Argentina needs to re-examine Malvinas tactics!

The Falklands/Malvinas is far from a settled issue.  The referendum in March 2013 has shown if anything that the issue of self-determination is far from the sole issue at stake.  It is no secret on how I view the issue could be resolved long term.  But recent manoeuvres by the Argentine Government will benefit the Malvinas cause very little in the long run, even if President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner somehow sees merit in helping to use the policy for short term domestic consumption.

Last month saw the Argentine Foreign Minister, Hector Timmerman meet up with the President of the Chagos refugees Group.  Whilst the disgraceful case of the Chagossians being expelled from their homeland does expose double standards in Britain's self determination argument, what exactly is Argentina's point about the Chaggosians with regard to the Malvinas question?  Suggestions have been made by the Argentine Foreign Ministry that both the Chagos Islands and the Malvinas Islands are linked by the argument of territorial integrity, due to the Indian Ocean archipelago's sovereignty being claimed by Mauritius.  However, if the Kirchner Government also believes in the repatriation of these people to their homeland with full rights to self determination, then are they saying that maybe self determination could play some part in a resolution to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute?

Back in September, there was the attempt to cosy up to Spain and form a Latin Alliance to put Britain under international pressure on both Falklands/Malvinas and Gibraltar.  The suggestion that Spain suddenly lost interest in the alliance is not the surprise here.  It is rather the motivation to form a Latin Alliance in the first instance on the part of Argentina!  How would Argentina's case benefit from an alliance with a nation that has arguably three territories whose natural geographical link is with Morocco rather than Spain?  Rather like Gibraltar being situated on the southern tip of Spain, Morocco's northern coast is interrupted by enclaved Spanish territory in the form of Ceuta and Melila.  It should also be pointed out that the Canary Islands are clearly much closer to Morocco's west coast than the Spanish mainland.

Arguments made by Spanish Politicians along the lines of Ceuta and Melila having long been part of Spain, compared to the time Gibraltar has been occupied by Britain, or that Ceuta and Melila are actually part of Spain as opposed to Gibraltar being a British Overseas Territory and not a part of the United Kingdom, are complete nonsense.   As for Argentina's Malvinas aspirations, it is quite clear that they will not accept any long term settlement that would see them lose face.  With weaknesses in the British self determination argument which I highlighted in my post on 30 September, and the inevitability that the place in which the Falklands/Malvinas war holds in the British psyche likely to recede over time, Argentina could one day have the opportunity to secure at least a meaningful compromise.  But what Argentina also needs to do is to not undermine it's own case by forming an alliance with a nation  like Spain, even if they do both speak the same language!

ARGENTINA NEEDS TO FOCUS ON IT'S OWN CASE WITH REGARDS TO THE FALKLANDS/MALVINAS.  IT IS NOT IN ARGENTINA'S LONG TERM INTEREST TO ALLOW ANY DISTRACTION FROM OTHER CASES LIKE GIBRALTAR WHICH MAY WELL HAVE SOME SIMILARITIES, BUT WHICH ARE FAR FROM IDENTICAL!

Time to change the US Electoral College System?

From one of my posts on 30 September, it is fairly clear that I fall into the category of someone concerned about the British Parliamentary electoral system.  Very simply not enough voices are heard and if you live in a safe Conservative or a safe Labour seat, you don't see the main parties' big hitters knocking on your door during a general election campaign.

I feel this is also a problem across the pond.  The US Presidential Election system is often referred to as the Electoral College System.  What it means is that the candidate who polls the most votes in a particular state, gets all that state's electoral college votes irrespective of the margin of victory in that particular state.  As with the British Parliamentary System's marginal constituency, it is all very well if you live in a swing state like Florida.  However if you live in what is generally considered to be a non-swing state like Texas or New York, then the Presidential candidates will not be concentrating their campaigning on your doorstep!

I recognise the US and UK have other big issues on their respective agendas at the moment such as the economy, and rightly so.  However turnouts at recent Presidential elections have been consistently below 60%.  In the UK, general election turnouts have been consistently below 70% in recent times.  You don't have to be a political genius to understand that there is a feeling the larger parties are quite happy to snuff out the smaller parties from making any kind of impact.

I acknowledge that in the US, there have been more proposals in Congress for constitutional amendments on the electoral college subject than on any other subject.  But why is the electoral college issue not as big an issue as it should be?  We are living in changing times.  If the western world, arguably led by the US is trying to convey a message to parts of the world such as the Middle East that democracy is the way forward, then surely there needs to be a clear demonstration that voices do get heard!

Tightening UK Dog Laws

I will straightaway admit I am not a great dog lover.  In fact I grew up petrified of dogs due to a phobia my Mother had, which was as a result of her being attacked when she was a small child.  That said, I can now be more comfortable around a number of dog breeds.   I accept that due to my own phobia, opinions which I have held in the past on the subject of dangerous dogs, could have been a little unbalanced.  I would have often said that certain breeds should not be allowed as pets, and instead belong in the zoo!

There is the counter argument that out of control dogs are purely down to how a dog is treated.  Only this week a woman from Atherton in Greater Manchester received a suspended prison sentence for animal cruelty, after her four dogs who had been kept close together in her home, killed a fourteen year old girl.  The Crown Prosecution Service had ruled a month earlier that there had been insufficient evidence to pursue a charge of manslaughter.

Whilst the incident in Greater Manchester could arguably support the view about how well dogs are treated, an incident in Northern Ireland this year saw an apparently well behaved Alaskan Malamute dog that was owned by a teacher, suddenly turn on a five year old pupil causing serious facial injuries.  This was on a day towards the end of the summer term when the teacher brought the dog in for an end of term treat for the children.

Stories of people being attacked by dogs do keep coming.  Only last month, an elderly gentleman got attacked by a Rottweiler (not on a lead) whilst out walking in St Leonards-On-Sea, Sussex.  Whilst there generally may be some substance in the argument that it all depends on how the dog is treated, how many more savage dog attacks do we need to hear about?  IT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!

There is legislation in the pipeline which will now make dog owners no longer immune from attacks which take place on their own property.  This is a matter in which Trade Unions representing postal, utility, and delivery staff have long campaigned for.  There has also been speculation that the intention of the planned legislation is to increase the maximum penalty for the owners of killer dogs to life imprisonment.  Will this go far enough?

I would personally argue for a new type of licensing system rather similar to the different categories of driving licence which are required for different sized vehicles.  Under the terms of such a licensing system, basic character checks would be sufficient to gain a licence for a person to own one dog, of a breed widely accepted to be a placid breed.  However to own more than one dog or a dog whose placidness is more debatable, the granting of a licence should require further tests to be satisfied before a higher category of licence is granted.  Such tests could in some circumstances require a demonstration of extensive dog handling skills.

I recognise that the cost of such a scheme could be prohibitive at this moment in time, and possibly another issue linked to this would be the costs that would need to be incurred by those people applying for such a higher grade dog ownership licence.  I recognise we are currently in an era of austerity, which will probably take us into the next decade.  However, when the public finances are in better shape, windows of opportunities will open for areas of spending that will presently not get a look in.  Should a case ever be successfully argued that a new dog licensing system is the way forward, THEN MAYBE NOW IS THE TIME TO ENGAGE IN THE DEBATE THAT LIES AHEAD!

Michael Gove, if only..

Recent events would appear to suggest that the UK Education Secretary, Michael Gove is a man with more enemies than your average Tory Politician!  It would seem his enemies expand beyond teachers towards a Children's Author and even the Church of England!  Is it any wonder a Michael Gove Vodoo Pincushion is on the market?  

Lets remember though that this is a man who wants re-sit exam results to be excluded from official league tables.  Even if such a move should eventually result in his discredited league tables being disbanded, the main concern must be that it undermines the efforts of so many good schools to give students the best chance in life.  It is important to remember that the best chance for a young student sometimes requires that student to be given as many opportunities as possible!

If the events of the last few weeks are anything to go by, it would appear that Gove can embrace controversy equally on educational matters as he can on matters of distasteful press coverage.  That said his defence of the Daily Mail over it's controversial coverage of Labour Party Leader Ed Milliband's late father's feelings towards Britain, could be motivated by self interest.  This is a self interest that is possibly explained by the fact that his spouse is of course a Daily Mail Columnist.

I spent Friday evening catching up with some friends.  Amongst these friends are a few teachers, all of whom at various social occasions have been particularly keen to express their views on the delightful Mr Gove!  One common theme that always comes up is his lack of willing to engage with the people who actually work in Education.  This theme is possibly backed up by recent speculation that Gove instead prefers to engage with those who say a child's educational performance is linked more to genetics than teaching!  This week's Cabinet re-shuffle also featured in our little catch up.  One casualty of the re-shuffle was Michael.  But sadly for my friends, the Michael in question was in fact Liberal Democrat Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore.  My friends would dearly have loved it to have been Mickey Morris Dancer!

In reality that was not likely to happen, and this brings me onto why I refer to Gove as "Mickey Morris Dancer".  A few days after the 2010 General Election, Mr Gove was being interviewed on a popular Sunday Morning Politics TV Programme against the backdrop of a Hung Parliament.  On being asked if he would give up his seat in Cabinet to facilitate a coalition deal between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, Gove answered that he would in a most decisive manner.  I felt at the time that should Mickey miss the cut for the ConDem Cabinet, then he would have been most grateful to be offered the post of Minister for Morris Dancers!  If only..

A Distinct Quebec Identity

One of the most curious political sagas in North America is the position of the largely French speaking Quebec Province within the Canadian Federation.  Quebecans narrowly voted against going it alone in a referendum nearly two decades ago.  But despite resisting Independence back then, the signs are there that Quebecans will never be completely at ease within the Canadian Confederation.  Even if Quebec continues to resist any temptation to completely break free from the rest of Canada, surely that distinctive identity needs to be recognised somehow.

Perhaps it is time for Quebecans to draw inspiration from across the North Atlantic at the United Kingdom.  There are now Devolved Assemblies or Parliaments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  This is arguably very similar to the Parliaments in the Canadian Provinces.  However, the Nations of the United Kingdom do also enjoy elements of a distinct identity through sport.  On the one hand, the four nations do compete together in the Olympics as Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Scottish Tennis player Andy Murray does officially represent Great Britain.  But on the other hand the home nations do also compete individually across a number of sports.  

One of those sports is Football.  The British Home Nations are not the only examples of non-sovereign countries taking their place in FIFA, World Football's governing body.  The Faroe Islands have been FIFA members since 1988.  They are still officially part of the Danish realm, despite voluntarily reducing their subsidy from Denmark in recent years.  Despite ceasing to be a British Overseas Territory in 1997, Hong Kong still retains it's own National Football Team despite now being part of China.  

Of course, the best topical example of a non-sovereign country becoming part of the International Football Family is the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, who were formally accepted into UEFA (European Football's Governing Body) earlier this year.  Ironically, Gibraltar's accession into UEFA has been during a year in which Britain's ongoing dispute with Spain over the territory has been heated at times.

So back to Quebec.  If Quebec continues to stay within the Canadian Confederation, should the Quebecans become FIFA members?  As a football fan, I say why not!

Ullswater's Unique Beauty

With the exception of my native Merseyside, my favourite corner of England is the Lake District.  I would estimate that I have visited the Lakes nearly every year for over a decade now, even if it has been just for a short break.  In that period of time I have got to know the area reasonably well, and know most of the main roads in and around the Lake District National Park.  

The part of the English Lakes I regard as my favourite is Ullswater, which is the second largest lake.  For me it is the most beautiful, and what I find particularly appealing is the limited commercialisation.  The lake has two main villages on it's shores.  There is Pooley Bridge to the North, and Glenridding to the South West.  

If you love your walking, you will not be disappointed.  There are a range of walks available around the lake.  One small walk I have identified is from Glenridding to Lanty's Tarn.  As demonstrated by some of the shots below, some of the scenery can only be described as breathtaking.

Rather than take the walk straight back down to Glenridding, why not then take a small detour towards the path to Helvellyn?

And then you can find your way back into the Village via the Pub!

For those who like to relax there is always the option of the Ullswater Steamer boat which runs each day between Glenridding, Pooley Bridge, and the small hamlet of Howtown on the quieter eastern shore. 

Glenridding and Pooley Bridge are both nice villages with a good choice of pubs or hotel bars which are open to non-residents.  

If you do go on the Steamer, a small stop off at Howtown is a must.  On my most recent visit I briefly visited the Howtown Hotel, which gave me an experience I can only describe as timeless, serving a nice local beer from a hatch.

With views like this, what's keeping you from Ullswater?

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.