  This would see West Falkland and the surrounding islands transferred to Argentine control.  East Falkland (where the overwhelming majority reside) would remain a British Overseas Territory, which I believe on population density arguments would more than satisfy the Falkland Islanders' rights to self determination.

A handover period of the West could be agreed with a view to the territory remaining British for the remaining lifetimes of some West Falkland residents, whilst also restricting immigration to people who have good English language skills. This is something I believe could be useful to help the British Falklanders on East Falkland to build trading relations with a future neighbouring Argentine territory, and perhaps better trading relations with Argentina itself one day. An Anglo-Argentine Treaty could also address issues like mineral resources, military activity, and future territorial claims.

A partition of a chain of islands is not the same thing as the partition of one island such as Ireland. Whilst Joint Sovereignty has no positive form guide, there are working examples of island groups being split between different jurisdictions. One is the Virgin Islands which is split between the UK and USA.  Another example is Samoa which is split between Samoa (previously Western Samoa) and American Samoa.

Why Should Britain one day be open to Compromise?

I am hopeful that another Falklands/Malvinas war will not happen in my lifetime.  What I am less hopeful of is that this issue will disappear.  Argentina may not currently account for a massive proportion of the UK's International Trade.  But taking on board that we are talking about a fellow G20 Country, that could change in the future.  The brief war in 1982 was tragic.  But taking on board that Argentina has over 100,000 citizens of British descent, that war does not tell the full story of Britain's past relationship with Argentina.  Let's also remember that Argentina at the time was under a dictatorship which had murdered it's own people!  For over 30 years now, Argentina has been a democracy.

I do accept it will be difficult to see any movement on the Falklands/Malvinas issue for the remainder of the Kirchner Presidency.  I would also suspect it to be nigh on impossible for the remainder of Mr Cameron's Premiership as well.  But even if there is to be no sign of the Argentine claim on Las Malvinas being dropped, it is possible at some point in the future that relations between Britain and Argentina will improve.  After all, Britain and the Falkland Islanders did enjoy better relations with Argentina during the Menem Presidency, even though the line from Buenos Aires was generally along the lines that we will agree to disagree on the Malvinas Sovereignty question for the timebeing.

Although the amount of money which the UK spends is a very tiny fraction of the UK Defence Budget, it would be wrong to say cost is not an issue.  This is particularly so if Britain continues to assert that they will retain a garrison forever!  There are always different interest groups back in the UK lobbying for an increased share of the public purse.  And besides, maintaining the garrison long term does not solve the issue.  It merely continues to contribute to the stand off between Britain and Argentina.  That also means the Falkland Islanders don't have a settled peace (even if it is something they have always lived with) and their scope to develop their economy is hindered by little or no trade with their closest neighbour.  Considering all the regional trading blocks that now exist around the world, some form of strong trading relationship with Argentina would surely be desirable long term.

I have stated that I believe a split in the land to be my belief as a long term solution to the dispute.  I have also stated this to be a means to satisfy the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination on population density grounds.  I will now explain this point in more detail.  It is my viewpoint that the Falklands are not sparsely populated, but in fact underpopulated.  The Falkland Islands cover a land area which is roughly five times that of the combined land area of the Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands.  The two sparsely populated Scottish archipelagos have a combined population of a little over 42,000.  Whereas there are just under 3,000 Falklanders!  As for West Falkland and it's surrounding islands, we are still talking about an area of land that is still nearly double the total combined land area of Orkney and Shetland.  We are in fact also talking about a population count of about 300 at best!

I mention Orkney and Shetland for two reasons.  Firstly, they are widely regarded as a place not to live for many mainland Brits.  Secondly, it is generally regarded that the weather is similar in the two Scottish archipelagos to that in the Falklands.  Filling the Falklands' population gap in the future is surely going to be done more from South America than the UK, a fact backed up by the Chilean Community of about 200 people now residing on the islands.  As a Brit myself, if I wanted to live in a Falklands/Shetlands climate, I would not wish to emigrate to the other side of the world thanks!

Whether you agree or disagree with my population density viewpoint, there is another simple angle to the very question of why Britain should one day compromise.  That being Britain's position does not enjoy universal support in the international community.  I am not saying Argentina is in a stronger position either.  But more generally, if either side was that confident of it's position in International Law, this dispute would have been heard by the International Court of Justice long before now.

Could I be proven wrong?

Of course it is possible.  I cannot pretend to have a crystal ball.  But I would urge everyone who has been courteous to take the time to read this post to put my views into perspective.  I am not saying I want David Cameron to enter into negotiations with CFK tomorrow, next week, or even next year.  What I am saying is that if both nations at some point in the future show that bit of bravery, and don't look back into history, then there could be hope.

If Argentina were to repeat some of it's past mistakes, then I would be quick to say the dispute would probably have been set back by another two generations.  That said my own country is far from perfect as well!  Argentina has been a democratic nation now for over thirty years, and it is probably worth remembering that post war West Germany had been a new democracy for about half that period of time when Britain was trying very hard to join the Common Market in the 1960s.  West Germany, unlike the United Kingdom had been one of the Common Market's founder members.

Before I became more informed on this subject, my views were previously more in line with recent successive British Governments.  I still believe it to be true that there are some Argentines who are ignorant about those who live on the Malvinas.  But it should also be stated that those Argentine citizens who have challenged President Kirchner's Malvinas policy, deserve special praise.

What I have come to realise is that there is also a British ignorance as well, and that I was previously ignorant to various geographical facts I have highlighted in this post.  I did not previously realise that we were talking about an archipelago with a land area size of about 90% of the size of Northern Ireland.  I feel that does go some way to explain why some countries will not give the UK full backing on the Self Determination argument.  

I would also point out that I had never previously wondered how I would have felt had history worked out differently to give Argentina (or any other distant nation for that matter) control of an island or group of islands off the British coast.  The fact that the Falklands is much further away from Argentina than Shetland is from the north coast of Scotland, is to me irrelevant.  I don't consider the Falkland Islands' natural link to the outside world to be London via Ascension Island.  

Once again, I could be proven wrong on my beliefs.  But I would also repeat that I believe I am correct in stating there is much British ignorance on the subject as well.  The Falklands/Malvinas issue is one at this moment in time that won't go away.  But with a more favourable point in the cycle of relations between Britain and Argentina in the future, that could all change.

Britain and the EU- Should we stay or should we go?

Many people will say that Britain has never really been comfortable in the European Club.  There are probably a number of reasons for that.  Perceived loss of national identity is a biggie.  Some people do highlight the Norwegians and the Swiss as a fine example of having Free Trade with Europe, and being able to survive outside the EU.  I do look at this and think it certainly is possible that Britain could do ok on the outside.

With the modern EU containing 27 Member States, decisions will always be taken by Qualified Majority Voting.  That means the UK will sometimes have to accept legislation from Europe it does not support.  Let's not forget though that Europe is the market in which many British products and services are sold.  We will sometimes get outvoted, but for me it is better to actually have a vote.  We would have less say on the outside.

I believe we would be better in than out.  However, I do believe it is time we held a new referendum.  Most of the current electorate did not vote in the 1975 referendum.  That factor along with the general debate about Britain's future in Europe, does I believe require a fresh mandate from the people to end the uncertainty one way or another.

Cycling on Pavements in the UK

For many pedestrians on the streets of the UK today, there can be no bigger nuisance than someone coming past very quickly on their bicycle.  As someone who walks to work twice a day (on split shifts) and twice back, I should know.  I have lost count of the number of times someone has whizzed past me, leaving me with the thought of what if I had moved my arse or elbow at that point!

Having read the first few lines of this post, one may be surprised to read I would actually support some form of limited legalisation for cycling on pavements.  Whilst there are some careless cyclists, there are also (perhaps surprisingly) many considerate cyclists.  A simple use of the bell can always be appreciated by the pedestrian.  A main point to consider is that if the pedestrian is walking straight ahead, he or she will not always know that there is something potentially sinister behind!  I am very often in a world of my own, wondering what team Liverpool will field next weekend!

Now I am under no illusions that to permit some cycling on pavements will still require some clear RED LINES.  For instance I believe it should be compulsory for the cyclist to dismount near a group of people, children, or a blind person.  It would be also desirable I believe for the cyclist to dismount if the pedestrian does not hear the bell due to traffic noises etc.  Where cycle lanes are present, the cyclist should be expected to make use of that facility instead.  Any bikes which are not fitted with bells should be BANNED.

In an ideal world, the UK's major towns and cities would have more cycle lanes.  However, due to the fact that some roads will already have narrow pavements, building a cycle lane is not always possible.

I recognise it is not ideal for cyclists to use many major roads, due to the amount of traffic.  Where cycle lanes are not an option, THE PEDESTRIAN AND THE CYCLIST CAN CO-EXIST.  My daily experiences do confirm this.

The Three Plus One Electoral System

I am no fan of the UK Electoral System, the First Past The Post System.  Too many voices are not heard. Unless you live in a marginal constituency, your vote will not be central in determining who will form the next Government. Britain held a referendum in 2011 on a proposal to change the electoral system to the Alternative Vote System.  The Alternative Vote System (AV) enables the voter to rank constituency candidates in order of preference.  Many critics made the point during the referendum campaign that AV allows voters of minor parties a few bites of the cherry, whilst it should also be pointed out that pro-electoral reform politicians really supported another system known as the Single Transferable Vote.

WHAT I PROPOSE IS SOMETHING NEW- THE THREE PLUS ONE SYSTEM.

The main principles are as follows:

1. Constituencies would become multi-member constituencies, whereby four MPs would be returned in each constituency.
2. Political parties would be allowed to field up to 3 candidates per constituency.  There would be no limit on Independent candidates.
3. Voters would continue to mark an X for their choice of candidate.
4. The first three MPs would be elected on their individual share of the vote.
5. The fourth candidate would be elected on a more proportional basis.   The successful candidate for the fourth seat would be the candidate from the winning party (or the list of independent candidates) who has the highest individual share of the vote out of that party's remaining candidates.

So how would the fourth member be elected for each constituency? Let me give you a few examples.

The first example sees Party A, Party B, and Party C all return an MP on individual share of the vote.  The fourth MP would be determined by which Party has polled the most votes.

The second example sees Party A return 2 MPs and Party B return 1 MP on individual share of the vote. The first question to ask is which party has polled the most votes?  If it is Party A, we would then ask does Party A have more than 50% of the Constituency Vote.  Party A will get a third MP returned if they achieve that 50% threshold.

In a third example, we have the same scenario of Party A returning 2 MPs and Party B returning 1 MP. On this occasion that 50% threshold is not met, even though Party A has still polled the most votes. So we would now ask if Party C has polled more votes than Party B, yet somehow failed to win a seat on individual share of the vote. If Party C has polled more votes than Party B, then Party C would secure the fourth seat on a proportional basis. If Party C has not polled more votes than Party B, then the candidate with the fourth largest individual share of the vote will be returned as the fourth MP, irrespective of party affiliation.

For the fourth example, we will once again use the scenario where Party A has returned 2 MPs and Party B has returned 1 MP.  Again we will ask which party has polled the most votes?  This time Party B actually has the largest share of the vote, and will secure the fourth MP on a proportional basis.

The Three Plus One Electoral System is designed to hear those voices which are currently not heard under the First Past The Post Electoral System.  Furthermore, by continuing to mark an X against the voter's preferred candidate, it is very voter friendly!