Hacker News Reader

Comment by madaxe_again | Hacker News Reader

It’s $4-600/month for 10mbps. And that’s before line rental, equipment deposit, installation charges, and the various other surprise fees they hit you with. I know Falklanders and to say that they hate Sure would be an understatement.

https://www.sure.co.fk/broadband/broadband-packages/?utm_sou...

View on HN

So let the UK eat the cost of making the ISP whole. Nobody needs or especially wants the islands except for national dick-waving; the British gov was making a point that they would and could still fight and win wars. Fine, you want to play at the big dollar table, ante up.

Sure are already subsidised to the tune of a few million pounds per year.

The islands have an exclusive economic zone, and are a supply stop in a vast ocean

They are very valuable to the UK

Don't say that too loud of Trump might want them next after Greenland & Canada.

If we could convince him to buy them that would be quite good for the UK.

Depending on the valuation

And with that guy, make sure you get paid up front. He has an extremely long and well-documented history of abusing the system to not pay contractors, workers, counter-parties, etc...

It’s a loss making endeavour, just like all the remnants of empire.

The present president of Argentina is a Trump-testicle-gargler. That would make me nervous if I were a Falklander.

Great. So they won’t mind ponying up to pay off the ISP. Subsidizing people to live there is part of it.

The people living in the Falklands want the islands.

While some countries look at land like the Falklands, or Ukraine, or Taiwan, or Greenland, and think "That's Mine", Britain doesn't do that (any more), and instead says "it's upto you"

The inhabitants of the Falklands are British settlers. It is quite easy to let people choose when you know that the choice they will make matches what you want.

That being said, if Argentina had not invaded then no-one in Britain would care one way or the other (government could have handed the Islands to Argentina in whatever deal and most people in the UK would just have shrugged it off). It has become a point of principle and pride since the invasion to tell "the Argies" that they can stuff it.

Scotland has a referendum which didn't have a certain result before it was announced.

That and the fact that we can’t have Argentina colonizing a place while the indigenous people are still on it.

This is data provided by the UK government itself: the Falklands have a little above 3500 people, with about half of it being military and government personnel, and the rest being their families.

So calling them "people living there", or "settlers" or "inhabitants" or "a democracy" is nothing short of disingenuous.

Argentinians are "settlers" too, when you think of it. I think, that according to your line of logic, they should all leave Argentine and leave it to native people.

Maybe they can move to Falklands, then. Because it was empty and had no natives...

You proved my point. Argentina is full of people, as a multicultural country, including descendants of its natives (as long as you call "natives" to the first group of people ever that settled in a territory).

A planted and subsidized military operation half the world away doesn't magically become "a society" b/c they look like that on the surface.

The people living in the Falklands are descendents of the first gorup of people to settle that territory.

After Argentina did a Russia and decided they wanted the people who had lived there for generations to leave, the UK added a military presence.

I'd love to get a credible historical source saying that the conflict for that territory started around 1982 and before that there were just UK nationals casually settling there because... the weather was nice?

I'll be waiting here.

Why would soldiers, their families, and public employees have a reduced value in a democracy? Its not like they took the island by force.

Because of the law? In most western countries (including the UK), military personnel has reduced rights because of their status of having the monopoly of violence. For instance, the aren't allowed to unionize or go on strike.

I can't tell if the second part of your comment is trolling, or really not knowing the history of the UK before 10 years ago.

You forgot that in a recent referendum almost all the islanders voted to stay part of the UK.

The islanders want to be part of the UK. Great. Move to the mainland. I don’t get to settle on some random island and demand US military support because I’m a citizen. They will, at most, evacuate me.

The islands were uninhabited until 1690 when it was discovered by an English captain. The French tried to settle there in 1764 but the UK asserted its claim to it in 1765. Since the British discovered it first, it's theirs.

Results of the 2013 Falkland Islands Referendum

Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?

YES: 1513

NO: 3

Why do you not wish to accept the above democratic decision made by the islanders? We can only conclude you are trolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereig...

Fair point. So do a one-time tax levy of the Falklanders to buy the telco out, since they can no longer honor the commitment they made to get service installed. Shouldn’t be more than a half million pounds each?

I have no doubt that the islanders very much wish to be British subjects rather than left on their own (they would, in that case, quickly become Malvinians). But why should someone in Glasgow want to pay taxes to support them in living there permanently?

> But why should someone in Glasgow want to pay taxes to support them in living there permanently?

you could have picked a better example, Scotland is a net drain on the UK treasury

why should someone in London pay to support people living in Glasgow permanently?

You should have picked a better example, Glasgow is a port city and almost certainly not a net drain; the rural parts of Scotland are. Just like all the rural parts of England, which leech of the English cities.

Just like all the rural parts of the US, which leech off the "coastal liberal elites."

> You should have picked a better example, Glasgow is a port city and almost certainly not a net drain

certainly true in the 1900s

unfortunately in the 2000s it's at the wrong side of the island

That was the point. If I had meant London, I would have used it.

This is how wealth redistribution works. This is how taxes work.

Yes, it is. But at a certain point you stop paying for people to live somewhere unsustainable and just pay them to leave, if it’s a financial decision.

> We can only conclude you are trolling.

You made an excellent point and then this sentence cancelled that out. You can have major disagreements with other people, even ignorant people, without assuming that your disagreement means they are trolling / a bot / arguing in bad faith / etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com