Saturday, December 8th 2012 - 03:54 UTC

Mercosur summit rejects Falklands’ self-determination referendum

Presidents from Mercosur full and associate members meeting in Brasilia rejected the coming Malvinas Islands self determination referendum and anticipated that whatever the result of the ballot “it will not alter at all the essence of the Malvinas question”.

Whatever the result the essence of the Malvinas question remains, said Mercosur leaders

In a statement approved on the side of the traditional declaration at the end of each Mercosur summit, the heads of state underlined that the UN General Assembly in 1985 rejected the incorporation of the self determination principle for the resolution of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute.

The presidents of Mercosur reiterate their strong support for the legitimate rights of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with the UK over the Malvinas Islands and ratify their permanent regional interest for Great Britain to return to negotiations so that a peaceful and definitive solution is found, adds the statement.

Finally they emphasize that whatever the outcome of the so called referendum the essence of the Malvinas question is not at all altered and by no means is an end to the sovereignty dispute.

The Falklands’ elected government, making use of the peoples’ right to self determination has decided to hold a referendum on the Islands political status next March with the purpose of showing the world where they stand and what they want for their future.

190 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 slattzzz (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 04:53 am Report abuse
we will see in March won't we when the UN finally tells Rgenweener to shut the F up
2 Lord Ton (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 05:48 am Report abuse
Where is this supposed rejection in 1985? The UN GA Resolution of that year makes no mention???

UN Resolution 40/21 (1985)

” The General Assembly,
Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and having received the report of the Secretary-General,

Aware of the interest of the international community in the peaceful and definitive settlement by the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of all their differences, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Taking note of the interest repeatedly expressed by both parties in normalising their relations,

Convinced that such purpose would be facilitated by a global negotiation between both Governments that will allow them to rebuild mutual confidence on a solid basis and to resolve the pending problems, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

1. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his renewed mission of good offices in order to assist the parties in complying with the request made in paragraph 1 above, and to take the necessary measures to that end:

3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its forty-first session a report on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution;

4. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-first session the item entitled ”Question of the Falkland Islands

And what about the GA Resolutions of 1986, 87, and 88 ???

Of course we all know its 2012 - but not Argentina apparently :-)
3 slattzzz (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 05:56 am Report abuse
@2 Where is this supposed rejection in 1985? The UN GA Resolution of that year makes no mention???
There wasn't one they are making it up AGAIN !!!!!
4 Marcos Alejandro (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:02 am Report abuse
Great News!
5 slattzzz (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:05 am Report abuse
@4 Why it won't make a blind bit of difference, as I said wait till March and the UN's response, then you'll be crying in your milk, if you can afford any by then of course
6 puerto argentino (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:26 am Report abuse
Mercosur summit rejects Falklands’ self-determination referendum.
fantastic Newssss!!! for Malvinas !!
7 Marcos Alejandro (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:27 am Report abuse
@5 Do you need some tissue?
8 puerto argentino (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:28 am Report abuse
9 slattzzz (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:52 am Report abuse
@7 No why do you? You seem to be pretty excited careful you don't mess in your budgie smugglers
10 Marcos Alejandro (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 07:17 am Report abuse
@9 Cry baby.
11 Steve-32-uk (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 07:42 am Report abuse
Mercosur was always going to say that the referendum doesn't change anything. But I am amazed at the comment ...

'the heads of state underlined that the UN General Assembly in 1985 rejected the incorporation of the self determination principle for the resolution of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute.'

This is clearly wrong, Mercosur are making themselves look retarded, they are meant to be a serious body!

@2 Lord Ton- thanks for linking it.
12 slattzzz (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 08:12 am Report abuse
@10 Marcus stop posting videos of yourself
13 Cloudwarrior (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 08:40 am Report abuse
Mercosur has been an abject failure as customs union over its 28 year history. Wracked by internal divisions and constant backstabbing, it is glaringly obvious that some of the fastest growing economies in South America (Chile, Colombia and Peru) are not 'straight jacketed' by its rules and hence are prospering.

With its feeble attempts at foreign policy continually hijacked by the Argentinean President, it is not surprising that it has made such a glaringly obvious mistake such as this.

For some reason, Argentina assumes that because South American countries (which let's face it have a tiny presence on the world stage) mouth platitudes; that they have made a great diplomatic breakthrough that the rest of the world will sycophantically follow.

Mercosur members don't have to support nor agree with the referendum simply because they have no bearing on it.

Argentina's continuatual addition to its fictitious history regarding the islands is glaring obvious to every country but it would seem that Cristina is a poor judge of character as she continually believes what everyone says to her face.

The fact that the UN is not beholden to a rewrite of history when it suits Argentina makes the claim above ludicrous.

Anyway, an actual UN quote from 1960 trumps a fictitious one from 1985:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
14 Lord Ton (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 08:51 am Report abuse
As though anyone cares what Mercosur thinks! The only democracy amongst them is Urugauy, and they complain of being bullied by the neighbours.
15 HansNiesund (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:13 am Report abuse
It's no surprise that Mercosur came out in support of Argentina, but the fact they've put their names to something so demonstrably wrong suggests they were hardly paying attention but just paying lip-service to Argentine ritual, kind of like saying grace before dinner.

They also seem to be unaware that in 2008 the UN reaffirmed self-determination as a universal human right and explicitly rejected a proposal from Argentina and Spain (guess who) to limit that right to cases “where no territorial dispute exists”.

It's just as well the UN has never noted against comedy, then where would we be?
16 Boovis (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:14 am Report abuse
I've emailed mercosur asking them why they said the 1985 document mentioned self determination when it didn't, i suggest others do the same.
17 TipsyThink (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:24 am Report abuse
don't you know that all e-mail traffícs are listened by intellígence sérvices.

í can bet on they so laugh whén reading these méssages.
18 lsolde (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:25 am Report abuse
Who cares what they “reject”?
They have very little influence in the world, anyway.
What if we decided to join Argentina? Would they reject that too? Hypocrites.
(we will NEVER join Argentina, though!).
We “REJECT” them!
19 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:31 am Report abuse
(2) Dear Mr. Lorton

Article says:
“The heads of state underlined that the UN General Assembly in 1985 rejected the incorporation of the self determination principle for the resolution of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute.”

I say:
Our Heads of State are referring, of course, to the last minute UK attempt of introducing a ”Self Determination” amend in the 1985 A/40/L.19 resolution..... A failed attempt………, Im happy to say…

Here, for your kind info and for the honing of your Spanish skills…:
”En ocasión de tratarse en la sesión de 1985 de la AG el proyecto de resolución A/40/L.19, presentado por Argelia, Brasil, Ghana, Guatemala, India, México, Uruguay y Yugoslavia (21 de noviembre de 1985), se produjo un cambio inesperado al introducir el Reino Unido dos proyectos de enmienda: modificaciones al concepto de libre determinación evocando que determinaban libremente su estatuto político y se dedican libremente au su desarrollo económico, social y cultural. Las enmiendas proponían introducir un nuevo segundo párrafo en los considerandos y agregar una frase en el final del párrafo 1 de la parte dispositiva. Sin embargo, el objetivo de Gran Bretaña no prosperó.;jsessionid=16letbywjdnosu3asivp9772g?0

Besides……….. Weren’t you, Mr. Lorton (together with other diehard Falklandistas as Justin(hishead)Kuntz, Redhoyt, Hoytred, Domingo, Stick up your Junta… etc, etc, etc..) a fan of Argie Professor Carlos Escudé and his opinion about the Malvinas Islands Issue?
Please find below his last paper on the issue from 2012

Things change Mr. Lorton.... Things change.....

I trust that you will include the above provided “new information” in your excellently biases blog….

Will you not? ;-)

(18) Cher Isolde
20 TipsyThink (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:33 am Report abuse

don't panic vainly..,

in practice, this referandum won't be significant under the conditions of where a place has few people/military base/London appointed Governor...
21 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:47 am Report abuse
@15 The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) would have the General Assembly reaffirm the inalienable right of the peoples of 11 of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination.

Did it and why only 11?
22 Monkeymagic (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:52 am Report abuse
I agree with MERCOSUR that the referendum doesn't change the essence of the “Malvinas question”.

IF in 1832 the British on HMS Clio had arrived in the Falkands and EVICTED an ARGENTINE civilian population and PROHIBITED their return, I would accept that there was a territorial integrity dispute.

however, we all know that this is the GREAT LIE. It is a spurious and misleading PROPOGANDA and Argentina need to be called on it.

In 1823 the only civilians on the islands were the Vernet community, a private enterprise not representing any particular nationality, and certainly neither Vernet or Bannister were Argentine.

This community was not evicted. In fact they were actively encouraged to stay, and only three (also not Argentine) people chose to leave.

A murderous bunch of Argentine rapists (Pinedos crew) who had only been on the islands a couple of months were evicted. These were neither civilians, nor a community.

So, MERCOSUR are correct, the referendum does not change the “essence of the Malvinas question”, it will REAFFIRM it.

The Argentines have no historical, moral, economic or geographical claim to the islands, their territorial integrity was never compromised, and their only history on the islands totalling a few months, is associated with murder, rape and humiliation.

That is the ESSENCE of the Malvinas question.
23 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:13 am Report abuse
(21) Mr. McDod

Very sharp observation abot the missing five “Non Peoples”....

I hope you are not considering an “Ad Honorem” position at the Falklands & Southern Oceans Department........

It would raise its intelectual level to an unconfortable level..... (for Argentina)

Winds hastily approaching gale strenght at Puerto Estanley......
What was Islander1 saying yesterday about the weather and God ;-)
24 Cloudwarrior (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:15 am Report abuse
UN Resolution 40/21 didn't mention self-determination. But it did mention the UN Charter. I quote:
The General Assembly ”requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”.

Which them leads (naturally) to the UN Charter which mentions “self-determination” in its very first Article. And then Article 73 which calls on countries with non-self governing territories to “develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.”

So considering the Falkland Islands are self-governing and are exercising their right to self-determination; I would have to say the Mercosur is totally incorrect in their assertion but also pretty much on the wrong side of history too.
25 ChrisR (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:22 am Report abuse
@19 The Great Think, I Don't Think.

I have the original paper by Professor Carlos Escudé here on my desk and agree with virtually everything he writes, especially about how lucky AG were when the Brits held back from destroying the infrastructure on the mainland. He realised that the boasting of the Junta was simply that. Nothing changes at all in AG does it.

He was of course almost unique in that he understood where the junta lost the plot. Ah! Of course the PEOPLE never supported them did they? The videos of hundreds of thousands waving flags in the squares of every city was a dastardly con trick by the Brits again.

Now, in 2012, 30 years after the arse kicking AG got he has changed his mind, I wonder why: Camping it up got to him did they? FatBoy threatened to throw a cream bun at him perchance? A 50Kg bun can do an awful lot of damage. Ha, ha, ha.

No, it won’t do: the TRUTH never changes, but being the biggest liar on MP how would you realise that?

You have told me on a number of occasions to go back to where I came from, so I am going to return the complement to you. Fcuk off back to whatever poor benighted country were unfortunate to have spawned you in the first place and leave the poor sods in AG who want nothing to do with your bitter and twisted logic about the Falklands alone (there are STILL no Malvinas you prat).

Try your lies on your Pope, he seems to be losing the plot lately, perhaps before you shrug of this mortal coil you could try for the position. Ha, ha, ha.
26 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:30 am Report abuse
“Everything changes”, my dear Turnips and Non-Turnips…………..

“Everything changes”......A Poem by my Swedish friend, Julio “Quilapayún” Numhauser and la Negra Sosa......….

Everything changes……………….
Even the “Not so Eternal” Brutish Empire…..
Get used to it

Chuckle chuckle©
27 HansNiesund (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:40 am Report abuse
@21 HarryCorbett'sHandoverdover

Because the Spanish/Argentinian manoeuvre to limit the principle of self-determination had taken place in the context of a C24 report on those 11 territories (or in other words, they'd tried to sneak it through in the non-controversial cases)

It is nonetheless clear from the statements of the delegates of the 4th Committee who rejected the Spanish/Argentine move that they did not accept any limitation to the principle of self-determination at all.

For example :

“Uganda ’s representative said his delegation firmly believed in the principle of self-determination, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Any watering down of that principle would find no support from his country. ”

“The representative of Singapore said that [the proposed Spanish/Argentine amendment] ... contravened the United Nations Charter.”

“.... the representative of Jordan said that no restrictions should be imposed on the right to self-determination. ”

And so on.
28 Joe Bloggs (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:44 am Report abuse

There are plenty of stats to call on which support your point the the British Empire is not what it once was and this trend continues.

What makes me LMFAO though is that you somehow are trying to convince (yourself) us that Argentina, on the other hand, is on its way up!

Up in flames?
Up in smoke?
Up in the clouds?
Up its own arse?
Up shit street?
Up up and away?

Which up ?

Chuckle chuckle.

The Bloggs family is about to embark the 110 and take-off for a weekend in Gods Own Country. No TV, no internet, no mobile reception, no electricity, no running water. No, not Argentina! Our favourite little spot on Lafonia.
29 HansNiesund (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:56 am Report abuse
@19 HarryCorbett

What you omit to mention is that an attempt by Argentina to introduce a specific reference to negotiations about sovereignity was alos rejected.
30 slattzzz (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:15 am Report abuse
@26 would that be the Swedish friend who lives near you in SWEDEN : )
31 Pirate Love (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:41 am Report abuse
Mercosur rejecting Democracy & Human rights set out by the U.N!
would mercosur still reject the democratic process if The Falklands voted in Argentinas favor??, U.N needs to step in and put them in their place,any action aganst The Falklands wishes would be against the UN Human right charter, and mercosur needs to be reminded of this, before they start sucking one another off.
32 Lord Ton (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:49 am Report abuse
Think - thankyou. I'm always ready to receive new information. However, I cannot see that the defeat of a proposed Amendment in any way can be seen as a statement of UN policy. Unless you apply the queer rules of Argentine interpretation of course. And I am aware of Escude's attempt to re-ingratiate himself with his countrymen :-)

I shall happily refer to any new information in my (un?)biased blog. Nah .... even I couldn't claim that the blog is unbiased ...... just truthful :-)

I'll consider the matter and write on it - after all, Argentina's sudden fascination with an obscure 1985 amendment (in 2012) has to be worth writing about.
33 Britworker (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:58 am Report abuse
It really doesn't matter what Mercosur think, the referendum is going ahead and from the British perspective the matter will be finally closed. If they want to try and take them by force 'farce' fine, see how far they get with that, they can't even export their bloody lemons!
34 lsolde (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 12:23 pm Report abuse
@19 Think,
l am not crying but l'd say you would be as the Falklands move even further away from your thieving hands.
Poor Carlos, no doubt had a visit from the SS, er l mean RG secret service.
35 Lord Ton (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 12:51 pm Report abuse
The UN Yearbook for 1985 is very interesting Think - if only to show that some things indeed, do not change - Argentina's spurious claims about nuclear weapons, militarization of the South Atlantic, etc :-)
36 Anbar (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 12:56 pm Report abuse
I#m shocked... MERCOSUR actually agreed on something!

Its a shame that any agreement they make at this level is completely negated within 48 hours by some dispute in another area... so regardless of their lack of clout politically all that usually happens is that the moment a mercosur member ends up in talks with “the real world nations” all of this unified-approach goes out of the window and the very first thing dropped by every member of mercosur is “Argentina little addiction”.

Its about as convincing as the EU president saying that Europe is unified... total bollocks.
37 GeoffWard2 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 12:57 pm Report abuse
“It does not matter what the population think,“it will not alter at all the essence of the Malvinas question”.”
(The Democratic States Of Mercosur, TDSOM)
38 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 01:02 pm Report abuse
(34) lsolde

Señor Escudé to you, you childish, haughty British Squatterette.....

If you were able to read his article, you would notice that them Islands are indeed “moving away from some thieving hands”...
The only “thieving hands” in the South-Atlantic...
The British “thieving hands”...

Have a nice, windy weekend...
El Think
39 Pete Bog (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 01:05 pm Report abuse
“that the UN General Assembly in 1985 rejected the incorporation of the self determination principle for the resolution of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute.”

The fact that every UN resolution requesting (not demanding by the way) that Argentina and the UK discuss the Falkland Islands refers to' in accordance with the UN Charter'; quite obviously does not omit self-determination. Otherwise the resolutions would not require the two parties to recognise the UN Charter or the Islanders interests and would say so.

I cannot see the relevance of a 1985 resolution when that of 2008 (23 years later), specifically affirms the right to self-determination.

Statements like this from mercosur just makes them look like idiots in the eyes of the rest of the world when they are incapable of accurate referencing.

This thankfully, means that Argentina will never own the Falkland Islands, unless the Falkland Islanders want it.

The 2013 Referendum is the beginning of the end for Argentina's colonial claim.

The only cards you have left, Miss Bride of Frankenstein, are to bully the Islanders (which will lose you support in the democratic world, and turn the Islanders against you) ;or you can play your joker's card and launch another invasion and get the sh1t blown out of your aircraft, ships (every one), airfields and military infrastructure in Southern Argentina.
40 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 01:14 pm Report abuse

Seems that you ”Shot the Albatross” with your yesterday's comment ....:
“.....Mind you, if it does blow a gale and she (the Seabourn Sojourn) cannot disembark passengers I guess Think will claim that even God is on Christina,s side!”

I “Thought” that you Kelpers knew better than defying Nguenechén !!!

10:10 Am at Puerto Estanley...... 35 mph SW gale wind with 45 mph strong gale gusts…….

“Think” will not be able to board the Seabourn Sojourn if this bloody Malvinas breeze continues through the day …;-)
41 Raven (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 01:19 pm Report abuse
If Argentina wants to use it's legitimate rights, then let them pop down to the ICJ.

That will soon sort out the ''issue'' over the Falklands.

I wont favour Argentina though, so I suspect the tantrums of TMBOA will continue instead.
42 Lord Ton (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 01:24 pm Report abuse
1985 -

In explanation of vote, ...........Solomon Islands felt that the lack of reference to the people of the Falkland Islands weakened the good intent of the draft and it regarded elements of the fourth preambular paragraph as an attempt to impose something on the people of the Islands.
Papua New Guinea said that another principal party not included in the negotiation process was the people of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas); it would have supported the text if it had included the principle of self-determination.
The Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland, which had voted for the amendments because of the importance of self-determination, had abstained on the resolution to reflect their wish not to take a position on the merits of the dispute.
Maldives believed that a question involving the future of a people should accommodate the interests of the people concerned.
Belize voted for the amendments to ensure protection of the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to self-determination.
Also supporting the amendments, Samoa believed that the right of selfdetermination could have been more explicit in the draft, and Fiji added that the call for negotiations should not be at the cost of the fundamental right
of the Falkland Islanders to have a say in their own future.
Welcoming the conciliatory nature of the draft resolution, Botswana also supported the amendments, saying that the Falkland Islanders were entitled to the right to self-determination.

and on, and on.

So this is what Argentina is now relying on Think?? Wow :-)
43 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 01:32 pm Report abuse
That bloody breeze is getting stronger….......…. Ain’t it?
What do you Kelpers reckon???

I would say 40 / 45 mph…..

And the poor passengers on the Seabourn Sojourn will not be able to visit Ushuaia either….

I don’t “Think” the Captain has the guts after his last “Anglo Prank” in town…….
44 José Malvinero (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 01:39 pm Report abuse
Error: The UN General Assembly ruled out any kind of manifestation of granting autonomy or independence to the Malvinas Argentinas in 1965, UN Resolution 2065, which urges both governments to resolve, -within the framework of Resolution 1514 - the question of the sovereignty dispute between the two governments, with due regard to THE INTERESTS of the population of the islands.
But of course I forgot!, England “has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Malvinas Argentinas”.
45 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 01:50 pm Report abuse
@29 No help from you in tracking down the GA Resolution, then. I'll assume there wasn't one. I also note that you selectively quote from a sub-set of countries. Look again at Uganda; more worried about it's own right to self determination against the territorial aspirations of its neighbours than about the 11 or 16 NSGT. Your original assertion that the 2008 conclusion you highlightrf (once again) adds something meaningful remains suspect.

Also, your name calling is as pathetic as your reasoning but if you insist try this for size....
46 Brit Bob (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 01:55 pm Report abuse
(i) the Falkland Islands have got absolutely nothing to do with Argentina. Argentina's feeble claims are based on proximity only. Just like a greedy neighbour trying to grab a piece of your garden.

(ii) It is just as Mr Ban Ki-Moon said when speaking about colonialism to an Argentine newspaper on 12th November 2012, quote: 'People should be able to decide their own future.'
47 Lord Ton (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 02:01 pm Report abuse
#44 - please show me where in 2065 the UN ruled out independence for the Falklands.

Not that 2065 lives. It died. Murdered. Stabbed in the backj by its best friend. In 1982.
48 HansNiesund (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 02:02 pm Report abuse

UN Resolution 2065 rules out no so such thing. It simply invites the UK and Argentina to peacefully resolve the dispute.

In fact, after some 50 years worth of whining to the UN, you have failed to get any renunciation, qualification, or limitation on the principle of self-determination, or any mention of sovereignity in any resolution.

Meanwhile, the only breaches of legality and UN resolutions have been those perpetrated by the Argentinian invasion of 1982, a violation of every preceding resolution and indeed every UN principle there is, and the subsequent refusal to remove troops in accordance with binding resolution 502.
49 Martin Woodhead (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 02:04 pm Report abuse
South america defeating the colonists.
Funny they all speak spanish the aborginal language of south america apart from brazil who speak portugese can't imagine how they learned those languages?
Linguaphone must have some brilliant salespeople:).
50 andy65 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 02:14 pm Report abuse
At the end of the day The British will never discuss sovereignty with Argentina when they have written into there constitution that there sole aim is sovereignty so THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCUSS The Union Jack flys over Stanly and nothing will be changing anytime soon.
51 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 02:32 pm Report abuse
C'mon Brits.....

Here I am, trying to start a sensible conversation in the best British Tradition of talking about the Weather.......

Current wind conditions in Puerto Estanley at 14:00 UTC....:
The wind was blowing at a speed of 21 meters per second (47 miles per hour) from west/southwest.

Windy enough for you?
52 HansNiesund (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 02:36 pm Report abuse
@45 HarryCorbett'sHandUpDover

Let's just quote the actual vote then, remembering that those voting were deciding whether to accept the UKs's proposal to reject the Spanish/Argentine attempt to limit the right of self-determination:

Those in favour: 61
Those against: 40
Abstentions: 47

Voting with Argentina were the usual LatAm suspects, plus such luminous democratic company as Belarus, North Korea, Iran, etc.
53 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 02:46 pm Report abuse
@52 This was in Committee. What did the GA do with the draft Resolution as subsequently approved by consensus? Anyway, there seems to have been no appetite for the 4th Ctte to argue over, let alone overturn, the C24 exclusion of 5 NSGTs.
54 andy65 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 02:55 pm Report abuse
@Think, you should be more concerned about the bad smells in BA caused by your lover Hitler Kirchner and the flooding just after-seems like some kind of act of God to cleanse BA of all things KIRCHNER
55 Captain Poppy (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 02:56 pm Report abuse
All of south america is getting to the point that they all need to be taught a lesson as the Falklands claim is getting old from hearing all the time.
56 Brit Bob (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 03:12 pm Report abuse
Mercosur reject UN?

As Ban Ki-Moon said when speaking to an Argentine newspaper about colonialism on 12th November 2012, quote, 'People should be able to decide their own future.'
57 ChrisR (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 03:15 pm Report abuse
55 Captain Poppy

Correct, and the way it is going Paraguay may be the spark to the kindling.

Opportunity for the USA and the UK to take Parguay under their wing and kick the shit out of the rest who object (Brasil / Chile / Uruguay will keep out: AG will run away TGW the new duo Correa and Morales and Venezuela are incapable of beating the USA and the UK in a modern fire-fight.

Cuba? Lot of hot air, no balls.

So the Venezuelan oil stays with The USA and the UK. No more oil or money for AG after that.

Sounds good to me.
58 ljordao (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 03:16 pm Report abuse
These leaders are a bunch of moral degenerates. But the islanders need not worry. Dilma's corrupt party is in dire straits. Brazilians now know what it has always been about. When she is gone, a new approach to international relations will replace the present hideous and idiotic fad.
59 andy65 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 03:16 pm Report abuse
You can just imagine wht THE PROPER WORLD LEADERS say and think about Kirchner and the way she goes on
60 HansNiesund (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 03:31 pm Report abuse

After that vote, obviously enough, the draft resolution went to the GA without the proposed Spanish/Argentine derogation from the principle of self-determination.

As for what happened next : there is still no derogation to the principle of self-determination.
61 Islander1 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 03:50 pm Report abuse
Think- Actually I had seen the weather forecast a few days ago! 1pm local and ship still here - too windy for pax disembatkation so far but they put one tender ashore with crew and compl;eted Customs formalities so even if no pax can land - the ship formally entered port in the Falkland Islands. I,d call it a draw with you!
Next stop - Ushuaia if they act like grown-ups - or maybe Punta Arenas instead if signs of idiots and Hilter Youth in Ushuaia? - Ball is in Arg court - up to Ushuaia if they want the tourist trade - or not.
62 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 03:59 pm Report abuse
(60) HansNiesund

You say:
“As for what happened next : there is still no derogation to the principle of self-determination”

I say:
Hopefully....., there will never be any derogation to the principle of self-determination of “Peoples”...... For real “Peoples”, that is...

A bunch of British individuals, squatting some Near-Antipodal Islands in the South-Atlantic, on behalf of British geopolitical and economical interests, do not and never will constitute a “People”.
63 Conqueror (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 04:15 pm Report abuse
@4 Shame that, innit?
@6 Goodbye, cesspit!
@15 Nah. They are all as bad as each other. Although I am disappointed with Chile.
@17 Yeah. OUR intelligence services. Yours don't have any. Note that it's difficult to “listen” to an email.
@19 Indeed. The UN Secretary General has said that the Islanders are entitled to self-determination and that the UK is not breach of any UN resolutions. Unlike argieland, that is still in breach of UNSC 502!
@21 So what? The Fourth Committee CANNOT agree anything in contravention of the UN Charter.
@23 God and the weather HATE argieland. How are the floods? Excessive rainfall? Droughts? Toxic clouds?
@25 So right. Argieland. A place of over 41 million war criminals.
@26 We'll be coming for you sooner or later, war criminal.
@32 Truth cannot be biased.
@38 argieland = THIEVES and WAR CRIMINALS.
@44 There are NO “malvinas”. It's a myth. UN resolutions 1514 and 2065 are IRRELEVANT. They are NOT BINDING!
@51 We like to talk about argies dying as well. Want to have a conversation about that? WAR CRIMINAL!
@53 You don't understand anything, do you? C24 has no authority to “exclude” anything. The Fourth Committee has no authority to “overturn” anything. The best either can do is to submit draft resolutions to the General Assembly. And GA resolutions are NON-BINDING. Why do numpties never understand this? The ONLY UN resolutions that are, supposedly, BINDING are Security Council resolutions. Argieland already ignored UNSC 502. Why should the UK pay any attention? There's only one solution. Death to argies!! Innocent, intelligent, sane, sensible Argentines should go and live somewhere else.
@62 You certainly don't belong to a “People”. No room for genocides in the human race. Execution for you!
64 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 04:27 pm Report abuse
@62 So true. Not People but people. Still, those people are a very small part of the British People who determined (by commitment of lives and treasure and not through a Referendum) that they have no doubt about British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

I just wish that the UK Governments wouldn't try so hard to persuade an unpersuadable world that the occupants of this particular set of islands are somehow indigenous when it comes to decolonisation. The Government is in danger of throwing the baby (UK geopolitical and economic interests) out with the bathwater (a cheap political point scoring exercise and an easier time at the UN) by giving the Islanders the unjustifiable belief that they are a People through promising them that the resources in the FI EEZ are theirs to keep for themselves.
65 GeoffWard2 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 04:32 pm Report abuse
#62 Think

I guess, in the same way, that the people of Europe that populated the Americas can likewise not constitute a 'people'.

When does a people become a People?
66 HansNiesund (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 04:33 pm Report abuse

Oh please, not the 'implanted population' nonsense again. It was funny once, but it would only be funny again if you ever actually did go to the ICJ or the UN with a proposal that would disenfranchise virtually your entire hemisphere if applied.

Meanwhile, in the absence of any legal definition of what exactly constitutes a 'people' , and for the purposes of self-determination, it is sufficient for the Falklanders to show that they are a distinct people from the country which covets their territory.

I'm sure you'll agree that's not too hard a test to pass.

Indeed, it's another nice irony that Argentina has actually made the Falklanders a 'people', since they are the unique population in the world whose land Argentina pretends to absorb. That alone makes them distinct from Brits.

And last but not least, it is sufficient for a people to consider themselves a people to become one. Are the Swiss not a people?
67 lsolde (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 04:41 pm Report abuse
@38 Think,
lts “those” islands Think, not “them” islands.
You sound like a hillbilly.
l specifically meant Argentine “thieving hands”, Think.
Why the violent reaction? Guilt, maybe? Don't like the truth?
They aren't actually thieving, simply because they have no opportunity to.
But you would like to thieve the Falklands, South Georgia & the British Antarctic Territories(& actually have the gall to believe that its all yours?)
You are one self-deluded squatting turnip, Think. time to get real.
68 Marcos Alejandro (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 04:45 pm Report abuse
I feel sorry(do I?) about the passengers on the Seabourn Sojourn, delayed in Buenos Aires, blown away by gusty Malvinas winds and their visit to Ushuaia is in doubt.
How much did they pay for this trip?
69 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 04:46 pm Report abuse
(61) Islander1
You say:
”I´d call it a draw with you!”
I say:
You didn’t even sell one bloody Stuffed Penguin today and you want to call it a draw? :-)))

You say:
”Ball is in Argentinas court - up to Ushuaia if they want the tourist trade - or not.”
I say:
I ”Think” it has been made abundantly clear that we don’t want that kind of Tourist Trade.
And the message is being understood by almost everybody.

(64) Mr. McDod
So true………………. Not People but people…….
And….., mostly, a nice bunch of people them Kelpers are….
But not a People.
No Sir.
Not a People……
70 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 04:56 pm Report abuse
@62 And just exactly how do the British citizens with Falkland Island status show they are a distinct People from the rest of us British citizens when it is we that guarantee their ability to make lifestyle choices on that set of islands that we own and Argentina covets? Not language, not education, not common law, not culture, not personal aspiration, not religion, not history, not openness to like minded non-Anglos. Their myths and paranoia perhaps?

71 stick up your junta (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 05:11 pm Report abuse
@69 Think
I ”Think” it has been made abundantly clear that we don’t want that kind of Tourist Trade.

Who's we?

For his part, President of the Chamber of Tourism of Ushuaia, Marcelo Lieti, was upset by the situation and considered that the incident “has nothing to do with the Falklands.”

“We must treat the matter very carefully. All stand Malvinas but tourist cruises are not related to the order of sovereignty,” he said in a statement to Radio Province Ushuaia.
72 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 05:14 pm Report abuse
“In a statement approved on the side of the traditional declaration at the end of each Mercosur summit, the heads of state underlined that the UN General Assembly in 1985 rejected the incorporation of the self determination principle for the resolution of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute”

WOW!!!! Look everyone!! it seems that Mercosur's thinking is at least 1/4 of a Century out of date........ who would have thought it huh? that makes it practically in line with everything else in SA then doesn't it?

Mind you, I did hear a rumour that British Airways was going to start to issue public services announcements on all flights into Buenos Aires, reminding passengers to wind their watches back to 1950

Well I guess that they will be in for a shock when the result is read out and recognised by the UN.
73 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 05:16 pm Report abuse
(70) Mr. McDod

Your comment (70) is evidently directed at Poster (66); HansNiesund...
Thanks for answering him in a better way that I ever could....

And you are right about Isolde, you know....
She has been unusually polite the last couple of days....
Day 13 - 15 on the cyclus maybe? ;-)
74 Brit Bob (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 05:38 pm Report abuse

As Ban Ki-Moon said, 'People should be able to decide their own future.'

A future without Argentina!
75 Monty69 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 05:42 pm Report abuse
70 Doveoverdover

Your mask is slipping, old chap.

''like minded non-Anglos'' ?? For heaven's sake.
76 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 05:50 pm Report abuse
62 Think

“A bunch of British individuals, squatting some Near-Antipodal Islands in the South-Atlantic, on behalf of British geopolitical and economical interests, do not and never will constitute a “People”.”

Well then, do tell, what constitutes a “People” ????

Please answer ( IF you can.............. )
77 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:03 pm Report abuse
@74 What B-K-M was reported to have said was ” The impression is that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future. And that is the main criteria of the main UN bodies.” How did that become the unqualified 'People should be able to decide their own future.'?

@75 Madam, this is not a masked ball at the Venice Carnival but thank you for your advice anyway.
78 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:16 pm Report abuse
(77) Mr. McDod

Next, we will have some Turnip telling us that Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki-moon said...: “Kelpers have the right of deciding over the future of the United Kingdom”

Have you been to the Carnevale de Venezia?
Which year/s?
What costume did yo wear?
79 HansNiesund (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:30 pm Report abuse

Now that's odd. Because by your other argentine argument, you maintain that the islanders are distinct from Brits in that they have been living all this time under the colonial yoke. So is it possible for a people to colonize itself? That's an interesting one. And if they are Brits now, what is the C24 doing trying to decolonize them? Surely that's no longer a decolonization matter but something else entirely? I mean, if they are a colony, they can't be Brits, and if they are Brits they can't be a colony.

Otherwise, perhaps you could help me to clear up my evident confusion by elucidating, using the criteria you outlined above, which of the following constitute a people :
- the Scots
- the Welsh
- the Wallons
- the Flems
- the Faroese
- the Kurds
80 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:37 pm Report abuse
- and the Falkland Islands government rejects Mercosur's rejection :-D

As we all know, UN Secretary General has declared that the remaining non-self-governing territories must have full freedom of choice - in accordance with the UN Charter. End of story.
81 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 06:58 pm Report abuse
78 Think

True to form, when you come up against a question that you are unable to answer you change the subject.............

Maybe the question was beyond you, never mind. Your silence on that subject speaks volumes.

Although, I have to agree, the idea of internet trolls such as yourself going to a masked ball does seem somehow, apt. not showing the “real” you and taking on a different persona...... I wonder why that strikes me a funny........
82 Steve-32-uk (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 07:12 pm Report abuse
UN Resolution 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965, calls on Argentina and Britain to seek a peaceful solution to the Falklands issue within the framework of UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.
Section 2 of Resolution 1514 is clear: “all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

I'm still waiting...
83 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 07:15 pm Report abuse
Re: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/21 (1985) Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

Read the original, which says exactly what Lord Ton quotes in # 2 (except he left out the text “95th plenary meeting, 27 November 1985”) :-)
84 KFC de Pollo (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 07:20 pm Report abuse
85 briton (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 08:04 pm Report abuse
Mercosur like the OAS , and the raving loony party has every right to reject the falklands referendum,

Just as we have a right to ignore them.

The point is
What can they do about it , [nothing]
Can they stop it [no]
Will their objection make any difference, [no]
Will the UN really care ,[no ]
So object if you wish, there is nothing you can do,
In the past, ,now ,,or the future,

But to be fair, what you can start doing, and in fact are doing, is following the mighty Argentinean CFK
Lead, and that is to talk talk and more talk…twats…

As it is an islander thing, and has nothing to do with the school nursery,
Soddy offy…

86 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 08:29 pm Report abuse
@ 19 Think - do you actually?

As for whatever Carlos Escudé may express today: “Pero el caso de Malvinas es distinto, porque la Argentina jamás firmó un tratado reconociendo la legitimidad de la usurpación británica.”

This is where he is completely wrong.

As has been shown time and again on the Mercopress site (and elsewhere):

1. The government of Buenos Aires did sign a treaty in 1849, and ratified it on 15 May 1850, in which they confirmed that there were no territorial disputes between Britain and Buenos Aires.

2. This was later (after Argentina had come into existence in 1861) confirmed by the two Argentine presidents Bartolomé Mitre and Domingo Sarmiento and vice president Marcos Paz in 1865, 1866 and 1869.

A question: Why do Argentinos have these serious difficulties reading and understanding whatever they don't like?
87 Don Alberto (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 08:50 pm Report abuse
Oh dear, the idiot idea of “an implanted people” pops up again, even after tens of patient explanations.

The official title of the decolonisation committee (C24) is:

“The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial COUNTRIES and PEOPLES.”

“Comité Especial encargado de examinar la situación con respecto a la aplicación de la Declaración sobre la concesión de la independencia a los PAÍSES y PUEBLOS coloniales.”

If the Falkland Islands situation belongs under this committee, then the committee recognizes them as a country, a people, or both.
88 Forgetit87 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 08:51 pm Report abuse
It's like holding a referendum among thieves as to whether the stolen properties should be returned or not.
89 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 08:59 pm Report abuse
@ 77 Doveoverdover

“How did that become the unqualified 'People should be able to decide their own future.'?”

try reading the official UN statement:

“Nonetheless, 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remain on the UN list.
It is essential for the people concerned to understand the options regarding their political status and to be able to exercise their right to freely choose their future.”
90 stick up your junta (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:00 pm Report abuse
Yes the boy from Brazil giving advice on honesty
Dozens of Rio policemen held over drug lords' bribes
91 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:05 pm Report abuse
(86) St.John

You say:
“The government of Buenos Aires did sign a treaty in 1849, and ratified it on 15 May 1850, in which they confirmed that there were no territorial disputes between Britain and Buenos Aires.”

I say:
Would you show me where it says that on the REAL treaty?:

Please show me or you can rende mig et vis “Perfect Friend”
92 Captain Poppy (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:07 pm Report abuse
All through history, argentina accepts the Falklands as the UK through treaties and such. Then some actress whore that fucked her way to politics comes along and the Falklands were stolen. Listen should learn never to forward a whore.
93 Anbar (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:18 pm Report abuse
“”“”“”“”“”70 Doveoverdover

Your mask is slipping, old chap.

''like minded non-Anglos'' ?? For heaven's sake.“”“”“””

Indeed, poor Old Dover in his HMS Sock-Puppet keeps getting leakier and leakier doesnt it? ;-0
94 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:26 pm Report abuse
@89 What you quote is not an official UN Statement but simply welcoming remarks (written by Laura Vaccari with close reference to previous similar addresses and most probably approved by a Special Assistant in the SG's Office rather than the man himself). It predates by a number of years the words reportedly spoken by the SG himself and, quite clearly, reading it does not answer the question.
95 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:33 pm Report abuse
@ 91 NoThink you have been shown this at least ten times!

How many times do I need to show you the official Argentine texts to make you understand?

“7° Mediante esta Convención, queda restablecida la perfecta amistad entre el Gobierno de la Confederación y el de S. M. B., á su anterior estado de buena inteligencia y cordialidad.”

Mensaje del Presidente Bartolomé Mitre 1° de Mayo de 1865:
”Arreglados en justicia y equidad, como lo fueron, los reclamos que la actual administración halló pendientes por parte de súbditos de S(u). M(ajestad). B(ritanica). ... no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.“

Mensaje del Vicepresidente Marcos Paz 1° de Mayo de 1866:
”El Gobierno de S(u). M(ajestad). B(ritanica). ... sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.“ (Heraclio Mabragaña, ”Los Mensajes 1810-1910“, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, pag. 235ff.

Mensaje del Presidente Domingo Sarmientos 1° de Mayo de 1869:
”El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.” (Heraclio Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p. 286)

How many times do I need to show you the official Argentine texts to make you understand?
96 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:41 pm Report abuse
(95) St.John

1) In NONE of all the texts you link are the Malvinas Islands specifically mentioned.

2) What happened with this 1825 treaty of ”Eternal Friendship between the United Kingdom and Argentina”… Huhhh, my ”Perfect Danish Friend.....?
20 years later we were attacked by Great Britain without even a declaration of war!,_Comercio_y_Navegaci%C3%B3n_entre_las_Provincias_Unidas_del_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata_y_Su_Majestad_Brit%C3%A1nica

3) Besides, that 1850 treaty between Argentina and Great Britain was signed under military coercion from the two most powerful nations on Earth against a newborn and weak state in far away South America

Would you have the “Chutzpah” to tell the Sioux Nation today?:
Ermmmm….., sorry but in 1850’s your Big Chief signed a treaty giving us all your land?
Surely you would….!

Would you have the “Chutzpah” to tell the Mandingo Nation today?:
Ermmmm….., sorry but in the 1750’s your King signed a treaty permitting us to hunt you as slaves? Surely you would….!

Would you have the “Chutzpah” to tell the Chinese Nation today?:
Ermmmm….., sorry but in the 1840’s you Emperor signed a treaty giving us permission to fill you up with Opium?
Surely you would….!

As I said before..... Du kan rende mig et vis sted......
97 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:41 pm Report abuse
@ 94 Doveoverdover

“@89 What you quote is not an official UN Statement but simply welcoming remarks (written by Laura Vaccari”

Comple hogwash.


Noumea, New Caledonia, 18 May 2010 - Secretary-General's message to Pacific Regional Seminar on Implementation of the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism [delivered by Laura Vaccari, Chief, Decolonization Unit, UN Department of Political Affairs]”

Ban Ki-moon wasn't present but as can be seen by those who can actually read, it was the SECRETARY GENERAL'S MESSAGE in an official statement, DELIVERED - NOT written - by Laura Vaccari who is the chief of the Decolonization Unit.

STATEMENT - look it up

MESSAGE - look it up

DELIVERED - look it up
98 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:01 pm Report abuse
@97. Ah bless. An innocent has strayed out into the big wide world, void of any worthwhile experience and bereft of any critical faculties. BKM had as much to do with crafting that statement as you did.
99 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:06 pm Report abuse
@ 96 NoThink

”1) In NONE of all the texts you link are the Malvinas Islands specifically mentioned.“

We have been over this umpteen times.

Each time you get the answer, you seem to deliberately forget it.

Of course they were not specifically mentioned.

Where does the treaty specifically mention e.g. Córdoba? Bahia Blanca? Rosario? Mendoza? Santa Fé?

That they aren't mentioned in the treaty means what?

Does it mean that those provinces/towns have been at war with britain since 1845 - and still are?

There was no reason to mention the Falkland Islands - or for that matter the rest of of the world - given the wording of treaty and of the opening speeches at the official opening of congress on 1 May - the 'State of the Nation' speeches.

Can't you read castellano?

”la perfecta amistad“ + ”las relaciones amistosas que existen“ + ”perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845 ... esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste“ + ”Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas“ = no conflict, no dispute over the Falkland Islands.

”2) What happened with this 1825 treaty of ”Eternal Friendship between the United Kingdom and Argentina”“

NOT Argentina, which did NOT exist in 1825, but Estado Buenos Aires. How many treaties have been broken how many times?

”3) Besides, that 1850 treaty between Argentina and Great Britain was signed under military coercion from the two most powerful nations on Earth ...”

You are alone in this assesment - almost every historian who has written about it concludes that Rosas deliberately stalled on the negatiations, because the British and the French government were under an enormous pressure to finish the war for commercial reasons.
100 HansNiesund (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:09 pm Report abuse

Curious, then, that it chimes exactly with what he himself told Tiempo Argentino. In person. Or are you going to tell us now that wasn't him, it was his stunt double? Or heaven forbid, a sock puppet?
101 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:11 pm Report abuse
@ 98 Doveoverdover

I bloody well don't believe my own eyes.

Of course Ban Ki-moon hasn't been sitting at the computer writing the text. A speech writer has written it per instructions and afterwards a score of lawyers have pored over them.

But in the end it is the official STATEMENT of the Secretary General - or can we trust your interpretation better than the UN?

As HansNiesund clarifies in #100: S.G. Ban said so himself in an interview in an Argentine newspaper.
102 Terence Hill (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:40 pm Report abuse
91 Think
Your correct, the treaty doesn't explicitly mention territory it states:

1850 Convention of Settlement

CONVENTION between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship (1850)

The treaty to be correctly interpreted should measured according to intertemporal law i.e.

...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...

The Acquisition of Territory in International Law. By Robert Yewdall Jennings © 1963 jurist of INJ

Thus this applies:


…The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the war, and to abolish the subject matter of it.
It is an agreement to waive all discussion concerning the respective rights and claims of the parties, and to bury in oblivion the original causes of the war.…


14. The treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it found it, unless there be some express stipulation to the contrary.
The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty.
If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question …

resident minister from the United States in America the court of Berlin; member of the philosphical society of Phillidelphia; of the Royal Asiatic Society of London; and of the Scandianavion Litery Society of Copenhagen

103 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:51 pm Report abuse
(99) St.John

I can “read Castellano” tusinde gange bedre end dig, din kæmpe fjols.....

“Argentina did not exist in 1825.... but Estado Buenos Aires”.
Estado Buenos Aires???.... ESTADO BUENOS AIRES!!!
What the heck are you talking about you ignorant jysk trampedanser!

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland did not exist in 1825 either.........

What a Turnip
104 Islander1 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:57 pm Report abuse
Think - not into fluffy penguins myself but some 50 crew came ashore and were shopping in the gift shops this morning.
Ushuaia - their choice - the folks in Punta Arenas or Puerto Williams would be happy to oblige if they get they chance I am sure.
We all know the comments of the Tourism Traders in Ushuaia last year - and those of the Governot of Chubut on behalf of his Tourism Industry. Wonder what they are this summer?

Still waiting your response to learn when and how does a peopl qualify as a people?
How did all the millions of people in Argentina of European descent manage to qualify? - Was it after they forced the native indigenous population off their ancestral lands?
105 Terence Hill (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:06 pm Report abuse
96 Think
The islands do not have to be specifically mentioned under the rules of international law to be included in a treaty as Wheaton correctly states. Even if the UK wasn't simply evicting trespassers, their action was perfectly legal under other nineteenth century legal doctrines.
There does not have to been a declaration war. As this international legal expert shows


....Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, “a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.

General theory of law and state by Hans Kelsen : translated by Anders Wedberg. p. cm. Originally published: Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1945

Hans Kelsen,  (born Oct. 11, 1881, Prague, Bohemia, Austria-Hungary [now in Czech Republic]—died April 20, 1973, Berkeley, Calif., U.S.), Austrian-American legal philosopher, teacher, jurist, and writer on international law, who formulated a kind of positivism known as the “pure theory” of law.
Kelsen was a professor at Vienna, Cologne, Geneva, and the German university in Prague. He wrote the Austrian constitution adopted in 1920 and served as a judge of the Austrian Supreme Constitutional Court (1920–30). After
106 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:14 pm Report abuse
(104) Islander1

You ALWAYS have to exaggerate, dont you?
“Some 50 crew”, you say......
It was more like “”some 5 crew” wasn't it?
107 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:21 pm Report abuse
@ 103 Think? - I doubt it, more likely un nabo (castellano).

Tell us what
La segunda batalla de Cepeda (1859)
Batalla de Pavón (1861)
was about.
108 Lord Ton (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:21 pm Report abuse
Think - Rosas got everything he asked for in 1849 so don't give me this 'victim' crap. Some members of the British Parliament were expecting Rosas to demand the Falklands ... but he never mentioned them. You need to do some more research my friend.

Page 123 onwards -
109 Forgetit87 (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:21 pm Report abuse
@90 stick up your junta

Tell again how your story proves I can't criticize someone else's dishonesty? I'm responsible for Rio's police misconduct why exactly? That I share nationality with them, proves I'm responsible for them, is that it? Get off my ass already, you weirdo. Your copy-and-paste posts are pointless; all they show is that you're obsessed with me.
110 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:33 pm Report abuse
(108) Mr. Lorton

Up early today ..... Huhhhhh?

Suuuure ..............
“Some members of the British Parliament were expecting Rosas to demand the Falklands” ......
“Rosas got everything he asked for in 1849”...........

Next what?

Rosas attacked Great Britain in 1846?
Rosas had huge amounts of WMD's?
Rosas ate your hamster?
111 St.John (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:38 pm Report abuse
Very, very brief summary of the history of the area, which became Argentina in 1861:

01. War between 'El Director supremo de las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata' and 'La Unión de los Pueblos Libres' (1814-1820)
02. 1st Battle of Cepeda (1820)
03. Conflicts with La Rioja leader Facundo Quiroga (1826-1835)
04. 'El Pacto Federal's war against 'Ligas Unitarias' (1831)
05. Revolution of 'Los Restauradores' against Buenos Aires Governor Juan Ramón Balcarce (1833)
06. Conflicts with La Rioja leader Ángel Vicente Peñaloza (1835-1845 + 1860-1863)
07. Los 'Libres del Sur's revolt, quelled at the battle of Chascomús 7 November 1839
08. Pedro Ferré's Corrientes revolt (1839-1842)
09. Rosa's war against the La 'Coalición del Norte' (1840-1841)
10. Revolt by Juan Lavalle against Juan Manuel de Rosas (1841)
11. Defeat of Unitarios's forces in Corrientes (1841)
12. The brothers Joaquín and Juan Madariaga's Corrientes revolt (1843-1847)
13. Battle de la Vuelta de Obligado (20 November 1845)
14. Entre Ríos leader Justo José de Urquiza's break with Rosas (1851)
15. Battle Batalla de Caseros (3 February 1852)
16. Revolution of 11 September 1852, creating the State of Buenos Aires
17. Siege of Buenos Aires (1853)
18. La segunda batalla de Cepeda (1859)
19. Batalla de Pavón (1861) - Argentina finally came into existence.

Argentine sources show a total of 415 civil war battles in the years 1814-1880.
112 Think (#) Dec 08th, 2012 - 11:44 pm Report abuse
(107) St.John

Tell us what
Fuadach nan Gàidheal
Gorta Mór
Na Trioblóidí

What the heck do you want to prove with your stupid references to Argentina's internal struggles in centuries past?
Didn't Britain had them?
Didn't Europe had them?
Thousand times worst than ours?
113 St.John (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 12:04 am Report abuse

Tell us what
La segunda batalla de Cepeda (1859)
Batalla de Pavón (1861)
was about.
114 ljordao (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 12:04 am Report abuse

Of course, you can criticise someone else's dishonesty, and you are not responsible for the misconduct of Rio's policemen. But calling Falkland Islanders thieves is an instance either of idiocy (if you do believe your words) or of dishonesty (if you don't). The true history of their homeland is easily available on the internet, and all freedom-loving people who know it support their desire for self-determination. Therefore, it is not creepy to show a certain level of contempt towards you.
115 Think (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 12:07 am Report abuse

Tell us what
Fuadach nan Gàidheal
Gorta Mór
Na Trioblóidí
was about.
116 St.John (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 12:29 am Report abuse

I asked you a question, which you tried to avoid by asking another.

If you don't ask this one, I will ignore you in the future because of your being dishonest.

Tell us what
La segunda batalla de Cepeda (1859)
Batalla de Pavón (1861)
was about.
117 dab14763 (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:02 am Report abuse
The UK has never tried to persuade the world the Falklands are indigenous. Nor is being indigenous a requirement for self-determination.

The UK has never said Falkland Islanders are a people because of their resources. It was the UN that determined the resources of the territories belonged to the territories and not to the metropolitan state.

They are a people. They are not English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish, or any other British nationality. Nor any other nationality on the planet, except Falkland Islanders.


What’s that supposed to mean? That any nation that can’t provide for its own defence in case of external threat is not a people?
language is not a requirement
education: Adapted to local circumstances
common law: The Falklands operates a Common Law system as do the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, rather than a Civil Law system. It has been making its own laws since 1845 when the Legislative Council was first set up.
culture: The Falklands have their own culture distinct from that of other British nations
Personal aspiration: Falkland Islanders do consider themselves distinct from other British peoples
religion is not a requirement
history: Yes. The Falklands has its own history
Openness to like minded non anglos:
Are you refering to the Germans, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, French, Italians, Portuguese, Uruguayans, Argentines, Chileans, etc who settled in the Falklands in the 19th and early 20th centuries and whose descendants are Falkland Islanders?
The people of many nationalities who have settled in the Falklands since 1982, and whose descendants are Falkland Islanders?

”3) Besides, that 1850 treaty between Argentina and Great Britain was signed under military coercion from the two most powerful nations on Earth against a newborn and weak state in far away South America”

Now, that is extremely funny considering:
A Argentina drafted the Treaty.
B Everything in it favours Argentina.
118 Lord Ton (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:24 am Report abuse
Think - nah ..... Rosas retired to be a Gentleman farmer ........ in England!
119 Think (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:32 am Report abuse
(116) St.John

Please ignore me in the future.....
My time is to valuable to spill on ignorant Danish turnips....

(117) dab14763

Jupppp, that is extremely funny indeed considering that the French and the British Empires did their best to destroy, politically and economically, the nascent Argentinean Nation for nearly 12 years.

And suddenly, some 170 years after, I have to sit here and hear from an English EFL teacher that Argentina was “Favoured” got everything it wanted......

Nice fantasies you Brits learn at school......

What's next?

The Zulus had it coming because the atacked London with WMD's?
120 Zhivago (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:39 am Report abuse
I think the bottom line here is outside of Mercosur, who really cares what Mercosur thinks about anything?
121 Lord Ton (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:49 am Report abuse
And of course - in 2008 the UK won an Amendment Think -

“The omnibus text achieved consensus only after an amendment to its second operative paragraph was adopted by a recorded vote of 61 in favour to 40 against, with 47 abstentions. ........ The amendment, which struck the qualifying phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” from that operative paragraph, had been tabled by the United Kingdom, which argued today, as it had last week, that, not only was the new language inapplicable to the 11 Territories targeted in the resolution, but that it introduced conditions that could have unexplored ramifications. As action was taken, delegations were clearly split between those that supported the text, which had been approved by consensus in the Special Committee in June, and those that did not.”

Now, using Argentina's convoluted thinking, that would mean that sovereignty disputes are not relevant to the exercise of the right of self-determination :-)

But then we already knew that, didn't we.

Still, I'm as good as my word Think
122 Islander1 (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:51 am Report abuse
Think- oops- my rush with the keys again!- have apologised many times on here for my lack of computer skills when it comes to spelling - this time I clearly hit a “o” button in error! I will try better Sir!
Still a draw though anyway as getting a Falkland Islands entry logged in the ship,s papers was just as important as the folks actually being able to come ashore, given the fuss your side is trying to make over what cruise line can dare to travel to where.

Still waiting for your explanation of when a people become entitled to be a people please?
123 Lord Ton (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 02:03 am Report abuse
To be fair to Think, Islander, your question was debated by the UN in 1952. They concluded it was best left in the “too hard to handle” box.

But they did manage this -

December 16th, United Nations Resolution 637 (VII) A states inter alia;

“Whereas the right of peoples and nations to self-determination is a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights... The general Assembly recommends that; 1. The States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations;
2. The States Members of the United Nations shall recognize and promote the realization of the right of self-determination of the peoples of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories … and shall facilitate the exercise of this right by the peoples of such Territories … and to the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned, the wishes being ascertained through plebiscites or other recognised democratic means, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations;...”
124 Terence Hill (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 05:02 am Report abuse
91 Think
Continuing 102 Terence Hill

immigrating to the United States in 1940, he taught at Harvard, the University of California at Berkeley, and the Naval War College, Newport, R.I.
Kelsen’s “pure theory” was first presented in Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre (1911; “Chief Problems of the Doctrine of International Law”). He considered that a theory of law should validate and give order to law itself. By “pure” he meant that a theory of law should be logically self-supporting and should not depend on extralegal values. Fundamental to a system of law is some assumption (Grundnorm) that is accepted by a substantial proportion of the community. Kelsen nevertheless admitted the relevance of sociology and ethics to the lawmaking process and to the content of laws.
Among Kelsen’s later books are General Theory of Law and State (1945) and The Law of the United Nations (1950–51). In such works as Principles of International Law (1952) he envisioned a world unity under law superimposed on the legal order within each nation.


2.2 Conquest

The second method is conquest, or 'subjugation'. Until some point in the first half of this century, it used to be possible to obtain good title in international law by conquest. 5 We have already mentioned, under the doctrine of the inter-temporal law, that acquisitions of territory by conquest during earlier periods constituted good title which remain valid, although today such acquisitions would be impossible, since a purported conquest would be in breach of the UN Charter. In the days when conquest could give a good title, this would only occur when the war was over and the subjugation of the territory complete. However, frequently the conquest of a territory was concluded by a treaty with the defeated power, and the acquisition thus took place by cession.

5. If acquisition of a territory by conquest had not already ceased to be legal at an earlier date. It became so
with ihe establishment of the United Nations and the
125 stick up your junta (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 08:36 am Report abuse
(116) St.John

Please ignore me in the future.....
My time is to valuable to spill on ignorant Danish turnips....

Way to go Think, I will see if I can get your name put on the list

8 Famous Debaters Every Law Student Should Study
126 Think (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 09:56 am Report abuse
(123) Lord Ton

You say (quite correctly):
“To be fair to Think, Islander, your question (about what constitutes a ”People”) was debated by the UN in 1952. They concluded it was best left in the “too hard to handle” box.“

I say:
But the question of what constitutes a ”People” becomes much easier when one asks...:
What does NOT constitute a “People”?
A bunch of British Squatters in some South Atlantic Islands, only serving the political and economical interests of their British Mother-Country in the North, most certainly do NOT constitute a “People”.

Not even if more than 65% of those Squatters suddenly declare ”feeling more Kelper” than British...... even when less than 35% of them are actually born in them Islands.....

What a pathetic bunch of opportunistic British Squatters they are....

And, adding insult to injury them Squatters send their British born, French Winter Residents, Colonial Representatives to the UN to play the card of an “Innocent Oppressed Indigenous People”, maliciously and unjustly afflicted by their“Big & Nasty neighbor, Argentina”.

I'll repeat it once again….:
Them British Squatters most certainly do NOT constitute a “People.”
The rest is irrelevant...
Get used to it...
127 HansNiesund (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 10:04 am Report abuse
@126 HarryCorbett

Have you told the UN?

When do you plan to start clamouring for the Islands removal from the list of Non Self-Governing territories?
128 Raven (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 10:10 am Report abuse
@126 Think

Where are these squatters you mentioned?

They can't be on the Falkland Islands. Argentina has, as has been shown numerous times, not ''claimed'' them in many examples.

Your argument from there onwards is severely compromised.

If the Argentine government were so sure about their ''rights'' to the Islands, they should use their legal skills in the ICJ to prove the claim.
129 Clyde15 (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 10:17 am Report abuse
Huff, puff. rant,rave the end of the day they will still be there giving you a friendly two fingered salute....GET USED TO IT !
130 shb (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 10:28 am Report abuse

My oh my - aren't we becoming a little bitter and twisted.

The only squatters on the Flaklands were the garrison placed on the islands by the United Provinces, and subsequently removed by the RN in 1833, after fair warning and protest.

Actaully, I can “think” of some more squatters - they set up shop in 1982 and tried to evict the actual homeowners. Luckily the baliffs arrived and removed them...........

Argentina and mercosur can pass as many resolutions as it likes.

If the Falklanders don't want to belong to Argentina, it isn't happening.

They are making it known to the world that this is the case.
131 reality check (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 10:46 am Report abuse
Mercosur, can pass, push or shit as many resolutions as they like. They mean nothing to the Falkland Islands. The result of the Self Determination referendum will be recognised by the UN, Banki Moon has already said as much.

So that's that, accept it and move on. (Oh look! a pig just flew by my window!)
132 lsolde (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 11:30 am Report abuse
Oh Thinky, dahling, you ARE so getting so bitter & twisted!
No need, Thinky mate, no need.
You don't own the Falklands,
You have NEVER owned the Falklands & you NEVER WILL.
Please don't do anything silly, l know that its hard for you, but try.
l'd invite you here for coffee & cakes(& some vodka, to drown your sorrows)but Mr P wouldn't let me.
Please, just for little me, go out to the movies or something.
Or jump off a cliff & take that cretin Dod with you, Poltroons, the both of you.
133 Think (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 11:55 am Report abuse
(132) Isolde
Evidently, the “calm” days 13-15 of your cycle are over......
You revert again to be that little haughty insulting British Squatterette we all know so well....

Have a nice Sunday.
134 GeoffWard2 (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 11:56 am Report abuse
Forgetit87 (#88)
“ It's like holding a referendum among thieves as to whether the stolen properties should be returned or not.”

Or, Forgetit, is it more like asking Brasil if it would like to be returned to Portugal?
135 lsolde (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 12:20 pm Report abuse
@133 Think,
You seem to take an unhealthy interest in women's business.
A pervert perhaps? Are you marking off a calendar also?
Who are you to label anyone haughty?
Your whole attitude is haughty.
And insulting. Calling us squatters when you in fact ARE a squatter.
What a hypocrite.
l always have a nice sunday.
Sunday roast with baked spuds, peas, carrots, yorkshire pud & thick gravy.
136 reality check (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 12:23 pm Report abuse

Who asked yor opinion, this as FA to do with Brazil or anyone else other than the parties involved, vis a vis and in order of importance, Falkland Islands, Britian and Argentina. So take your Brazilian opinions and shove them you know where!
137 Think (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:07 pm Report abuse
(135) Isolde

Always knew you are a woman who knows her place .....;-)

“ The Whole Duty of a Woman” (Anno 1695):
Make a good batter as for pancakes; put in a hot toss-pan over the fire with a bit of butter to fry the bottom a little then put the pan and butter under a shoulder of mutton, instead of a dripping pan, keeping frequently shaking it by the handle and it will be light and savoury, and fit to take up when your mutton is enough; then turn it in a dish and serve it hot............

138 Lord Ton (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:17 pm Report abuse
Sounds like you are losing it a bit there Think.

It doesn't matter what defeinition of 'peoples' that you come up with. It doesn't matter much what the 'advisory' UN GA do either.

The reality is that the British Government say that the Falklanders are a people. And are prepared to back it up.

Reality - ain't it refreshing ?? :-))
139 Think (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:28 pm Report abuse
(138) Mr Lorton

I would rather have a helping of chère Isolde's Yorkshire pudding (more gravy, thanks) than any of your refreshing “British” reality.....
140 Lord Ton (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 01:56 pm Report abuse
I'm sure that you would ..... fantasy pudding :-)
141 neutral_observer (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 02:03 pm Report abuse
How do those political hacks of Mercosur reconcile their leftist obsession with obliterating colonialism with their refusal to recognize the rights of a geographically and culturally separate people to self-determination?

Or reconcile it with their failure to even give lip service to a concern about the French occupation of a big chunk of mainland South American territory the damned usurpers call French Guyana?

Oh, right, I forgot. They are all hacks, ideologues and hypocrites. Of course they act that way. It's their nature. And it's the reason all their countries are largely struggling, backward, miserable third world s**t holes and likely will remain so until they wake the f**k up.
142 Raven (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 03:16 pm Report abuse
The more I think about it, the more the Argentine Gvt. and their leader seem more like characters from The Hitch Hiker's Guide to The Galaxy.

Zaphod Beeblebrox. A two headed being with three arms. Vain and lacking in brain power, as the usual thought to cross him mind is ''am I cool or what!''
That must be CFK. Two faced, and lacking intelligence beyond vanity.

The Vogons. Not actually evil, but bad tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous.
The Argentine Gvt. as a whole.

The Golgafrinchams. Arrived in their 'B Ark' and settled another land, displacing the native population that was there before. Also had a strange attitude toward fiscal policy by adopting the leaf as legal tender, thereby running into a rampaging inflationary problem, which has led to 3 major deciduous forest buying one ships' peanut.
I'll let you guess that one.

I'll take suggestions for Marvin the paranoid android, Ford Prefect, Arthur Dent and Trillian. :)
143 ChrisR (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 03:46 pm Report abuse
142 Raven

Arthur Dent aka Putrid Jelly aka Arturo
144 Conqueror (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 04:23 pm Report abuse
@68 5p. It was going to be be upwards of £2,000 until the passengers realised that they were being forced to go to argieland and demanded a refund. What's it to you?
@69 “Not a People……” Says who? Insignificant you? Small tip. Argieland - 41,281,631. UK - 62,262,000. Democracy. You may have heard of it.
@70 None of your business!
@88 You're quite right! We should take all the “people” in South America that speak Portuguese and Spanish as their “native” and “official” languages and move them somewhere more appropriate. The middle of the South Atlantic!
@91 Why? Can you not read? Or is it comprehension you have a problem with?
@98 Because you were there? You fake.
@103 And so you evade.
@110 And again.
@112 English slipping under pressure?
@115 Evasion.
@119 As you wish. Please note that everybody. Twinky wants to be ignored. Let us all remember that. Nothing he says is of any worth anyway. Try to hold back the urge to demonstrate what a twat he is. Should I say “he”? It might be a transsexual. To assist him, everybody should drop a line to MercoPress recommending that his wishes are complied with and his access removed. Wouldn't want any backsliding, would we?
145 cornelius (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 04:34 pm Report abuse
who care about thease mercocrap idiots!
146 briton (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 07:37 pm Report abuse
Meanwhile back on blogland

Mercosur summit,

They can do nothing,
So why argue technicalities of over 150 years ago, when they would listen anyway.

Argentina has claims to the whole world, via argentine logic,
So why entertain fools logic,
They will remain British until the islanders deem otherwise,
Full stop, end of, finite, terminus, ect ect
147 puerto argentino (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 09:20 pm Report abuse
Argentina is waiting for over 150 years that the pirates we returned Islands, From 1965/2065, so 47/48 years ago Argentina is waiting we sit downwith the Pirates to negotiate and return the islands to their rightful owners, who are that do not comply with the international resolutions, who took by force and expelled s Argentinen population in 1833, It was Argentina, It is not, wrong, Briton, Understood, Full stop, end finito, terminous , stop with your lies and brainwashing!!!!
148 slattzzz (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 09:27 pm Report abuse
@147 what a load of crap do you wear a turtle neck jumper and have a centre parting to make you look like a penis, or does it come naturally
149 Pete Bog (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 09:28 pm Report abuse
“I'll take suggestions for Marvin the paranoid android”


Though it could be said that the massive frogstar robot tank boasting to Marvin about its weaponry, then shooting out the floors beneath to plunge to its destruction is uncannily similar to the present Argentine government.

This leaves me with a problem, in this scenario Marvin would be the UN and not Timmidman, though being such a miserble barsteward after a completely succesful charisma bypass operation,Timmidman looks like I would imagine Marvin to be.
And his statements are, let's face it, robotic.

Though I am being unfair. Marvin has more intelligence than Timmidman.

You must decide, is Timmidman Marvin the paranoid android?
150 slattzzz (#) Dec 09th, 2012 - 09:37 pm Report abuse
@149 a wart has more intelligenge than timidman
151 briton (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 12:29 am Report abuse
147 puerto argentino
if argentina belongs to you

we are waiting for your version.
152 shb (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 12:32 am Report abuse
@147 - Try looking at history again. The only pirates in the Falklands were Vernots' lot - thats why the USN attacked the colony. Those pirates did indeed hand the islands over to their rightful owners - Great Britain.

Now the Falklanders are the rightful owners.
153 Islander1 (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 01:57 am Report abuse
Think 126 - so folks like me and others who have been living peacefully (all bar 7 weeks in 82) in these Islands for 170-180 - and in some cases over 180years and 8 or 9 generations have NO RIGHTS and no way do we constitute a people?
What makes us different from Argentinians of European descent of many generations born in Argentina- whose ancestors 160 years ago actually even spent some time exterminating the then natural population so the “new Argentines” could occupy and farm their ancestral lands?
Do please answer this one?
154 Lord Ton (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 03:04 am Report abuse
#47 What international obligations ??

What pirates ?? Do you actually know any history at all ??

2065 is dead by the way - murdered by Argentina in 1982
155 KFC de Pollo (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 04:40 am Report abuse
@153 there is no difference, the problem is the malvanistas won't open their eyes to see this!
156 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 07:29 am Report abuse
133 Think

Yet again, the evasion tactic, You seem to be more at home discussing “Ladies” health and Yorkshire puddings than discussing international politics......

Nice to know you've found your level.
157 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 08:59 am Report abuse
@153 Let me offer you an answer. A People have a distinct social hierarchy with inbuilt controls, a belief system, a shared history, shared physical characteristics and a shared language. They recognise themselves as a People but equally importantly are separate enough to be recognisable to outsiders as a People.

The Falkland Islands has no priests, guardians, governors or judges other those provided from the UK. They are a subset of the British People residing on British territory.
158 HansNiesund (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 09:25 am Report abuse

It seems that the only box the islanders don't tick in your typically Argentine-friendly assessment scheme, is the one concerning their links the UK.

So presumably this means full independence would instantly make them a People? And does this also mean that the Scots aren't a people? The Welsh? Puerto Ricans? Hawaiians?
159 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 09:39 am Report abuse

Distinct is the key word but it seems you ignored that in your counter analysis.

Independence would force this newly formed nation state to find it's own priests, guardians, governors and judges.

The others you mention are People by anyone's standard.
160 HansNiesund (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:24 am Report abuse

What's with this emphasis on priests? That's an unusual point of view for a Brit, to say the least. Indeed, it's the first I ever heard anybody maintain that the provenance of priests was a determining factor in British identity. I thought we more or less put a stop to that kind of thing back with Henry VIII?

The role of governors in constitutional arrangements between the UK and its former colonies and dominions has been aired often enough here, I'm surprised it hasn't penetrated.

And the question of guardians of course, is only germane due to the malign intent of the 1930's re-enactement society across the water. Or are you maintaining that a group which is threatened by a much larger one close by cannot be a People? Some sort of Might is Right kind of thing?

And judges? What difference does the birthplace of a judge make to anything?

The others I mentioned are indeed People by anyone's standard. But apparently not yours. Priests and all.
161 lsolde (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:37 am Report abuse
@153 lslander1,
l knew that Think wouldn't answer you.
He never does when he gets backed into a corner & confronted.
Or the slimy snake will change the subject or revert to name-calling & insults.
You must have noticed his liking for the word “squatter/s”
The great irony is that he himself is a Squatter on Amerindian land.
Of course the Argentines actually killed the real owners of the land that they squat on.
But anyway, you received an answer of sorts from his boyfriend, so you'll just have to be content with that.
lt would be interesting to see a DNA comparison between the UK populations & the Falkland populations.
Similar, but not exactly the same.
For example, l would think that the Falklands would show quite a bit more Gaucho blood than in Britain.
(descendants of the “expelled” population, perhaps)?
So definitely a people in the Falklands.
But then, who cares? the Falklands & her people have got nothing to do with Argentina, & again, who cares what they think?
162 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:51 am Report abuse
@160. So, no counter analysis at all then. No recourse to authoritative political or sociological norms and certainly no original thought in your contribution. That's the end of that exchange.

@161. Revert to name calling and insults why don't you. You must have been backed into a corner and confronted when faced with a challenge to your convenient self-deluding myths. Your remarkable assertion about DNA is so flawed as to be unbelievable, so no People other than us Brits.
163 Monty69 (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:55 am Report abuse
157 Doveoverdover

'A belief system'?? What does that mean? And what is the 'belief system' of the UK? Or Argentina? Are we talking about religion? Surely not. Anyway, Falkland Islanders have a very unique belief system. You just don't happen to know what it is.

'shared physical characteristics'??? Spare us the racial argument. How exactly does this apply to all those other nations of immigrants? Or the uk for that matter? Are you really saying we are too white to have the right to determine our own future? How about all those St Helenians and Chileans? Does the unique ethnic mix of the islands make us more or less capable of determining our future? Do we need, in your view, to wait a few more generations until we develop our own unique skin colour? Nice.

A 'shared history' and a 'social hierarchy'? Ditto, really; we are not responsible for your ignorance. There are many publications out there about Falkland Islands history. The fact that you haven't read them doesn't mean there is no history. Even recent immigrants soon learn skills, words and stories that have been 200 years in the making and are unique to here. The social hierarchy is obvious to everyone who lives here as well; there is no need for us to round with it stamped on our foreheads.

All this is missing the point anyway. The point is not whether we are distinct from the UK, (which very wisely treats all its OTs the same, whatever their 'physical characteristics'), but whether we are distinct from Argentina, which we undoubtedly are.
164 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:02 am Report abuse
@163 All of which is missing the point: what constitutes a People as as opposed to a population. If you can't get your head around the difference, don't blame me.
165 HansNiesund (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:10 am Report abuse

Oh dear. Has my question offended you? Perhaps if I try again, nicely, nicely this time?

Would you please explain why you think the provenance of priests is such an important element in determining whether a people is a People?

Perhaps there is some Catholic doctrine in the matter of of which I am unaware?
166 Cloudwarrior (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:40 am Report abuse
Could someone please find me the part of the UN Charter stipulates a limit to self determination.

According to some people they may not be distinctive enough from the rest of the UK to be considered different enough to be given the protection of self determination to preserve their differences.

However if they were part of Argentina, then their distinctiveness and difference to the rest of Argentina would supposedly be enough for them to be considered a different People.

Within the UK they are people.

Within Argentina they would be a People.

So as part of the UK they don't have the right to independence but as part of Argentina they would.

Seems like some of you guys just kicked an own-goal.
167 andy65 (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:45 am Report abuse
@puerto argentino My friend you decend from Spanish Pirates You are European Immagrants why are you so ashamed of your history WHY DO YOU SPEAK SPANISH YOU FOOL?????
168 Monty69 (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:45 am Report abuse
164 Doveoverdover
I am blaming you. I asked you what the difference is, and you came back with an explanation that doesn't apply to the Falkland Islanders. In fact, I'd be very surprised if it applied to anybody.
The distinction between a 'people' and a 'population' is a construct entirely made up by the Argentines to support their argument, because they haven't got anything else. The UN doesn't define a 'people' in racial, physical, ethnic or linguistic terms, because most political entities in the world cannot be characterised in this way. And that includes the UK and Argentina.
I asked you a very simple question; what, in your opinion, defines either Argentina or the UK as a people and not merely a population?
169 GeoffWard2 (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:52 am Report abuse
Dove. & Hans,
I'm glad you took up the challenge of defining what constitutes a people/People.
I am exercised by the latter postings that looks for coherence in society.

England tried 'multiculturalism' in the Blair years; what it got was factionalism (if not 'ghettoism' in areas like east Bradford).
How to get coherence when (sub)societies within the nation-state are so water-tight and introspective! They become many 'peoples' within a 'People'.
Only serious interbreeding can conflate the two (though, sadly, 'erradication' can move a country towards a People).

Some countries are defined by their people-diversity; the USA and the UK are cases in point, Brasil much less so - but only because of a few centuries of cross-racial inter-breeding.
I have no doubt that British interbreeding has been as great but less observably so as it has been largely within the various Caucasian sub-groups.

The religious dimension you debate adds an interesting perspective.
In Brasil, Candomble (= voodo) embraces much Catholicism, and Evengelicism no less. A tendency towards 'inclusion'... or limited separation.
In England (in particular), christianity - once more - finds no point of contact with the new Muslim faiths and factions.
In Ireland, Christianity itself is fundimentally riven. There is no doubt, however, that the Irish consider themselves a People ... viz. St Patrick's Day around the world, and religion being set aside on the international rugby field.
170 HansNiesund (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 02:00 pm Report abuse

Monty's the one who nailed it, I just did a walk-on.

But the religious dimension in this case is indeed a seriously interesting one.

Given that we're not a Catholic country, I don't think anybody in the UK has given two hoots about the appointment of priests since about the 17th century, certainly not at any political level.

It's not been quite the same in Latin America, of course, where the appointment of priests has been a matter of some historic significance. Indeed the expulsion of the Jesuits by King Charles III in 1767, in an effort to maintain metropolitan control over the colonial church, is considered one of the precursors to Latin American independence from Spain, given the local outrage it caused.

So hats off to Dove. I'm seriously impressed that a hot potato of Latin American colonial times should be one of the first things to pop into the mind of a retired British naval officer living in Dover, when considering the question of whether the Falkland Islanders might be considered a People or not.
171 dab14763 (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 02:24 pm Report abuse

a distinct social hierarchy with inbuilt controls: They have
a belief system, No. A people can have many belief systems.
a shared history: They have.
shared physical characteristics. If by this you mean race, NO. A people can be multiracial.
a shared language. They have. There is no requirement for them to have a language that is not spoken elsewhere. The Falklands has its own variety of English in terms of accent and vocabulary.

no priests: There are several religions present on the Falklands. How do you know that none of them have Falkland Islanders as their main preachers?
no guardians: Falkland Islands Defence Force
no governors: Legislative Assembly. Executive Council. If a people can't be a people because a part of the government is provided externally, then the Andorrans are not a people.
no Judges: The Falklands have a jury system made up of Falkland Islanders.
172 Simon68 (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 02:45 pm Report abuse
With reference to the people/People controversy iniciated by my compatriot Doveoverdover the Argentine Royal Navy chap!!!!!

Almost all anthropologists agree that the fastest changing indicator of a isolated population is its language, which leads us to the experiment of asking members of the metropolitan population if they understand the modified language of the target population.
This experiment could be run quite easily by asking a group of Brits if they can easily understand such words as:

1) Alizan
2) Colorao
3) Negro
4) Gatiao
5) Bastos
5) Cinch
6) Cojinilla

I'm sure that these and the other Angilcized Spanish words used by the Islanders show that the Falklands language is moving away from Metropolitan British English fast enough to be a seperate language, in the same way that Australian and New Zealand English has changed to such an extent that those Peoples are recognized a seperate from the UK British.
173 malen (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 05:31 pm Report abuse
Argentina was a People (and still is) just simply because we killed the viceroy and the spanish troops to stop subjugation on our territory.We ended every every link with Spain.
And we were mixed so much with the natives, that we surpassed the spaniards conqueror in very very high numbers, so we became different from those europeans that invaded us.
Immigration came later. Its another matter.
174 Think (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 06:28 pm Report abuse
(153) Islander1

As individual human beings, the British population presently squatting on the Malvinas Islands are entitled to all the individual human rights consecrated by the UN…….

But you DO NOT, by any means, constitute a ”People” and are NOT entitled to a “Peoples” rights.

You asks what makes you so different from ”Real Nations” and ”Real Peoples”……
Many good reasons have been mentioned below by Mr. McDod, the front half of the Argentinean pantomime horse…..

In myhumble, back half opinion, the paramount differences are that:

Not any Nation or People I’m aware of, prides themselves and strives so intensely to maximize the control and profits of their Antipodean Mother-Country over a huge extension of Territory, as the British Squatters in Malvinas do….

Not any Nation or People I’m aware of thrives on antagonizing their whole neighbor Continent (under the British Nuclear Umbrella) in order to satisfy their resource hungry antipodean Mother-Country as the British Squatters in Malvinas do….

Not any Nation or People I’m aware of would dream of doing such things……............... But a certain Colonial remnant in the South-Atlantic, inhabited by British Squatters ……

Besides..... In my personal experience, any little hamlet in the West Midlands (Black Country) would qualify one thousand times easier as a “Distinct People” under United Nations criteria than the British Squatters in Malvinas ever would……
(157) Mr. McDod
You keep blowing the cover of our pantomime horse’s front half.
First your superior knowledge of British law…...... Shame on You!
Then, your totally Un-British taste for apple pie….... Shame, shame on You!!
And now, your mild religiosity as a faithful member of the Kirk o Scotland….... Shame, shame, shame on You!!!
175 Clyde15 (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 06:56 pm Report abuse
Surely , if the population of Falklanders have lived there for over 10 years -(I think that this is the correct legal time ) - then the land becomes theirs by right. No longer squatters by your definition, but owners.
176 Monty69 (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 08:13 pm Report abuse
174 Think
What a load of old tosh. This has nothing to do with the 'antipodean mother country', whatever that means. The 'mother country' was nowhere in sight in 1982, and neither were any of the natural resources, and you decided to invade anyway. Where was your respect for our human rights then?
We haven't decided to antagonise anybody; you have decided to be antagonised and to whip up hatred over a situation that has changed very little in over 30 years. That's your responsibility, not ours.
And our rights and status do not depend on whether you decide to be upset or not. While we're on the subject, I don't know where you got the idea that the 'whole continent' is antagonised. What a ludicrous notion.

For what it's worth, the UK government weren't that overjoyed when we decided to press ahead with oil exploration; strange but true.

WTF is a 'British Nuclear Umbrella'anyway?
177 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 08:36 pm Report abuse
@176 At last, a post that offers Island based support to the unpalatable but justifiable idea that the UK has lost control of the South Atlantic agenda. First unwanted oil exploration then an unwanted referendum. Time for a wholesale clear out at the FCO and a comprehensive strategy review aimed at bringing you people back on message.

Nuclear Umbrella is a man speak sort of thing but this might help you understand what Think is getting at:
178 Think (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 08:46 pm Report abuse
“Man speak” :-)))
179 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 08:48 pm Report abuse
Was that not patronising enough?
180 Think (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 09:36 pm Report abuse
More than enough.......
Some poor sod will have to pay for that though.....
I fear for Mr. M96...... He is being kept on a low protein diet already….

Anyhow here’s a new“People” deserving “Self-Determination” according to the “criteria” presented to us in many of the above comments….
181 HansNiesund (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:07 pm Report abuse

Pfft. So they speak funny. Who appointed their priests?
182 Joe Bloggs (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:16 pm Report abuse
LOL! So this is where the green giants are. LMFAO! You get funnier and funnier. It seems it's all about the money for you two.

Did you get home on the Sojourn Think? Does anyone at all on here except for Think take you seriously Dove? Ha ha. What a pair of clowns you are.

You've fooled nobody. I guess I'll be hearing from you when you sort out the FCO and get us “back on message”. Boy, it must really hurt you.

Chuckle chuckle.
183 Monkeymagic (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:49 pm Report abuse
Quite extraordinary idiocy from Think.

He can't “think” of any “people's” who are reliant on the military defence of another “people's” because of a bullying neighbour. I can think of plenty of UN recognised countries for which that would be true.

He can't “think” of any “people's” who are politically at odds with most of the remainder of their continent. I can think of a couple straight off (Cuba, Israel) and plenty more historically.

Really he has shown his inability to “think” at all.
184 slattzzz (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:52 pm Report abuse
@182 take dove seriously your having a laugh he's the idiot that says he was in the british armed forces, a bit like pro arg/sussie who now says he/she/it was in the us navy. Think can't and thinks he is clever but if you read it's posts they constantly contradict what its saying. History is a word to them they know what it is but don't know anything about it. Do you also notice they only ever comment on subjects that are open to interpretation and not subjects that categorically prove that rgenweener is in a world of shit
185 Joe Bloggs (#) Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:00 pm Report abuse
184 slatzzz

You got it and so has everybody else it would seem now. The great naval commander and his salty old respected argentine duelling partner. Here together to remind us Bennies that we mustn't get above our station for our own good.

They'll be calling UK hospitals soon.
186 dab14763 (#) Dec 11th, 2012 - 12:03 am Report abuse
Maximise control: Increased self government over the years and will continue to increase.
Maximise profits: Falkland Islanders would import far more from SA rather than the UK if Argentina didn’t whine about it
Antipodean: diametrically opposite: Falklands' antipodes:
huge extension of territory: SG&SS and Antarctica: purely a UK matter. Falkland Islanders have no say in what the UK does there.
Antagonising their whole neighbour continent: not surrendering meekly to Argentina's spurious territorial claims.
Under the British Nuclear Umbrella: Do you two believe seriously believe that?
Resource hungry: Main export partner: Spain.
If you mean the UK is hungry for oil from the South Atlantic, perhaps you'd care to explain why there has never been any hydrocarbon exploration around SG&SS.

Unesco’s description of a people
1. a group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the following common features:
(a) a common historical tradition; yes
(b) racial or ethnic identity; ethnic: yes, Falkland Islander
(c) cultural homogeneity; yes
(d) linguistic unity; yes
(e) religious or ideological affinity; yes, most are Christians
(f) territorial connection; yes
(g) common economic life; yes
2. the group must be of a certain number which need not be large (e.g. the people of micro States) but which must be more than a mere association of individuals within a State;
Smaller populations than FI
Pitcairn Islands 48
Tokelau 1433
Cocos (Keeling) Islands 596
Niue 1444
3. the group as a whole must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people - allowing that groups or some members of such groups, though sharing the foregoing characteristics, may not have that will or consciousness; and possibly;
They have.
4. the group must have institutions or other means of expressing its common characteristics and will for identity.
187 Monty69 (#) Dec 11th, 2012 - 12:39 am Report abuse
178 Think
177 Doveoverdover

'Manspeak'? I don't think so. I've never made the error of thinking men had a monopoly on talking like fools.
188 Pete Bog (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 11:57 pm Report abuse
Obviously not reading matter for the C24 who ignore as many of the UN Charter/resolutions as possible.
189 Shed-time (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 12:24 pm Report abuse
Surely this declaration, is in itself, more than enough reason for the EU to stop trying to forge economic ties with them?

190 Alexei (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 04:25 pm Report abuse
Well nobody saw that one coming. Seriously though, it would be extremely hypocritical if the representatives this particular bunch of countries were to support anybody's right to self-determination, particularly when the original inhabitants of the stolen lands were not only denied any such right, they were virtually genocided. Self-determination clearly doesn't sit well with the South American way of doing things.

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!