Faklands’ referendum planned for March; South American observers to be invited
The Falkland Islands Executive Council has officially approved that a referendum be held on the question of the political status of the Falkland Islands and announced that the Electoral Commission has agreed to assist with developing the form of the question and the wording and give a bespoke advisory service including providing guidance.
Planned for March 2013 the specific date will be determined by the Chief Executive in consultation with Members of the Legislative Assembly. In a paper on the subject it was recommended that qualifications to vote will be the same as qualifications to stand for the Legislative Assembly.
These are: He/she has attained the age of 18 years; and - He/she is a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen or a British overseas citizen and has Falkland Island Status; or - His/her name appeared on the register of electors for a constituency in force on the date the Constitution came into force (1 January 2009); and, he/she was resident in the Falkland Islands on the qualifying date in relation to which his or her entitlement to be registered as an elector falls to be considered and had on that qualifying date been so resident for the qualifying period.
Once the votes are verified, votes from both constituencies will be mixed and the outcome be announced as a ‘whole Islands’ result.
It was also recommended that the election be independently observed by a panel of representatives from a number of different countries including from South America; also that a suitable person be invited to select and Chair a diverse and independent panel of observers and set out its terms of reference.
With regard to referendum arrangements Executive Council approved an option that: (a) static polling stations on polling day at ( i) Town Hall, Stanley; (ii) Goose Green;(iii) Fox Bay; and (b) mobile polling stations: (i) to the hospital and sheltered accommodation on polling day; (ii) to all settlements with registered voters present on East and West Falkland, including outer Islands accessible by FIGAS (but excluding Beaver, New Island, and West Point – this is due to costs).
Under ‘campaigning’ the paper notes: “It is recommended that the government makes clear that to facilitate a full and open debate it will provide equal access to public facilities and take the necessary steps to ensure that the right to freedom of expression is respected.”
Funding for the referendum consists of £12,000 for the administration £15,000 for Executive support and £50,000 for other costs including observers. A temporary post will be added to the establishment to provide liaison, logistical and administrative support for the referendum.
Suggested Stories
-
May 23rd 2013
Falkland Islands wish for normal neighborly relations with all South American neighbors
-
May 22nd 2013
Falklands and other BOT should be given a seat in the Commons, says MEP Farage
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 21st 2013
Falklands: optimism about identification of the unknown Argentine soldiers
94 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
I get your point but what about all the lawful citizens of any other country that were never born there, why the hell should different rules apply to the Falklands?
I think what is more important is the wording of the questions on the ballot paper. The result needs to be utterly unequivocal.
You can bet this event will be made to be a worldwide spectacle, with the maximum possible exposure, the plan will be to demonstrate to the world their rite to choose their own future. This result is going to make things very difficult for South America.
I also hope that the Argentines or a delegation from the OAS will be allowed to hold meetings to petition the islanders to their way of thinking.Even if the only people there are likely to be the press!
If the Argentines or representatives from South America refuse to attend if invited. then as much publicity as possible must be splashed across the world's media to show that Argentina had a chance to democratically petition for their position, and tell the Islanders the benefits of being Argentines, and refused it.
If they do not attend,It would show that Argentina don't really have an argument other than to promote their own colonialist fantasies. (in opposition to the United Nations Charter).
I have noticed on resolution 2065 and every other UN res asking for dialogue between UK and Argentina,(excuse me if this is osd news) that it always states that colonies should be encouraged toward Independence. This is never mentioned by the Malvanistas-and it does not state on any of them that self-determination is not relevant in this case.
Yes, god for bid the Falkland Islands exercise their democratic wish. Oh, that's right, according to Argentines and the region, the Falkland Islanders are not allowed to exercise basic human rights, and why is that? Because it doesn't suit Argentina's demands. I keep forgetting Argentina picks and chooses international law when it suits them the most.
That is the only way in which self-determination AND decolonisation can be accomplished . Any referendum without this and only this options is only a distraction made by colonialists (whatever they are british or argentine) . Colonialism is a permanent menace to peace and should be banned urgently.
Just a referendum is not the way to close the matter. The falklanders had to be recognized as “legal part” in the conflict and a solution dialog of the 3 parts should start to determine the ways the new status would be reached.
are you scared of democracy, or just scared of the democracy of others???
The FI governtment needs to play argentina by their own game by inviting representatives of The UN, OAS, G20, G8, OSCE, IFES, and the Decolonization Committee :) basically any organisation who “alledgedly” champions democracy and freedom with basic human rights and wish to support/monitor this democratic free election.
Invite Argentina along with other south american countries they will have a very hard decision indeed:
Stay away - to the democratic world it would show South americans true lack of democracy and help legitimise The Falklands as a democratic nation , or
Turn up - which would mean having to recognize The Falklands government and its Fair and free Election,once and for all, witnessing democratic history in the worlds presence, then we will see “south american solidarity” or the lack of :)
A WIN - WIN situation!
March 2013 will be a monumentus period for The Falklands and as a Brit “Im damn proud of The Falklands people and their dogged spirit and positive outlook” who will undoubtly see this out VICTORIOUS!! as you did in 1982 :)
SELF DETERMINATION!!! :)))
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!
In the same way nobody can choose, in all Europe and America, to work beyond the work laws and engage as slave. Freedom is a right and a responsibility.
Moreover if a colony option were included in the referendum ALL the people of the world should be allowed to vote because colonialism affects ALL people of the world.
Ergo the purpose of the “offer without preconditions” is actually to create a situation unacceptable to both Falklanders and the UK. It is a condition in itself.
“M_of_FI to choose “whatever” they want is neither freedom nor democracy ”,
Yes it is freedom to choose what you want -to say otherwise is clearly stupid.
Of course it is democracy! The people that were born or moved to the Islands to be Falkland Nationals vote and the politicians with the majority are elected-that is democracy and saying it isn't shows you don't understand the meaning of the word.
Please look up the meanings of the words if you don't understand 'freedom' and 'democracy.'
If you deny those you are denying what is clearly stated in the FIG web.
(Btw M_of_FI that is a colonial status, you'd better answer for what decolonisation and independent country mean)
Every freedom have limits and responsibilities that is what YOU dont understand of “freedom” and “democracy”
The same as people is not allowed to kill or to have slaves, countries can not decide to continue being colonies (not even from Argentina).
No liberal democracy will be willing to ignore the result of this.
@6 What's wrong with “Would you like to be a belligerent, brain-dead, cheating, cowardly, ignorant, lying, stupid, thieving moron, or would you prefer to remain British?”
@11 And here we have a belligerent, brain-dead, cheating, cowardly, ignorant, lying, stupid, thieving moron!
@15 Please note that, if you choose the second option, you will have to spend the rest of your short life flat on your belly, eating sh*te and being bummed!
@16 There is a third way! Let the Islanders choose what THEY want. THEIR land, THEIR homes, THEIR lives!
@20 You forgot to mention waiting until all the votes have been counted and then, after tarring and feathering, riding every argie off the Islands on a steel rail!
@21 You seem too have lost sight of some basic principles. Let me explain. The UN is an organisation. Nothing more. If it starts to try to dictate what freedoms etc people or a people should have, it becomes....a dictatorship. I haven't yet seen a “Declaration of United Nations rights”, so the UN has no right to dictate what the Islanders “must” accept. Falkland Islanders are self-sufficient. They buy. They sell. Nowhere do they seek to impose their views or requirements on others. They just want to be left alone. No-one has the right to dictate anything to them. Britain, with a mandate from the UN to administer the Islands, does no more than advise, guide and ensure good governance for the benefit of the people. There is only one bunch of morons who see things differently. Fortunately, Britain will see that the morons do not get their way! But how about this as an option? The Falklanders choose to become independent on condition that their foreign affairs and defence are conducted by Britain and no argie ever leaves the Islands alive!
Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:09 pm
Self Determination is exactly that; the right to determine for yourself how you want to be governed, if a people decide that they want to be a colony, that is their God given right, that is DEMOCRACY!!!!!!
Like the Chagossians?
“In the process which followed, which was that of the forced expulsion of the population of the Chagos from the islands, the islanders were offered no recourse to self-determination. Dispossesed of their homes and their means of livelihood, the democratic choice offered to the Chagossians was to become slum-dwellers on the Mauritius mainland. For the inconvenience of having to accommodate these refugees, the government of Maurituis was compensated with the princely sum of three million pounds”
This referendum reminds me to one of President Saddam Hussein elections, 100% in favor all the time.
The British people can only have a referendum when the government are guaranteed the result they want.
Has CFK offerred to talk to the Falkland Islands' government, BK@15?
A remarkable move on her part which will undoubtedly enrage the ultra Argentinians.
What livelihood is that exactly, in a place no longer capable of sustaining human habitation?
you can not choose the UN principles you like and forget those you dislike, together with self-determination you pick decolonisation that came in the same package (the process of putting end to colonialism started after WWII).
There is not such “third way” , what you pretend is that the colonial status be validated well take into account the rest of the world is not stupid , the referendum will mean nothing.
Moreover the referendum means nothing even with the right options I mentioned above if those options have not be completely described by a path of evolution. That path requieres falklanders , british and argentines in a table in order of the last 2 -resigning their pretensions in reasonable agreements- to help the first ones.
There is so much factually incorrect with your statement.
The FI Constitution was not imposed by the UK, it was carried out by FIG and then as we are a UK overseas territory it was ratified by HMG. Self-determination was enshrined in the Constitution, thus ensuring the Islanderds will always choose their polticial status.
As for FIG. The Governor is a British diplomat, but the Constitution has diminished his powers. FIG is the local administrating Government and its CE is appointed by FIG and the locally elected Councillors. The locally elected councillors were installed through a democratic process, whereby only those who has Falkland Status could vote.
And I see you have avoided answering my question of what you believe a colony is. The Falklands isnt a colony. We have our own government and elected politicians who set the policies, set taxes, create laws, etc. all without any external interference or influence. The Governor attends these meetings, but has no vote.
Until, you actually fully understand all the facts, please reframe from your misinformed, misunderstood and factually incorrect statements about the Falklands.
So for me, the best way forward for the referendum, is to include the voting option for independence, even though I think the FI will vote to remain a BOT. To explain my thinking I will give you 2 scenarios, based on 3 criteria…
Scenario 1 - Independence voting option included
• Credibility (High, independence referendums are the most important)
• Publicity (High, the world’s media will be hoping for a shock Independence win story)
• Impact (High, The FI would show the world they would rather be an independent nation than part of Argentina. Argentina would lose support)
Scenario 2 - Independence voting option NOT included
• Credibility (Medium, UNSAUR would just label the referendum as a stunt)
• Publicity (Medium, It will make the most world newspapers)
• Impact (Medium, Good world publicity, but result obvious)
Feel free to comment on this…
If you accept the islanders' right to self-determination, what difference does the nature of the relationship with the metropolitan UK make?
#38 BOT is an euphemism for colony, that “kind of relation” is precluded by UN declarations and resolutions(“non self governing territories”).
The option for good will men, seekers of peace and development of the region, is whether the islanders accept to take care of themselves (undoubtedly benefiting from it) or they let that in the hands of UN somehow in better defined way that in the Antartic case
I suspect the word british will not even appear anyway and it will be something along the lines of;
Continue as a self Governing overseas territory
or
open negotiations to become under the control of a foreign state.
Tsonga- please explain WHAT decisions does UK make for us?
als WHAT resources does UK take from us?
I have to challenge your global publicity metrics for either scenario. I s'pect that most people in the world probably can't be bothered to find the FI on a map. The FI were on a pop geography quiz I once tossed to students who afterward *continued* to rate their global awareness as high. By their results, Norway, Japan, and Michigan(!) should send observers to the referendum! (Even a the always fashionably hip student who wore a Malvinas Tshirt the week before landed them in Tierra del Fuego.) The people who will eye this vote will be UKers, FIers, and people with an interest in SA (e.g., Merco Press readers :-). People who get a rise out of dissing the UK will pay attention for a few minutes but will be distracted by the next shiny thing to cross their path.
As for the Independence lending credibility, that would only boost slightly the credibility of the referendum with people who would accept, even grudgingly, a pro-UK win, which you yourself project. UNSAUR won't recognize any result of the referendum, since they don't really recognize that the FIers have the right to an opinion other than that of “Argentina's.”
For people that respect the islanders right to self-determination like me and you it makes no difference whether the FI are a BOT or an independent nation. But I fear as long as the FI are linked to Britain in some formal capacity i.e BOT. Colonial Argentina with their ALBA allies will have an excuse and will continue to escalate this to the point of invasion, to steal the islanders oil.
I like many others believe independence is the solution to end the debate.
@40 M_of_FI
I think the problem is most people don't know the full history of the FI. Even the people at work I have spoke to, both British and Foreign don't know much about the FI history, but almost all say, what matters most are the people who live there.
@42 Islander1
Well we will agree to disagree on that. I explained my reasoning @38
@ tipstonga
Thanks for your honest views, can I ask where you are from??
MPA and defence costs peanuts, it's a very small percentage of the defence budget, we still gave Argentina £400 million in aid, we are minted. aid for a third world country. Still shock that Germany didn't give you any money for you begging bowl.
re @38
Maybe I over rated the 'publicity' criteria scoring, but the point is the same, that 'scenario A' would gain more positive publicity then 'B', which is what the FI referendum needs.
Without a clear transition way even “independence” mean very little.
The important thing is that the conflict ends and colonialism is buried at least in South Atlantic Sea.
#42 Decisions: economy, foreign affairs, defense, justice just to begin with the more obvious. Resources: FI taxes, revenues from exploration, idem
#44 I am from Buenos Aires , just before rushing to comment about it take into account , I have always expressed that UK and RA intentions are both colonialist and the solution is independence. I have said that in many forums, published it in my blog in 2009, wrote it in La Nacion of BA with my signature and document this february (not accepted before by LN) and thought so well before 1982 opposing war on the walls of UBA that year (anonimously of course but seen by my students).
No needs to defend yourself, we all come from somewhere.
Interesting though, that although we are from different sides of the argument and different countries we have both agree the solution.
However, the political realists know that an independant Falkland Islands, shorn of the protection of the Royal Navy would be invaded, occupied and subjugated by Argentina before the ink was dry on the treaty.
Unless, of course, the Islands agreed to remain under the military protection of Great Britain, at which point Argentina's constant whining about the garrison on the islands would continue.
The trend towards self-government and autonomy while retaining ties with a parent country/coalition has many historical precents though. Personally I would like to see the Islands transition from being a British Overseas Territory to an independant realm within the commonwealth. But we'll see...
48 tipstonga Any Argentine thinking of “Independence” in thiscase ought to be detoxed for massive overdossages of an Argentine drink called Boludiol!
You didn't respond to the question regarding “all the cards” Argentina allegedly holds.
Also what is the rationale behind your statement that time is on Argentina's side? As time passes the Falklands have the opportunity to become more successful, more prosperous and infinitely richer.
It is good to see an Argentinian contributor putting forward a point of view of Independence for the Islands and recognising that the Argentine claim is colonialist.
The Governor does not seem to have as much power over the Islands as you think, as a succession of constitution changes since 1982 have given the Islands more, not less autonomy.
There was what you would call a more colonial system before 1982, with little respect given to Falkland Islands autonomy by Britain. Then, the Governor had a far more powerful role than now.
I am not sure where you get the idea that the UK takes resources from the Islands and would like to see proof, as the FIG is in fact in control of its resources.
I have to say this, the reason for the Islanders wishing ties with the UK (which gives the appearance of colonialism) is that Argentina is so belligerent and ignorant of the Islanders (calling them a transplanted population after 180 years is simply absurd).
You will find (visit the islands if you don't believe this), that it is Argentina's belligerence towards the Islanders that forces them to want to stay British, and the fact that Argentina invaded the Islands in 1982 when they were poorly defended, means the Islanders simply do not trust Argentina.
Argentina would feel the same way if the UK had extended the Falklands War to attack the mainland, or sent troops to invade Ushaia for example.
If Argentina refuse to recognise the Islanders, then the current situation will have to remain.
I have time for Steve-32-uk's views that Independence would shut Argentina up, but if the islanders don't want to risk that option for fears the Argentines would ignore what decolonisation is meant to result in (ie Independence not a transfer to another would-be colonial power), the blame lies with Argentina not Britain.
@ 33 tipstonga
“There are only 2 options for Falklands future compatible with UN principles”
“you can not choose the UN principles you like and forget those you dislike”
Exactly, you cannot choose the UN principles you like, so Why only two options, when UN's C-24 principles lists three?
C-24 Decolonisation Decolonization Principles - NR015315
Principle VI
A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-gornment by:
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association wiith an independent State;
(c) Integration with an independent State.
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/1541(XV)
UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) states;
” ... By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter....
Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, (through the)
1. establishment of a sovereign and independent State,
2. free association, or
3. integration with an independent State, or
4. the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people...
As geography is irrelevant, why should any of the choices be eliminated ?
”Items b) and c) does not apply due to geography for RA and less for UK.”
The two items are:
(b) Free association with an independent State;
(c) Integration with an independent State.
How do they not apply due to geography (show in the UN resolution where it says so)?
”Items b) and c) does not apply due to geography for RA ”
Where does it state in the UN Charter what you have stated?
If you can't show this then you're talking rubbish.
UN policy is not what Argentina interprets it as, it is there written down for all to read in documents.
So those of us who can quote what the UN charter actually states are being serious whereas you are inventing UN policy.
Article says:
”The Falkland Islands Executive Council has officially approved that a referendum be held on the question of the political status of the Falkland Islands and announced that the Electoral Commission has agreed to assist with developing the form of the question and the wording and give a bespoke advisory service including providing guidance.”
I ask:
Who/what is this….: ”Electoral Commission that has “agreed” to assist with developing the form of the question and the wording and give a bespoke advisory service including providing guidance”….???
Ahhhhhh…!!!
I see……………..:
They are an ”independent” body set up by the UK Parliament…….
www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/148476/Who-we-are-2012-13.pdf)
Better to let the Mommyland assist them simple Kelpers with ”developing the form and the wording of the question and give them bespoke advisory service including guidance”
That way we’ll all be sure that the ”Little People” from them Islands don’t make any ”undesirable mistakes”…….
Chuckle chuckle©
the same they did with the Constitution It is explicitly said (see FIG web) in its proclamation by the queen that falklanders has nothing to do in writing or ammending it .
It is apparent that the Foreign Office or somebody thinks the world can be cheated with some “mise en scene” .
Pete Bog, the governor HAS the power and so the CEO It is clear in their const attribs, the consultive atribbs of the Asembly, the lack of a Supreme Court of the Islands etc ... It is just obvious from the fact they are not islanders and that there are not political parties which are also part of democratic own government.
I have already made a call for a serious debate but it seems that some people dont want. I have already corrected the same huge error to Lor Ton elsewhere a pair of weeks ago. It has not to be defined that integration demands contiguity and association demands a relation that can neither be hold with 10000 km in between (UK) nor with 500 km but different language(RA) . For example , like Hong Kong, integration is pertinent to Gibraltar return to Spain while association just covers the pre existence case of Puerto Rico.
To completely destroy the whole argument the 4th point is a nonsense wildcard unless you get the true sense of the article looked in diplomatic terms.
People if you insist supporting this kind of tricks nothing good will arise just more conflict, difficulties for development and lost of profits for falklanders. Take note that whatever the wording, colonialism is over. I dont think internationalisation will be the best for Falklands (yes for inhabited like Georgias), so , independence is the only way to peace and progress.
Have a nice weekend, till any other opportunity, thank you MercoPress people.
You lived your way, they lived their way too.
You lived amongst them, they lived amongst you.
Then came that day, nothing ever the same.
Memories are long, not short as some claim.
There once was a chance, its been thrown away.
Leave it alone, stand back, take a breath.
Come back, when you can listen.
Then seek peace again.
Restrict it to those whose can trace their heritage back 9 generations perhaps? Pointless if you think about it, it'll still be 100% for britain, just a smaller electorate. Great money saving idea though!
Scotland is going to hold a referendum in the near future on whether to go independent or remain as the status quo.
Westminister absolutely doesnt want this but should Scotland decide to be independent do you think England will ignore the vote for independence? Send in the tanks?
Can you imagine Patagonia for example (and why not?) deciding to separate from Argentina? And what would Argentina's response be?
Take the Hong Kong handover for example Britain officially handed back Hong Kong to China in 1997 without too much bother when you consider the history involved and what was at stake.
Its worth noting how many aspects of British cultural have remained in Hong Kong. I guess the oppressed HK chinese didnt hate us so much after all...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians
How is that comparable with the Falkalnd Islands?
Apart from defence and foreign policy, the UK is also responsible for good governance. Put another way, it advises the population of 3000 people on day to day matters as health, fire & building regulations and, in this case holding an election.
There is nothing sinister in this. The UK would similarly advise other BOTs and Crown Dependencies on matters where they didn't possess the necessary expertise in-house. Also no-one internationally has seriously complained that UK electoral procedure is flawed or biased.
The only time that the UK would intervene seriously in the running of a self determining BOT government would be in the case of alleged corruption - as in the recent case of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Again, not a bad thing (unless you like corrupt government, that is)
So how would you feel if the Falklanders get the same deal as the Chagossians? Will you be happy then?
I was making a joke of the idea of voting restrictions.
I can't wait for the event, it'll thoroughly disprove argentine lies about an incarcerated populace.It will reveal those latam countries true to democracy and those who are not. A win win situation.
- a typical 'Malvinista en fuga'; fleeing when facts are presented.
Free association is about a free and voluntary choice + respect for the individuality and cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples + freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means.
Integration is about complete equality between the peoples + advanced state of self-government with free political institutions + the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory's peoples.
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/1541(XV)
Principle VII
(a) Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. ...
Principle VIII
Integration with an independent State should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile Non-Self-Governing Territory and those of the independent country with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamenental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government.
Principle IX
Integration should have come about in the following circumstances:
(a) The integrating territory should have attained an advanced state of self-government with free political institutions, so that its peoples would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes;
(b) The integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory's peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. ...
I believe that we have discussed enough to make it clear that I have nothing against the Islanders, just the contrary, I realy have good feelings towards them. From my point of view, they are honest people who, for generations, made their living on the islands.
Just like the Chagossians.
The unhappy fate of the Chagossians as people with identity and rightful inhabitants of their islands should lead all of us to meditate about the true reasons for the unconditional British support to the self-determination of the islanders. And the about the obstinacy in the Argentine claim.
HansNiesund you seem to be a well informed, educated and enough intelligent person so as to reach your own conclusions. You don't have to share them with me in this forum.
A few very incorrect things here:
“ They would not be able to survive without economic support from the UK.”
The islands receive no economic support from the UK. Apart from defence they do not ask for anything.
“ I doubt that oil revenues alone would be enough to keep such a small and fragile economy afloat”#
As i have already said they need to money from us, The oil industry is likely to make a vast majority of the population millionaires.
“The unhappy fate of the Chagossians as people with identity and rightful inhabitants of their islands should lead all of us to meditate about the true reasons for the unconditional British support to the self-determination of the islanders. ”
Personally i completely agree that the way they were treated was totally and utterly unacceptable. As do 99% of the British people here.
However it's a common mistake to think that there Self determination was taken away from them. Self determination is in essence the right to vote or participate in your government. This was not taken away from them by the British. They have there own government.
It's a different(illegal) matter entirely. The Chagossians is a case of ethnic cleansing. It is in essence comparing murder to rape.
Dear pgerman,
Sorry, I hadn't realized this forum is a platform for you to pontificate unchallenged.
Absolutely.
The other quote was from pgerman.
AHAHHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
What oil????
It is only making millionary the corrupt tory,cameron,hague,etc..
Proof that Cameron lied over oil find in the Falkland Islands
eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/proof-that-cameron-lied-over-oil-find-in-the-falkland-islands/
“Proof” seems to be another of these worlds that has a completely different meaning in Malvinista-speak.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream all day long if you wish to ignore the truth.
Won't change the fact that they've found oil :)
'“Proof” seems to be another of these worlds that has a completely different meaning in Malvinista-speak'
The Spanish language has naturally evolved over time to be somewhat different in Latin America from that spoken in Spain.
A couple of examples: a pair of glasses is called 'gafas' in Spain, 'lentes' in Chileno-Spanish and 'anteojos' in Argentino-Spanish, and 'a chicken leg' is 'pierna de pollo', 'trutro' and 'muslos', respectively.
Similarly, in Malvinero-Spanish 'Proof' and 'conjecture' have over time become identical :-D
Argentina dare not hold a similar type referendum cos most RG's would vote to join Brazil. Not that they they would have them of course.
This leads me nicely to the obvious solution. It seems most people posting in here believe the FI will become an independent nation at some point in the next 100 years. So for me this becomes a question of ‘When’ and ‘How’?
Well the FI have an elected Govt. are self-sufficient in all areas except defence, so are 95% there already. With future oil revenues the FI could pay friendly nations i.e. UK, Canada, Australia, to aid in that area. I really don’t think independence would change anything for the islanders, same flag, head of state etc. The only change is Argentina would leave them alone, eventually.
I fear Argentina, encouraged by tyrants and morons like Chavez and Correa, will continue to escalate their sovereignty claim each year at UNSAUR / OAS (we all know how bias and deluded these organisations are). I wouldn’t be surprised if they issued a resolution ordering British authorities to leave the islands. Any declaration of independence at this point would be ignored as an invasion would already be in the planning.
But I think if the FI were to somehow make their aim of independence clear to the world it would help. The referendum is a great opportunity to make that statement, by including a voting option for independence.
The last paragraph is pertinent.
If an Independence option is not included, this will be used as propaganda against the Falkland Islands by their would-be colonialist oppressor.
As it is a referendum the Islanders can always elect not to vote for a future (within next half-century?) aim of Independence.
However, the Malvanistas will not tell you that on every UN resolution calling upon the UK and Argentina to talk,it states quite clearly (as it does in the UN's de-colonialisation doctrine) that Independence of former colonies is the preferred option, ie
”1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation
with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);”
Basically according to this if the Falkland Islands declare independence from the UK, looks like the Argentine's case is dust as nowhere on this resolution does it state that de-colonised countries should be handed over to another colonist.
yes the option of independence MUST be on the referendum, but - and that is a big BUT!
If the Falkland Islands were to become an independent state, we can expect Argentina to - within a short space of time - attack them as in 1982 and also to disregard any binding UN Security Council resolution, which ”demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)” as they did with the BINDING Security Council resolution no. 502 of 3rd April 1982.
@ 87 gustbury writes: “the land is part of Argentina and you know it perfectly!!!”
As in: Argentina took the Formosa and Misiones provinces from Paraguay and all of Patagonia from the indigenous people, so they are ours. Britain took the Falkland Islands from us, so they are ours.
No amount of 'They are ours (because they are ours)' has any validity in the dispute over the British Falkland Islands.
Read: en.mercopress.com/2012/08/31/chile-ratifies-support-for-argentine-malvinas-meets-regional-solidarity-group#comment160206
More in en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comments - I suggest you start reading that debate at en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment138480
The debate was unfortunately cut off by Mercopres before I had time to show the errors in Hermes1967's last posts.
If you want to repeat his arguments, please do, and I shall show where they fail.
Hermes1967 gave the best argued opppostion to the UK's claim I have seen on these posts, but it still collapsed, as it was based on Spain, who eventually gave up their claim to the Falkland Islands.
The rest of the Malvanista's have no chance, ie:
”the land is part of Argentina and you know it perfectly!!!”
The point is that land has never been conclusively part of Argentina , and an economic settlement sanctioned by the UK government,is not the same as a 'governmental occupation' as has been shown in Pepper and Pascoe, much to the Argentine's chagrin.
www.facebook.com/BOTUK1
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!