98.8% Falkland Islanders vote to stay British
 

Phew, close run thing, only three said no. :E

No suprise there then, though the BBC reporter kept wittering on about dependency and the UN.. Talk about a stuck record, she was painful to listen too. You got the feeling that because she wasn't getting the answer she wanted she would repeat the questions parrot fashion until she did. The Falklands spokesman even had to correct her a couple of times on some of the key facts.

92% turn out. :ok:


..

NutLoose, on a 92% turnout of registered voters, with 98.8% of those voting to remain British, does not mean that "98.8% Falkland Islanders vote to stay British". As overwhelming as the vote result is, your thread title is technically incorrect. ;)

I hope those three keep quiet about their opinions, or they may have to emigrate!

I hope the British Gov't waves it in the face of the UN
the next time this subject comes up as "already decided
as per how the UN likes it to be, by a vote" :O

Should be easy enough to name the 8% that couldn't be arsed to vote and to name the 3 that voted against. :E

The others may have been spoiled ballots rather than no votes.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

I42 - theres no need for them to keep quiet, independence from the UK is not a frowned upon view in Falklands society, its a minority view, but an entrely acceptable one - the reason almost no one votes for it is that almost everyone on the believes that if they became independant, and the UK military left, they'd be Argentine citizens within the week.

if they trusted Argentina not to either invade, or coerce them into 'choosing' to become part of Argentina, or indeed trusted the rest of the World - the US primarily - to uphold their right to self determination as a small independant country, there would, in my view, probably be a 10% for independence (legal independance, rather that cultural/societal detachment from the UK) - but they don't trust Argentina a nanometer, nor the rest of the world, so for them the reality of independance doesn't really exist...

99.8%.. feels a bit Soviet don't it?

obviously not normal

Knob, yes, its normal - international election monitors were in attendance, and their report is available on the FIG website.

all above board, no problems as far as they are concerned.

99.8% results aren't that unusual - just look at your failure rate with women...

coke - brilliant rejoinder :ok:

I see our FI troll has awoken. No doubt the Argie govt will apply similar logic to an unambiguous, expected landslide vote.

Good answer, Cokecan. I didn't see the original post as the Argie Dutchman is on my ignore list, but I can guess.

As we now have the result we all expected, that must be the end of it then. Hurrah!:D

keesje
 

Mate, good of you to turn up and show your federalist Eurocommission principles (ie if you dont like the result then challenge, challenge and re-vote until you get the result you want).

Might you not want to accuse the "so-called" independant observers (some of whom were from South American countries despite an Argentine request that they boycott it and prevent an attempt at legitimising it) of being Stalinist, British lackeys?

ps: you might want to turn your not-inconsiderable capabilities and interpersonal skills towards your own countrymen - who seem to be increasingly less enamoured with signing Dutch sovereignty over to the Eurocommisioners.

Get with the programme - you're in danger of being so 2012!

... oh golly gosh! That means a mere 90.896% actually voted to stay.

For comparison, what proportion of our electorate voted for any of our politicians!

I'm perfectly convinced the elections were properly done, honestly counted, observed etc. No doubts whatever that isn't the issue.

But still 99%.. did any UK mainland election ever have that score?

If the Dutch Antilles ever have an election with a 99% pro government vote, the media would have a field day, biting cartoons everywhere, a slightly embarrassed PM would meet laughter all around.

But obviously this is different. Congratulations with the 99% approval.

http://www.netanimations.net/Great-B...-flag-gifs.gif

;)

My results and percentage voted were lifted off the BBC newsflash last night, I simply quoted their figures... Right or wrong.

I see some on here also have added to the result as well up from 98.8% to 99.8%

They did say there were a couple of Argentinians on the Island eligible to vote, so may be the mystery 3.

But you are not comparing like with like keesje, when you make comparisons with the Dutch Antilles.

In the Falklands, the actual numbers are so small. Total population is less than 3 000, compared with 300 000+ for Dutch Antilles, and the electorate there is only about 1 500.

Moreover, about half the population - and so presumably half the electorate - live in one "city" (well, it's got a cathedral!): Xxxx Stanley.

Nothing dodgy at all mate .......:ok:

Edited in deference to Courtney Mil's revelations on naming convention ;)

keesje - high turnout
 

..there's another reason that you might wish to consider:

the high turnout is due to the fact that the islanders have experienced both forms of administration and feel STRONGLY about their preference.

God forbid that people might actually WANT to be British, or governed by Britain. I notice a similar situation in Gibraltar, too.

:confused:

The BBC had trouble with this this morning.

There is some difficulty over the correct name of the capital. Early despatches contain reference to both Port Stanley and Stanley. Port Stanley was accepted by the Naming Commission set up in 1943 to consider the names then being included on the War Office maps. Local opinion differs on the matter, but there is no doubt that Stanley is now common usage and has been for some considerable time. The capital is defined as Stanley in the Interpretation and General Law Ordinance. In the circumstances I would advise that the correct name for the capital is Stanley.

Last night the reporter was calling it a dependency, it was only when she was corrected again by an Islander who pointed out that they are not a dependency, but British overseas territory she conceded and said she would need to read up on it.

It's ok all this we inherited the Falklands from Spain and you seized it so it is rightfully ours malarkey, but you could turn that round equally and say the Argentinians (or should we say originally Spain) stole the country from the indigenous population.... Where would it stop, could we claim the USA back off the population as it was stolen from us and under the Argeninian argument, its nothing to do with the populace.. Or perhaps they in turn should hand it back to the Indian tribes we all stole it off.