Wednesday, November 28th 2012 - 16:08 UTC

MP questions lack of “Territory Status” for BOTs in Commonwealth future report

Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell has written to the London representatives of British Overseas Territories to alert them to what he sees as a shortfall in a new report on the future of the Commonwealth.

Andrew Rosindell chairs the All Parliamentary Group on British Overseas Territories

Mr Rosindell, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Overseas Territories, said the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee failed to include a proposed amendment relating to the territories.

The amendment, tabled by Mr Rosindell himself, called for a “Territory Status” within the Commonwealth of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.

The Foreign Affairs Committee found that there was “no evidence” that Overseas Territories wanted representation in the Commonwealth.

It did not therefore include the amendment into its report, which is entitled “Role and Future of the Commonwealth” and was published earlier this month.

“I feel that every Chief Minister and Premier should now write to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee to protest at this shameful failure to support our Overseas Territories participation within the Commonwealth and would like to hear your comments on this matter too,” MP Rosindell said in his letter to the London representatives.

The MP said he would continue campaigning on this issue and would raise it in the House of Commons as soon as possible.

30 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.

1 Idlehands (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 04:19 pm Report abuse
Sounds like the Foreign Affairs Committee doesn't want to rock any boats. I would assume the BOTs would like Commonwealth representation.
2 Raul (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 04:51 pm Report abuse
English colonialism and imperialism of the 21st century, it is impossible to hide.

It is increasingly evident that the world public opinion and sympathy welcomes the cause Argentina over the Falkland Islands.
It is an obvious fact the failure of the UK to follow international law with its colonialist and imperialist policies in the 21st century.

An example is. Decolonization Committee of UN considers Falkland Islands as a colony. Of the 16 cases of colonialism in the world, 10 are for the UK they are: Anguilla, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Malvinas-Falkland Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Monserrat Island, Pitcairn Island and St. Helena Island.
Just look at any web page concerning the decolonization committee of United Nations refers to are a colony.
Besides the UN resolutions are referred to a colony.
See Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination. It is a territory to colonize.

Just look at any web page concerning the decolonization committee of United Nations refers to are a colony. Example Wikipedia. C3% C3% B3n A9_de_Descolonizaci%
3 JuanGabriel (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 04:57 pm Report abuse
@2 Nice try, but I don't think you quite got the record for most crap in one post, came close though.

The only important words on that wikipedia page are

“It stated that all people have a right to self-determination”
4 Conqueror (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 05:25 pm Report abuse
@2 You do enjoy wasting your time, and ours, don't you? In addition to being a stupid fool. You must be on about the same level of intelligence as that stupid, corrupt, criminal slag you call a president. President of what? Of homosexuals?

Now the Secretary General of the United Nations says that the UK is not in breach of any UN resolutions. Missed that, did you, you stupid ignoramus?
In addition, the Secretary General has made it quite clear that the Falkland Islanders are entitled to self-determination. You might like to take a look at Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.

As for the decolonisation committee, they are simply the paid sycophants of argieland. No credibility. No authority. And will soon be disbanded.

Anyway, you have, once again, been reported for your trolling and wasting everyone's time with your drivel.
5 briton (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 07:11 pm Report abuse
you talk rubbish sometimes, you really do.
6 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 07:31 pm Report abuse
@2 Don't take it personally.....

It was the UK that first identified the Falkland Islands to the UN as a Non Self Governing Territory under Article 73e of the UN Charter all those years ago. The UK even called it a Crown Colony until the early 80s. And yes, you are right, both the c24 and the parent UN GA Committee (4th (Political and Decolonisation)) still have this BOT on their list. Why?

1. Because UK diplomacy has been unable to marshal enough support to get the 4th Committee to discuss whether or not the current FI Constitution provides freedom enough to have the Islands declared as Self Governing. There isn't going to be a new Constitution anytime soon, hence the tactical Referendum scheduled for next year. (Does anyone know the question yet, by the way?)

2. A sub set of the community of States, almost but not all Spanish speaking, support the Argentinian Sovereignty claim for one reason or another and keeping it on the list helps keep the issue alive.

Breaches of international law don't enter into it. If they did, someone would regularly make it very clear just what international law was being broken. Argentina hasn't and neither has the impartial Secretariat of the 4th Committee. No one has asked the ICJ for either a judgement or an indicative ruling because this about international politics not international law. That's why it's the 4th Committee dealing with it and not the 1st or the 6th Committees (Security and Legal respectively).
7 Xect (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 07:41 pm Report abuse
Guys, don't get worked up, its not even his work.

Raul simply copies and pastes others posts which are nonsense and then passes it off as his own. He's done this a lot over the past year.

And even if it was his work, which it obviously isn't its all lies and factually incorrect. The UK has broken no laws and Bi Ki-Moon has just come out and said the UK has never breached any law or UN resolution and he supports the people of the Falkland's islands decision to choose their own future.

Game, set and match!
8 MistyThink (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 08:14 pm Report abuse
The UK called the Islands a Royal Colony until the 80s....

the new constitution replaced since thestart of 2009 year which bring up
a self governing for islanders but under the “ veto ” powered Governor authority who commands all internal & external affairs.
9 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 08:40 pm Report abuse
@8 Yes, that veto is one of the reasons some people don't think the Constitution goes far enough to be enough to warrant the Islands being declared self governing. Some people might even say that anything short of independence or full integration into another State is one more form of colonialism, freely subscribed to or not.

Argentina is offering full integration. The UK is not. I'm fairly sure Argentina would refuse to acknowledge a declaration of independence by the Islanders. Some Islanders, by contrast, believe the UK would recognise an independent Falkland Islands (presumably within the Commonwealth as a full member) if that's what the Islanders self-determined by Referendum.
I'm not so sure. Why don't they put it to the test in March 2013? There's still time to change the question.
10 TipsyThink (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 09:04 pm Report abuse
don^t make me laugh........

a normal people never live in these islands
only some volunteers and full pocket soldiers live there.

shortly these islands are the purely a military base of UK.
11 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 09:11 pm Report abuse
@10 Thanks for reminding me. Does anyone know when the full results of the 2012 Census are being released to the internet?
12 Think (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 09:14 pm Report abuse
(9) Cmdr McDod

The question is irrelevant...
We already know the answer….
13 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 10:09 pm Report abuse
Not really adding value tonight, are you? Here am I doing my best to get back on message and put behind me all those malicious libels and all you can do is play the rear end of a silly ass. Isn't there enough turnipitude out there without you adding to it?
14 Troy Tempest (#) Nov 28th, 2012 - 11:43 pm Report abuse
More “Troll Panto”
15 British_Kirchnerist (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 12:34 am Report abuse
#2 I, unlike most of the Brits on here, of course agree with you about imperialism and colonialism, but I must say this Rosindell is a bit of a jingoist maverick really, he's campaigning agaist the government here, albeit on a minor point, not representing its agenda. In a way I prefer him as he seems less cynical, he seems to really believe in the nonsense he spouts...
16 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 07:29 am Report abuse
Update courtesy of Ms Brock, reporting Dick Sawle on 21 Nov. Prepare to be amazed....

A public paper on the referendum was next on the agenda. It is simply a progress report on timescales and arrangements to be made. The next paper also concerned the referendum. The proposed question as widely distributed was agreed and the date was fixed as the 10th and the 11th March 2013. Both these papers are of course public.
17 Teaboy2 (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 07:30 am Report abuse
@15 Right so how the hell is the FCO the government? It isn't, its simply a state (tax payer) funded government backed office, just like the MOD. The government itself is what sits in parliment, which is something MP Rosindell does. Or are you going to say the MOD is the government too - Go on say it is, we all know you like military dictorships! p-)
18 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 03:52 pm Report abuse
British Constitutional Theory as taught in year one of the Bachelor's degree would suggest that you might not have got it quite right. The Legislature is what sits in Parliament. You can be in Parliament as a member of the party that forms the Government without being a member of the Government you know.
19 Raul (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 06:06 pm Report abuse
Estimated 6 Doveoverdover

I have carefully read your arguments. Unfortunately you forget that there is a sovereignty dispute over the expulsion of Argentina in 1833. Argentina suffered four British invasions (1806-1807-1833 and 1847)
You forget the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations: Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by subsequent resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37 / 9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21) 1,986 (41/40) 1,987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self.
UN considers the facts and historical contexts and social processes, which are the current English colonialism and imperialism today. The facts demonstrate the humanitarian bombing civilians in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan.
England is bound and does not listen to the committee of UN decolonization. Of the 16 cases of colonialism in the world, 10 are caused by England. Does that not tell you something?
Nor hears claims of multilateral organizations such as the OAS, CELAC, UNASUR and MERCOSUR. Everyone is claiming that England feel to talk about sovereignty. England does not comply with international law.
The decolonization committee of United Nations convened the June 14, 2012, to Argentina and the United Kingdom to discuss the sovereignty of the islands. Argentina was represented by its President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, UK did not attend. World public opinion is very clear on this point by criticizing the United Kingdom does not comply with the notice and international law.
thank you very much

7 Xec

These sick. The only truth is reality. You mind showing that the UK does not comply with international law and continues its policy colonialist, racist and imperialist 21st century.
20 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 09:11 pm Report abuse
@19 Raul,

Thank you for a well argued response although you wouldn't expect me to agree with you entirely.

Firstly, I have not forgotten that there is a sovereignty dispute, although some people, wrongly, deny that there is. As a former, quite senior, member of the military Garrison I have no doubt that there is a dispute and I have been briefed on the history by experts. I also served, from the safety of the UK, during the 1982 Conflict. I know the feeling of having one's country disposed of territory, if only for a few months in our case.

Secondly, I don't forget the Resolutions, I just discount them as being political and therefore non-binding. They have some moral force but not, I really am afraid to say, any legal standing whatsoever. The rules of the UN Club were expressly written by the original members to stop them becoming so.

Thirdly, UK was at one time the most powerful Empire the world had known. It is hardly surprising that some small and scattered outposts still remain.

Finally, someone from the UK delegation did attend the C24 and the parent 4th Committee. All the member countries of the organizations you describe are UN members. They are perfectly able to influence the 4th Committee (the parent of the C24 sub-committee) and the GA if they wish. Nothing came from it though, did it.

In summary, world opinion is politics and is not the same as international law and political criticism isn't the same thing as a legal charge. I certainly don't take much notice of self serving criticism from others and I'll wager you don't either. I take even less notice of criticism of my ancestors actions in the years immediately after the defeat of Bonaparte.

But, if I'm wrong do please tell me which convention or rule of international law UK is in breach of regarding the Falkland Islands. Please though don't repeat again any UN GA or Committee Resolutions.
21 Troy Tempest (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 04:55 am Report abuse

Patagonian Panto Players and Dame DoD,

I think your audience left, ages ago. :- )
22 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 06:53 am Report abuse
The audience may have gone but at least one of the self serving critics obviously hung around.
23 Teaboy2 (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 07:38 am Report abuse
@16 No the house of lords (upper house) is the legislature, it is they that debate, admend or reject bills for legislation, not the house of commons, which is commonly known as parliment (although house of lords is part of parliment) or the lower house, which is also known as the government as its where the MP including the Prime minister sit!

Its is how the government is kept seperate from the judicary, up until 2009 the house of lords was the last court of last resort (highest court in the UK) in the UK court system, which was replaced with the supreme court, which is the current highest court in the UK

So the lower house is the elect government and government opposition and the upper house is the legislature where lords from both sides debate bills on legislation.

So please do not confuse unelected lords as being part of the government, when its simply the lower house of parliment that is the government!
24 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 08:52 am Report abuse
@23 Your understanding is like the Punch curate's egg; only good in parts.
25 Teaboy2 (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 03:29 pm Report abuse
Oh so i have a different understanding to parliment and how government works then you do, so what. Doesn't mean you should insult me. Way i see it parliment is the government it is where everything to do with government is debated, it is where bills are debated prior to being put to the house of lords for them to decide whether it should be accepted into law or rejected - MP are what make up the government and they all gather in?? Yep you guessed it Parliment!

So no i don'tmisunderstand it i just have a different interpretation of it to you and that of the author of the website! At the end of the day they are all lying and cheating sods anyway!!
26 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 04:25 pm Report abuse
@25 I've read your response. Just so you know.
27 Teaboy2 (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 06:20 pm Report abuse
@26 good!
28 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 08:37 pm Report abuse
@27 Believe me, it isn't.
29 Raul (#) Dec 04th, 2012 - 02:21 pm Report abuse
20 Doveoverdover

Thank you very much for your reply. It's understandable, just do not expect you to change positions, which is very respectable. Also do not expect to agree with you completely.

Answering your question is about my response taking into account the historical and social context of the processes under way. From our point of view does not meet UK international law by failing to comply with UN resolutions. UN Resolutions are made to be fulfilled and are part of international law. Binding on all its members to comply. Specifically the Resolutions of the General Assembly and the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations: Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by subsequent resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12) 1,984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21) 1,986 (41/40) 1,987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No Self-Determination.
Although not in the nature of the resolutions of the Security Council, it is clear injustice to the Security Council have veto England along with four other countries to obstruct the implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations Assembly.
United Kingdom practiced a double standard or double standard on the sovereignty dispute Falkland Island.
It has a contradictory discourse when speaking of peace and on the other hand argues colonialism, racism and imperialism of the 21st century. Examples abound: humanitarian bombing civilians in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Besides piracy and plunder of natural resources at gunpoint in the South Atlantic.
In the 21st century this is an anachronism and an injustice and has repeatedly called the attention of world public opinion, this represents a threat to world peace. Promotes terrorism, colonialism and imperialism of the five nuclear powers in the world widely questioned and condemned by world public opinion.
Thank you very much for your attention

30 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 04th, 2012 - 08:19 pm Report abuse

You very clearly point out why Argentina has the support of other States when it comes to gaining support for its sovereignty claim over the islands. All of it rests on politics and morality, not law.

1. UK is one of the five nuclear powers with permanent seats on the Security Council and a veto. In the UK (and France) case they no longer have the finances, population or military forces to justify this elite position. They are living on past glory and don't deserve their place. They could make way for new powers like Brazil and India and some States think this is so.

2 UK and other “western” States will do almost anything to maintain their power and influence. It is not surprising that they regularly exercise that power. Other States resent this, are antagonistic and will support almost anything that irritates or disadvantages one of the Western powers, particularly UK and, to a much lesser extent, France.

3. Colonialism is a great rallying cry and can stir emotion in the breast of former colonies but its essence was actually about freeing indigenous peoples from foreign domination. Isolated, distant, unpopulated islands wasn't what decolonisation was about and that's why the world is full of them. The vast majority are not on the UN list. Well done Argentina for capitalising on this and badly done UK for adding the Falkland Islands to the UN list in the first place. Nevertheless, the FI were not what decolonisation was about (being very special and very particular).

4. Some States hold, as you do, that GA Resolutions are International Laws. Some say, like me, that they are not. All I would say, as I have before, is that if any State believes that the UK has broken any international law then they should bring their case to the ICJ and seek a judicial resolution, not a moral or political one.

What would change my mind? A judicial ruling at the ICJ. To say that UK dominates this too is not really a reason not to seek one.


Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!