Wednesday, December 12th 2012 - 18:21 UTC

Falklands’ referendum results will be public and presented to United Nations

The issue of the political status of the self-governed British overseas territory Falkland Islands has dominated (non-relations) and relations since the British and Argentine war in 1982 after the Argentine military government invaded the Islands, writes Alicia Dunkley-Willis from the Jamaica Observer who recently visited the Falklands.

MLA Hansen, ‘the choice of independence is further away’

Since the end of the war, Argentina (even though its invading force surrendered), has sustainedly argued that the “Malvinas Islands” are rightly theirs.

However the Falkland Islanders that have been living in the South Atlantic archipelago for nine generations insist, with the support from Britain that they have a right to determine their status as enshrined by the UN charter.

To put an end to the discussion, the Falklands elected government announced earlier this year it would be holding a referendum on the political status of the Islands and has now come up with the date for the ballot, March 10/11, and what lawmakers feel is the correct preamble and correct question.

In the interview with the Jamaica Observer, Ian Hansen, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falklands said that after consulting experts they “came to an agreement as to what we felt was the correct preamble and the correct question”: a Yes or No answer to “Do you wish to remain a self-governing British Overseas Territory”.

That determination, the Legislative Assembly has said, “will be done under the scrutiny of a whole series of international observers”.

But with that question now decided, another, often asked, is lingering in the background, MLS Hansen continued.

“There were one or two queries about why we weren't including the choice of Independence in it, but our explanation for that was we felt that was further away; we are doing it one step at a time, we are not ready for Independence yet so we don't want to muddy the waters. We just want to get the self-determination issue out there” MLA Hansen told the Jamaica Observer.

In the meantime, he said there have been rumblings from the Argentine camp.

Apparently the government of President Cristina Fernandez has stepped up the campaign with their ambassador in London Alicia Castro “to supposedly rubbish the referendum to say to African and Caribbean countries, don't send observers, it's not legal“.

The Falkland Islands government, however, has no plans to retort in similar fashion, pointed out MLA Hansen.

”The Falkland Islands government won't respond. We as the elected members can but the Government will remain strictly neutral. We were hoping to get one or two observers from South America, but whether the Argentine pressure might stop that we don't know,“ he noted.

That pressure, MLA Hansen said, could change a few dynamics, but not the outcome.

”It won't affect the final number of observers, but it might affect where they came from because we had hoped to get some from South America, Africa and so forth, just so we could have a vast number of observers so no one can say it was rigged,“ Hansen added.

What happens after the referendum in March 2013?

”Everything will be counted up and the results will be made public, and I hope it will be positive, I can't imagine it being anything else but positive. After that we will take that to the UN to say it is enshrined in your Charter that self-determination is important, and the people in the Falklands have said they want self-determination which is their right,“ Hansen said.

”We will use it (results) as a tool to encourage those who say we are not worthy of it. We know what we want but we want to show the rest of the world what we want,“ he added.

And if the worst should come, the Falklands are prepared, he stressed.

”If the majority says no, we actually have in the preamble wording that says if the larger percentage of people says no, the Falkland Islands government will hold another referendum to see where people want to go from there. They will have to say why they said no and what they want to be,” MLA Hansen pointed out.
 

54 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. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 andy65 (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 06:36 pm Report abuse
God Bless you the British public will be with you all the way and respect the outcome.
2 Pirate Love (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 06:39 pm Report abuse
For the interests of the Falklands people, Self-Determination & Democracy........

We salute you!
3 Monkeymagic (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 06:49 pm Report abuse
”Since the end of the war, Argentina (even though its invading force surrendered), has sustainedly argued that the “Malvinas Islands” are rightly theirs“.

When asked why they responded...

”The islands were usurped and the civilian population was refused the right to return“

When this was proven a lie, that no civilian population was ever removed, let alone any Argentine civilian population ever existed..they said

”yeah but a military garrison was removed“

When it was proven that the military garrison had been there for only six weeks, it was illegal, they had already mutinied, murdered and raped...they said

”yeah but we inherited the islands from Spain”

When it was proven that no such inheritance existed, and indeed the islands weren't ever wholly Spanish to cede (even though they didn't)..they said

“yeah but the islands form part of our territorial integrity”

When it was proven that the nearest part of Argentina was 1000 miles away in 1832 and some 300miles away today (since their genocidal march through Patagonia)...they said

“yeah but, the islanders are an implanted people”

When it was pointed out that everyone in the Americas is implanted..they said

“we just want them, give me Las Malvinas, give me Las Malvinas, give me Las Malvinas, give me Las Malvinas”

No!! Chuckle chuckle....
4 Joe Bloggs (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 07:15 pm Report abuse
Well done Ian; good interview. The correct strategy, the correct question, the correct response to the inevitable and, looking forward, the correct referendum result and the correct way to market it.

All correct.
5 briton (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 07:17 pm Report abuse
Apparently every body will accept the result with varying interests,
Except the federation of CFK, tin man , Hugo the bear , ect,

Apparently she will run her very own referendum with argentine people voting for her ??

Good luck Falklanders, and don’t worry abt the argie CFK,
She is jealous and envious of you,
you are everything she wanted, but could never get,

poor deluded argie empress..
6 Joe Bloggs (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 07:19 pm Report abuse
5 Briton

Thanks for that mate.
7 Spainexpat (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 07:23 pm Report abuse
For those that haven't seen it...very funny (and some strong language)

Malvinas vs Falklands: Negotiations with the U.N. www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-vys78sGB7Y
8 briton (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 07:23 pm Report abuse
cheers.
9 Shed-time (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 07:46 pm Report abuse
It seems that the UN will be disinterested about the results. They cannot even get the chair of the C24 to go and visit these places, rather than try to sell them off under the table to his friends for some political points.

You'd be better telling the commonwealth of nations that you did it, because a) they've all been decolonised and know what it means. b) they understand democracy and c) they're unlikely to see the appeal in having you be annexed to some nearby sh!thole.

In summary, I'd get the commonwealth to care more.
10 Joe Bloggs (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 07:51 pm Report abuse
7 Spainexpat

That's pretty funny.
11 Islander1 (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 09:01 pm Report abuse
It has been made clear to Argentina that it is open to them to send a team to lobby for their side - they will get same share of media time etc as anyone else.
12 Steve-32-uk (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 09:36 pm Report abuse
I still believe the FIG have made it harder for themselves by not including an option for independence, but even so I'm sure observers from African and Caribbean countries will be attending.

@7 Spainexpat
I love that video.
13 Joe Bloggs (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 10:13 pm Report abuse
12 Steve-32-uk

Why do you say that about independence?
14 andy65 (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 10:14 pm Report abuse
Sir Ronald Sanders is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London in the UK. He is an International Consultant, Writer and former senior Caribbean Ambassador and says

By Sir Ronald Sanders
The national and regional interests of Commonwealth Caribbean countries would hardly be served by backing Argentina in its long-running dispute with Britain over the Falkland Islands.

An Associated Press (AP) report of a meeting of some Latin American and Caribbean leaders, under the umbrella of ALBA, cites Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as confirming the support of all the ALBA countries for Argentina.

ALBA is a grouping initiated by the Venezuelan President and comprising eight nations – the larger Spanish-speaking states Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cuba, and the three small Caribbean islands St Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, and Dominica.

According to reports by AP and other international news agencies, on February 4, the eight ALBA member governments are reported to have approved an agreement barring any boats flying Falkland Islands flags from docking in their ports.

“Caribbean countries should not be used to advance Argentina’s ambitions.” --Sir Ronald SandersUp to the time of writing this commentary, only one government has denied being party to such an agreement. In a statement on February 8, the Antigua and Barbuda government said that it “has never supported any call for the banning of flagships from any country in the region and therefore disassociates itself from any statement regarding the banning of ships carrying the flag of the Falklands (Malvinas) from entering our ports.”

It has to be assumed that the two other Caribbean governments of St Vincent and the Grenadines and Dominica will adopt a similar position to the now public Antigua and Barbuda government stance. All three states are members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) which are obliged by
15 Steve-32-uk (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 10:23 pm Report abuse
@13 Joe Bloggs

Probably easier to explain if you jump to the link below and read my post @38 and the many responses it got. But like I said it irrelevant now.

en.mercopress.com/2012/08/31/faklands-referendum-planned-for-march-south-american-observers-to-be-invited
16 Joe Bloggs (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 10:30 pm Report abuse
15 Steve-32-uk

Okay, thanks. I see your rationale for that idea but we're nowhere near ready to cut the umbilical cord from the UK yet. I can't imagine our desire and capability to achieve independence changing enough to entertain the idea for some time yet.
17 Britworker (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 11:27 pm Report abuse
This referendum is not for south american consumption, or even a worthwhile exercise for the Falkland Islanders. It is for worldwide consumption so that all these countries that enjoy sitting on the fence saying the UK and Argentina should talk, will have rethink their positions on the matter. Unless they are openly prepared to say that self-determination does not apply to the Falkland Islanders. It is quite a shrewd move, that's why Kirchner is sending her flying monkeys out around south america ensuring their support, but other than the likes of Iran and Syria, that is as far as her jurisdiction allows.
18 Shed-time (#) Dec 12th, 2012 - 11:35 pm Report abuse
We all know that faux-democracies (fds) or democracies in name only are piss poor at any kind of legal understanding. That's a given. So by having a referendum you can simply show the application of democractic principles or 'democracy in action' and indicate the wishes of the local population. This immediately draws the ire of the faux-democracies (most of South America) and allows the intelligentsia to laugh at them. It also puts multilaterals such as the Feckless United Nations (FUN) to feel uncomfortable about letting in lots of countries that don't agree with important parts of their charter.

On the whole, referendums are good.
19 andy65 (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 12:46 am Report abuse
Why would the Aregentine governmant send there SO CALLED diplomats to Commonwealth countrys trying to pursuade them not to go to The Falkland Islands to observe the referendum, after all many countrys in the Commomwealth gained independence through the right of self determination.
“There are many good reasons why Commonwealth Caribbean countries should not support Argentina in this dispute with Britain. First, the inhabitants of the Falklands have determined that they are British and wish to remain so. They have rejected the notion of being Argentinian. The right of self-determination, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, is one that Commonwealth Caribbean countries have long upheld, and, indeed, is the basis on which each of them achieved their own political independence.”
20 José Malvinero (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 02:40 am Report abuse
“I hope it's positive,” What do you mean this guy?
Why will not manage to convince the South American countries to witness such an act of theater? Here you can not argue that the “brainwashing that Argentines are in school”, as this alleged “laundering” can not do on other countries. Is it not because the islands (THE ISLANDS WITH A CAPITAL) are Argentine?
Laugh, because whenever there is a vote or statement of the American countries, either in the OAS, UNASUR, MERCOSUR, etc.. etc. etc. in favor of Argentine rights over the Malvinas Argentinas, always downplay, deride, etc., but immediately afterwards are always looking for support as insignificant country, island in the Caribbean, in Africa, a small former British colony , etc., a small vote here, a small vote there to support them in their unwarranted usurpation, in the XXI century.
21 Zhivago (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 03:21 am Report abuse
20 Jose Malvinidiot
Although Canada is a former British colony I wouldn't call them small or insignificant. We are also a member of OAS and we still support the Falkland Island Government so take out your bombilla and stick it up your arse where it belongs, idiot!
22 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 07:43 am Report abuse
I wonder if its “Do you wish to remain a self-governing British Overseas Territory” or “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?” that's correct.
23 Steve-32-uk (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 09:11 am Report abuse
@16 Joe Bloggs

No-one is saying the FI is ready for independence and the FI wouldn't have voted for that but, the point is, the FI needs to show the world that their future aim is to become an independent nation, even if it isn't at the moment. Otherwise Argentina will claim you are a British colony that doesn't have the right to self-determination. A popular view about your referendum in Argentina that I read a lot, is that colonists cannot vote to stay a colony.

@20 José Malvinero
As pointed out by Zhivago , Canada is a bigger country than Argentina, and they support the islanders rights to determine their own future.
Wait until after the referendum and I bet you a few other big countries will be doing the same, trust me on that ;)
24 lsolde (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 09:41 am Report abuse
@3 monkey magic,
You've nailed it, mate. Excellent post.
That's the reason for their “ridiculous” claims in a nutshell.
25 Pete Bog (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 10:32 am Report abuse
@3
Excellent line of logic your resume is excellent and rebuffs the Argentines manufactured arguments- the UK government should be sending your resume to the Argentines continuously to rebuff their ridiculous claims, in addition to backing up the UN Charter/self-determination principle.

Also @7, I have seen this many times and it sums up the lunacy that is CFK.

@23
I have thought for a long time that the Falkland Islanders should be more vigorously be pushing an intention to become independent in the future, even if it is not practical in the near future.

I realise the Islanders have the perfect right under UN principles to remain associated with the UK, no doubt about that. But any distorted claims of colonialism would be killed stone dead and completely counter much support for Argentina if a timetable for future Independenceas an aim was stated.

Although yes they are non-binding and yes whilst the UK can if neccesary destroy any attacking Argentine forces if they try to invade making them somewhat peripheral the UN resolutions requesting the UK to talk with Argentina put Independance prominently in the document for a purpose.
26 Huntsman Extraordinaire (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 11:19 am Report abuse
Spread the word! Sign this petition! Pass the link onto everyone! It's slowly starting to snowball! The amount of people signed nearly doubled yesterday!
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42558

100 000 signatures and the issue will be considered for debate in parliment and some real publicity may be brought to the issue mustering the nations feeling of national pride and demanding action for the disgusting way the RGs treat the UK and its Oversea Territories. Over 10 000 signatories and the governement may at least respond to the petition!

I want the bullys to feel shoe on the other foot! Only this one will be steel toe capped and will include no foam padding unlike the RGs shoes when they attempt to constantly kick the FI!
27 Steve-32-uk (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 11:23 am Report abuse
@25 Pete Bog

Spot on mate.
In TV debates on this issue you never hear independence mentioned as a possible solution, most people don't realise its an option, I guess because the FI's population is small. The FIG needs to have an action plan.
28 Conqueror (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 12:34 pm Report abuse
@20 Wow. You've lost your way. This one is not composed of your usual rabid, hate-filled, propagandist puling. As a result, it makes no sense whatsoever. You should stick with what you are used to. Your desperation, your hatred, your jealousy we understand. It is to be expected from a third-rate third world place with little chance of gaining credibility, never mind respect, in the next century.
29 Terence Hill (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 03:17 pm Report abuse
3 Monkeymagic

Absolutely, spot-on summary.
30 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 06:02 pm Report abuse
@27 As per the Referendum preamble, a No vote in March would prompt a public discussion on the future options that would itself demonstrate a political maturity in the Islands that appears sadly lacking at present, as you highlight. Even open minded UN Member States expect to see an advanced level of political maturity before they acknowledge a Referendum in a NSGT.
31 Joe Bloggs (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 08:16 pm Report abuse
A No vote is about as likely as the CFK government accepting the result. Unless of course, it WAS a No vote and then I am sure they'd embrace it like Cristina hugging her little cherub Maximo.

Not long until March and all will be revealed.
32 emerald (#) Dec 13th, 2012 - 08:57 pm Report abuse
Think
You filled up your replicated have same kinds of sentences here again,
You,! what a untidy guy..also...what a turbid not a turnip guy.
33 José Malvinero (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 12:04 am Report abuse
21, 23
And who is the little queen of Canada? Pues (like say the spanish), the same scab off England!! idiots!
34 Betelgeuse (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 02:45 am Report abuse
By all means, proceed with your pathetic pantomime, but bear in mind that this little subterfuge has been tried before - and it didn't work.

The Gibraltar colonists also conducted a referendum in the late 1960s, however, that referendum was declared invalid by the UN when it adopted Resolution 2353 , which observed that the referendum was contrary to the various resolutions which had been adopted previously by the UN General Assembly requiring the UK to decolonise Gibraltar (see UN Resolutions 1514 (1960) and 2353 (1967)).

Under international law there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where a pre-existing sovereignty claim exists. This is the case with both Gibraltar and the Falklands.
35 lsolde (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 06:38 am Report abuse
@34 Betelgeuse,
You forgot to add the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta & Melilla.
Slip your mind, did it, dear beetle?
The rest of your rant, is, well, rant!
You like quoting UN General Assembly resolutions which are NOT mandatory.
What about UN Security Council resolutions which ARE mandatory?
l specifically refer to UNSC resolution #502, which ordered Argentina to remove its troops from the Falklands in April 1982.
A resolution which Argentina refused.
Of course you knew that one, didn't you?
lt must have slipped your mind also.
Your whole rant is a pantomine.♥
36 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 06:43 am Report abuse
@34 Ah, our old friend international law. So easily invoked, so difficult to name, so impossible to police, so seldom brought before a court. Give me international politics every time.
37 Steve-32-uk (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 07:48 am Report abuse
@34 Betelgeuse
Different situation as the FI had no natives. Also common sense should tell you that if self-determination can be applied to an implanted population i.e Argentina, it can be applied to a non implanted popualtion like the FI.
38 HansNiesund (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 08:32 am Report abuse
@34 Betelguese

2353 was in 1967. In 2002 there was also a referendum in Gibraltar, in which the voters rejected proposals for joint sovereignity between UK and Spain.

What did the UN have to say about that?

Could you also provide a reference to this international law which limits “the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where a pre-existing sovereignty claim exists.”?

I keep hearing about this, but have never been able to find it. In fact all I have ever been able to find was an instance in 2008 where the UN 4th Committee solidly rejected an Argentine/Spanish proposal to sneak limitations on self-determination into a resolution on decolonization. It seems that despite support from its chums in Latin America and such beacons of democracy as Belarus, Iran, and North Korea, the Spanish/Argentine axis was unable to marshall enough votes to get the proposal through.

www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm

But maybe there is something else to be unearthed that favours this Argentine clsim. Perhaps retired British naval officer living in Kent Doveroverdover could give you a hand if you need one. He is evidently just as keen to undermine this referendum as any proper home-grown Malvinista.
39 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 09:59 am Report abuse
@38 This ill considered and badly worded Referendum needs no help from me to undermine it. It will stand or fall on its own merits. I'll reconsider my position when any of the UN agencies, especially the Political Affairs Department, announces that they will be sending a monitoring team.
40 Zhivago (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 01:16 pm Report abuse
23 Jose Malvinidiot
Why HRH Elizabeth II, of course, you could have looked that up I'm sure! Don't look in your Kapelusz, its full of lies.
41 Anbar (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 03:48 pm Report abuse
”Since the end of the war, Argentina (even though its invading force surrendered), has sustainedly argued that the “Malvinas Islands” are rightly theirs“.

When asked why they responded...

”The islands were usurped and the civilian population was refused the right to return“

When this was proven a lie, that no civilian population was ever removed, let alone any Argentine civilian population ever existed..they said

”yeah but a military garrison was removed“

When it was proven that the military garrison had been there for only six weeks, it was illegal, they had already mutinied, murdered and raped...they said

”yeah but we inherited the islands from Spain”

When it was proven that no such inheritance existed, and indeed the islands weren't ever wholly Spanish to cede (even though they didn't)..they said

“yeah but the islands form part of our territorial integrity”

When it was proven that the nearest part of Argentina was 1000 miles away in 1832 and some 300miles away today (since their genocidal march through Patagonia)...they said

“yeah but, the islanders are an implanted people”

When it was pointed out that everyone in the Americas is implanted..they said

“we just want them, give me Las Malvinas, give me Las Malvinas, give me Las Malvinas, give me Las Malvinas”

No!! Chuckle chuckle....
42 Alexei (#) Dec 14th, 2012 - 04:51 pm Report abuse
Argentines have about as much right to express an opinion on the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination as they do to interfere with the Scottish peoples independence referendum. Well, I suppose Argentines, like anybody else, are entitled to their irrelevant opinions, they just shouldn't expect us to care what they think about anything that is none of their damned business.
43 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 15th, 2012 - 01:12 am Report abuse
34 Betelgeuse

“By all means, proceed with your pathetic pantomime”

HA!!! the only “pathetic pantomime” in SA is KFC's / Ol' Turkey Neck's / TMBOA's / The Harpy's government...........

I like a laugh as much as the next man, and I will, be watching with great interest when Laughing boy Timerman and Alicia Castro get their “Anti - referendum thingy” up and running.... That should be great stand up routine.
44 Pete Bog (#) Dec 16th, 2012 - 12:05 am Report abuse
@43
“Anti - referendum thingy” up”
As much as they might try to devalue the referendum, the Argentines are still unaware of the UN Charter, though as much as they hate it, it actually exists.
45 axel arg (#) Dec 17th, 2012 - 03:02 pm Report abuse
Let's see what will the decolonization committe decides after the referendum. The president from the committe last year had rejected the idea of the referendum, so, let's see what will happen this year after it is presented before the u. n. On the other hand, I would like to ask all those strong defenders of the right to self determination for the population fom the islands something. You say all the time that history is the part of the past, the world moved on, and now, what really matters for this cause, is the application of self determination for the islanders, beside, every time we claim for our rights over the islands, expressing that the u. k. deprived arg. in 1833 of exercising it's sovereign rights over the archipelago, you remind us also about how the argentine state decimated the originary populations during the so called dessert campain, in order to steal their lands. My question is, what woud you say, if in a reform of our constitution, the president and the congress decided to eliminate article 17 of chapter 4th, which signalizes as a duty of the congress, the regulation of the grant of lands to the originary populations, the protection of them, and the recognizement of their legal status, in fact some lands were restituted to them, arguing that history is part of the past, and now what matters is the future?. If the islanders want to remain under british gov., argentina won't be able to change that, and you all know it, because the u. n have never asked the u. k to return the islands to our country as the only one outcome for this dispute, all it did was to ask both countries to find a negotiated and peaceful solution, no more, and you know that your u. k., and your falklands lawmakers are not respecting it. C. f. k was very clear before the u. n in front of your lawmakers, about the true psoture of argentina, however, if you prefer buying so easily the speculations of your gov., thats' your problem.
46 lsolde (#) Dec 17th, 2012 - 07:41 pm Report abuse
All wrong, Axel my boy.
Argentina has NO Sovereign rights in the Falklands & NEVER has had.
We cannot deprive you of something that you don't have.
Just the same the Falklands CANNOT be “returned” to Argentina, because Argentina has NEVER owned them.
Not even a good try, Axel.
ln fact all your post is just................rubbish.
Hope this helps.
47 Steve-33-uk (#) Dec 17th, 2012 - 07:42 pm Report abuse
@axel arg

One day the FI will become an independent nation, this will end all sovereignty debates.

Its that simple...
48 Pete Bog (#) Dec 18th, 2012 - 03:02 pm Report abuse
@45
“expressing that the u. k. deprived arg. in 1833 of exercising it's sovereign rights over the archipelago, ”
Argentina did not exist in 1833-so how could it exercise rights of sovereignity?

The UK's claim of sovereignty was from 1690, not from 1833.
49 Terence Hill (#) Dec 19th, 2012 - 05:25 pm Report abuse
34 Betelgeuse

Difficult to imagine how the UN could declare that referendum invalid when it adopted Resolution 2353, simply because it is ultra vires(beyond their powers) as they are not a competent court of international law. That domain is the exclusive jurisdiction of the legal arm of the UN The International Court of Justice(ICJ). The term 'limitations to the right of self-determination' is solely in the deluded thinking of Argentina and Spain it is unsupportable in the UN Charter as no such precondition exists.
50 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 19th, 2012 - 08:11 pm Report abuse
@48 I'm told elsewhere that something that became the current Argentina had a Treaty in 1825 with something that became the current UK and that the something that became UK broke that treaty in contradiction to customary international law. I'm also told that the country that became Argentina didn't have enough comparative military capability to do anything about it at the time and couldn't find an impartial Court to complain to. And still hasn't apparently.

@49 An official UN Monitoring team will be validation enough for anyone.
51 Think (#) Dec 19th, 2012 - 10:16 pm Report abuse
(50) Mr. McDod

With your permission, I will save a copy of the above post and use it when some brainvashed British Turnip tries to tell me about Argentina not existing in 1833...................

Good work.
52 Doveoverdover (#) Dec 20th, 2012 - 09:52 pm Report abuse
@51 Good work? How dare you patronise me like that.

Use away but my permission comes with a caveat. Something that became Argentina existed in 1825 and probably managed to survive until 1833. Fair enough because the British recognised it and made a Treaty with it. But who knows what that Treaty said beyond the title? Who knows if it had a map attached that agreed the boundaries of this newly recognised State? Not me . So in the way of these things
my post is just hearsay (maybe heresy even), reflecting an opinion not a fact (the bit about breaking the Treaty I mean).

Sorry for the delay in responding but I had a day out in the big city.
53 Pete Bog (#) Dec 21st, 2012 - 06:43 pm Report abuse
@50
“I'm also told that the country that became Argentina didn't have enough comparative military capability to do anything about it at the time”

They did, but Pinedo's problem was that most of the sailors on his ship were British- born mercenaries (ie not of South American origin) who refused to fight their own countrymen.
Also the gauchos preferred British rule as they were paid in silver (universally acceptable currency )rather than Vernet's hated paper currency.

The capacity was certainly there to resist the British, the problem for the Buenos Aires Government was that the people on the islands (including the South American originated majority )preferred British rule as it promised them more security.
And the BAG had nothing stopping a military force of whatever size visiting Port Louis, as there was no British military presence from January 1833 to January 1834.
In fact in opposition to Argentina's distorted history, there was no offloading of English people in 1833, there were only two British people amongst the multi-national settlement (transplanted if you like but from South America), one Irishman and a Scotsman, but no Englishmen at that time.

In fact, I find it hilarious that the Argentines claim that a South American population were usurped by an English one, when in fact the majority of the people of the settlement originated from Buenos Aires and Montevideo, and including the gauchos, chose to live under British rule (they were paid in universally accepted silver rather than Vernet's hated paper currency that could only be used on the settlement. The majority nationality involved with the Buenos Aires militia, the sailors, sent back to South America, were .....British born.

Would be interesting to find out buy accessing the Sarandi's passenger list if any of these sailors were from England?

Really bad of us Brits to usurp a majority transplanted British population in favour of a South American originated one wasn't it ? -Lol.
54 lsolde (#) Dec 21st, 2012 - 09:44 pm Report abuse
@53 Pete Bog,
You're confusing the malvinistas with facts.
Lets hear sr Think's version of your facts.
lt should be a laugh.
Merry Christmas, Pete.

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

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!