Wednesday, January 9th 2013 - 00:09 UTC

Paper on Falklands’ full-time lawmakers should be ready before November election

With general elections scheduled in November, Falkland Island politicians are anxiously awaiting the recommendations of a Commission advising on the full-time or part-time status of elected representatives going forward, according to a piece published by the Jamaica Observer.

MLA Ian Hansen revealed that the Assembly number could be increased from eight to ten

“At present we are all part-time, we are paid an allowance; we don't get a salary. We have a Commission set up and they are looking at it quite neutrally and they are going to produce a paper of recommendations to the Executive Council which may say, 'keep it as it is' or 'it should be full-time' or 'full salary' and salary should be x amount,” said Ian Hansen, an elected member of the eight-member Legislative Assembly of the Falkland.

The question of the adequacy of a legislative assembly that size has attracted focus given several developments in the Falkland Islands, not least among which are projections that commercial oil production will commence in 2017 for the territory which has only some 3,000 citizens and virtually no unemployment. Expectations are that development, which will mean an imported labour force, along with anticipated changes from the pending referendum to decide the political future of the British Overseas territory will spell changes for the present government.

“That is something we are discussing at the moment because with the increased workload coming on perhaps we should be having full-time Assembly members,” Hansen said.

The issue is one which all current members will have to make peace with as well he noted.

“I haven't decided if I want to seek re-election yet to be honest,” Hansen told the Observer. He, however, pointed out that such a change will not be a walkover and had to be handled delicately.

“It is being discussed whether we should increase the size from eight to 10 but anything like that means a change in our Constitution which would take quite a bit of time. If we change it from part-time allowance pay to full-time salary it won't affect the Constitution.

“We are hoping to get the recommendations back perhaps by the end of March, we want to have them to Executive Council before the next elections in November,” Hansen said.

The all-important referendum to decide the political status and future of the Falkland Islands will be done under the scrutiny of a whole series of international observers. It is hoped that the poll, which will take place over two days, March 10th and 11th will settle the long-standing quarrel of the political status of the self-governed British overseas.

However Argentina has already anticipated it will not recognize the referendum or its results.

Controversy over the issue has remained a talking point since the British and Argentine war in 1982 over the Falklands following an Argentine invasion. Since then, Argentina, even though it had retreated and surrendered, has argued that the Islands were rightly theirs. However, Britain repeatedly confirmed that the Falkland Islanders have a right to determine their status.

Last December Alicia Dunkley-Willis from the Jamaica Observer was invited together with other Caribbean journalists to visit the Falklands.
 

43 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 redpoll (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 12:46 am Report abuse
The future of your nation is at stake and with so much travelling your daytime business must have suffered. Yes you should get paid but its up to you folks to decide if and how much. Mebbe you should have junior tier to your assembly to encourage your next generation of leaders of your community. Some of them have done pretty well representing your country up to now
2 briton (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 12:47 am Report abuse
Nice work,
keep it up,

CFK will be crying lol.
3 ProRG_American (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 01:42 am Report abuse
More smoke screen for their diluscional “Self Determination”.
Meaningless under International LAw. Just like the attempted kidnapping of ARA Libertad.
4 Islander1 (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 02:13 am Report abuse
ProG- meaningless in int Law? - so that is how and why elected Falklands MLA,a have for years attended Commonwealth Parliamentry Conferences around the world and sit down at the table with our fellow democrats from S.Africa,India,Canada,Kenya,Jamaica etc etc - hell sometime the Falklands member is even the Chair or session leader.

That is why 2 of your neighbours who trade with us, fully recognise the name of the Islands and that we are our own Govt and NOT part of Arg when it comes to who they address the official export papers to!
5 José Malvinero (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 02:44 am Report abuse
“However Argentina has already anticipated it will not recognize the referendum or its results.”

Remember the reason for the Argentine claim.
From 1767 until 1811, the islands were under Spanish rule and continuously as a dependency of Buenos Aires. All governors were appointed by the central government and depended Spanish in Buenos Aires. So for 44 years.
Independence produced what is now the territory of Argentina in 1816, the nascent nation inherits naturally the territory of its own as a new nation which includes the Malvinas Islands (which always depended government of Buenos Aires).
The exercise of administrative actions continued with the new government in the most natural, from orders to Governor Jose de San Martin for sending convicts to the islands in 1816, requested authorization number of vessels and sealers, sending in Captain Jewet 1820 to take over the islands with a proclamation on behalf of the United Provinces, concessions to Luis Vernet, the creation of the Command, hunting legislation amphibians, etc., etc.
What happened since then in January 1833?
Nobody knows what authority appeared his Majesty's ships claiming the crown for the Malvinas. One pure act of plunder, piracy, robbery and theft.
With multiple XVIII century treaties and voluntary abandonment of Egmont and in peace and verified in 1774, Britain recognized Spanish sovereignty. Why go back 59 years later?
The answer is the British ambition and strategic position of the islands.
When they proposed encroachment (which was not otherwise) to the “David Cameron” of then, is the Duke of Wellington in 1829, Prime Minister said:
“I have read the documents regarding the Falkland Islands. Not at all clear to me that we never ever held sovereignty over these islands.”
And pretend that Argentina waiver Argentine Malvinas Islands?
And intend to accept the False-Self-determination of the people who came after the theft and usurpation? Please!
6 SusexRokx (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 03:51 am Report abuse
Jose, Spain didn't recognise Argentina as an independent nation until 1856, so your argument is wrong. You cannot claim inheritance from Spain from 1816, as far as Spain was concerned you didn't then exist!

The first British settlement was established in 1765, two years before Spain acquired the French settlement.
7 Marcos Alejandro (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 04:59 am Report abuse
“It is being discussed whether we should increase the size from eight to 10“
Is Billy Luxton going to run the government from South France again?

”The all-important referendum to decide the political status and future of the Falkland Islands will be done under the scrutiny of a whole series of international observers“
I bet those ”international observers” are from England ...sorry I meant UK.
8 Bongo (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 09:26 am Report abuse
I'm sure Argentina would be more than welcome to send an observer.
9 Benson (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 10:31 am Report abuse
@7 I guess thats up to him isn't it Marcos and it's up to the voters to decide whether or not he can do it. If it was down to a choice between Bill running government from the South of France or CFK running it from Argentina then Bill would get my vote every time.
10 Isolde (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 12:05 pm Report abuse
@9 Benson,
And my vote too!
@5 José,
We don't care whether you recognise our Referendum or not.
lts none of your business anyway.
And l dismiss your bogus & ridiculous “claims” as, well.................ridiculous.
These are our lslands & we are going to keep them.
You've got 2 choices, Joe.
1) put your laughable case before the ICJ,
OR
2) War.
Your country's choice, José.
You won't get OUR land any other way.
Hope this helps.
11 Conqueror (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 01:57 pm Report abuse
@3 You are hilarious. And incredibly blinkered and stupid. See if you can read and understand this: en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
@5 What a calm comment. Unlike you. Just a few points. Can you tell us of what happened between 1690 and 1765? How about between 1765 and 1776? Incidentally, there was no Spanish rule from 1767. As witness the well-known Falklands Crisis in 1770 and 1771 where Spain was on the brink of war. Your claim that a colony in rebellion could claim territory is inaccurate, untrue and illegal. Perhaps you should note that both Spain and Britain still claimed sovereignty. Spain didn't even recognise “argentina” until 1856. So you fail there. Jewett was a pirate. Unable to take any legal action. British sovereignty was recognised by “argentina” in 1850. And again in 1866.
@8 Why? What point to the presence of an “observer” from a bunch of thieves and liars? All argies should be banned from the Falklands under national law. They've had their chance. They invaded, occupied and got beaten. They didn't learn. They refused to take their war dead away. They've been allowed to visit to visit the graves. They still don't learn. Ban them from the Islands for as long as they maintain their “claim”.
12 SusexRokx (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 03:21 pm Report abuse
Regarding Argentina's claim, part based on fictitious inheritance from Spain, and part based on the Royal Navy asking the illegal garrison to leave in 1833. During the last 200 years Argentina has managed to spend less than six months on the islands, November 1832 to January 1833 and of course that invasion in 1982. Some claim!

I have a better claim over Germany, I at least lived there for eight years!
13 atk357 (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 04:59 pm Report abuse
@6 As much as I support the Falklands self-determination, credit ...when due. A country, “any country” birth is the “independence day”...not the recognition day. You might consider checking your statement.
From the American point of view, the single most important fact is that there are people living in the Falklands, and their right to detemine their own future is theirs, not from England, not from Argentina,...Just theirs
14 Malvinero1 (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 05:29 pm Report abuse
Nice work,
keep it up,

CFK will be crying lol.
AHAHAHHAHAHA Who cares about a PIRATES referendum!!!
Poor deluded ex empire......is sinking irremediable......

rom the American point of view, the single most important fact is that there are people living in the Falklands, and their right to detemine their own future is theirs, not from England, not from Argentina,...Just theirs
Sure keep dreaming...when the property was stolen,and the Argentines were not allowed to settle in MAlvinas...AAHAHAHAHA typical brits stupidity...
15 José Malvinero (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 06:17 pm Report abuse
10
Point 1) International Court of Justice: absolutely I doubt that England (or Great Britain, or call bitch, I care little) would agree to refer the matter to that area. They are pure words and myths. If they propose it, they would in the legs.
Point 2) War: First, I am an ordinary citizen so if I had my way, I would arm, would train, equip and retake what is ours, but I'm not ruling.
16 jeffski (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 06:23 pm Report abuse
www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/reich-argentina-falklands-saberrattling/2013/01/08/id/470570

Argie fools can say what they want, once the referendum result is in the UN will endorse it. Self determination.
17 SusexRokx (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 07:30 pm Report abuse
@14 Jewett was a pirate, as the French put it J'accuse! As for empire, you yourselves are derived from the Spanish Empire! That sank without a trace. At least the British Empire metamorphisised into the Commonwealth. A diverse and peaceful group of nations, what did the Spanish Empire leave us? Bellicose tinpot nations such as your own. As for La Kretina crying, yes she certainly will!

@15 ICJ we have no fear of them - they'll find in favour of the islanders' right to self determination. War? We're prepared, you are not!
18 Brit Bob (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 07:43 pm Report abuse
@11 Conqueror spot on as usual.

The Argentine's are just harping on about 'the Great Malvinas Lie'. They keep fogetting the two important points:

(i) Vernet was on the Falklands with permission of Britain. He then switched allegiance but only he and his Argentine garrison were asked to leave and nearly all of the settlers stayed under the British flag;
(ii) The UN Resolutions on the Falklands merely ask that the UK and Argentina to sit down and talk and resolve the sovereignty issue BUT in doing so they do so ANY agreement reached should not be against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. Ban Ki-Moon confirmed back in November that the Falkland Islanders DO have the right to determine their own future.
19 yankeeboy (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 08:38 pm Report abuse
7,14, 15, Shouldn't you people be throwing rocks at the police over the subway ticket going up $0.10 or getting your “clarin lies” t-shirts and hats to welcome the ship,or worrying about the peso at 7.12/U$

Surely there is plenty of shocking terrible things going on in your own country.
20 SusexRokx (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 08:47 pm Report abuse
@19 that is precisely why La Kretina is playing the Malvinas card - to deflect the proletariats' thoughts away from reality!
21 José Malvinero (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 08:54 pm Report abuse
6

Ridiculous as all ridiculous “british” they write here.
If Spain did not recognize the sovereignty of Argentina, then the Malvinas in any case remained Spanish but never english because never were English as history clearly shows. And since there were “no man's land”, ergo, were either Spanish or Argentine.
The pirate of his majesty, Osnow, said that “the islands do not belong to anyone.”
To say what you claim is the same as saying that the new nation did not inherit Buenos Aires, Salta, Santa Cruz, Mendoza o Entre Rios.
Besides if you misread my comment number 5, I talk on 1767, that if we go back further back, more Spanish and therefore more Argentine islands are.
22 reality check (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 09:03 pm Report abuse
@15
Good! a volunteer to be first off the landing craft. I can guess what will be in your heart and going through your head as you plough through the surf on to your beloved Falklands. A British 7.62 full metal jacket!

War, what a plonker, thinks it is all a big game! Why don't you go and speak to one of your sensible veterans, before you spout such purile drivel.
23 SusexRokx (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 09:31 pm Report abuse
@22 we generally use 5.56 now! Can carry more of them, yet still just as effective.

Besides the Argentine forces don't have the will, battle hardened troops, or up to date equipment, to mount anything other than a small skirmish that is easily repelled. Three diesel electric subs by comparison to ours!!! Oh, and I forgot, they don't have enough training days to even get them out of port!
24 Terence Hill (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 09:42 pm Report abuse
5 José Malvinero

”Independence produced what is now the territory of Argentina in 1816, the nascent nation inherits naturally the territory of its own as a new nation which includes the Malvinas Islands (which always depended government of Buenos Aires).

Not according to independent legal scholars you could not of inherited the islands from Spain. As it would have been a violation of the Nootka Convention. In fact there is nothing in writing to support this assertion.

German Yearbook of International Law 1983

JÖRG FISCH: The Falkland Islands in the European Treacy System 1495—1853 106

Nootka Convention 190

...Thus, Spain had been unable to obtain a British promise not to settle in other unoccupied areas. This interpretation is borne out by a secret article concluded on the same day. It stipulated that article 6 of the Convention was to be valid only so long as no third power made any establishments in that area. Neither of the contracting parties was prepared to allow another power to control the passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean....
25 reality check (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 09:43 pm Report abuse
Aye, I know, but the gimpy is still in use and that was what I had in mind, as greeting for him and any other misguided nationalists he would like to bring with him.
26 Monkeymagic (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 09:46 pm Report abuse
Jose

At least you are today making the ONLY one of the Malvinista arguments that is even wafer thin, and it is just that.

Forget Jewitt..Forget Vernet...Forget Mestevier. None of these are relevant.

The only relevance is whether or not on declaring independence from Spain, any historic title or claim automatically fell to the United Provinces, and subsequently to Argentina.

If it were true, then although there is still absolutely no way 180 years later, that any sovereignty rights are still valid, but it would pose a possible moral dilemma.

Taking this point then:

1) are all the other areas that were administered by Buenos Aires under the Viceroy currently part of modern Argentina
2) has Argentina claimed additional territories that weren't administered under Buenos Aires during the Viceroy
3) are there examples of other remote areas administered by colonial powers from cities which are now in different countries?

1) No, modern day Uruguay, Paraguay have some territory previously administered by BA.
2) No, Argentina seized Patagonia in a colonia rampage, usurping the land and killing those in their way
3) Aden was administered by Bombay, and has never been part of India, and is in modern day Yemen. At no point did Ghandi call this a usurption.

So, as usual, you are talking bollocks.

As for your wish for a military engagement. Please explain how you are going to get your forces 300miles across the South Atlantic. Things are different now than in 1982. The naval casualties would be horrendous for you, your ships would all be sunk before you knew what had sunk them.

To wish for that kind of carnage takes a sick man.
27 SusexRokx (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 09:55 pm Report abuse
@26 we wouldn't need to even worry about their navy. They haven't had enough training days to even know how to get out of port, let alone find their way to the islands.

As for José, you can't claim inheritance from a country, when that country (Spain) didn't even recognise Argentina until 1856, 16 years after the current settlement was established. As far as Spain was concerned you didn't even exist as a nation in 1816. Also, before 1856, Spain had already acknowledged the British claim to the islands. Try again.
28 Malvinero1 (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 10:02 pm Report abuse
@26 we wouldn't need to even worry about their navy. They haven't had enough training days to even know how to get out of port, let alone find their way to the islands.
AHAHahaha poor deluded ex empire........
uk is FINISHED!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8wLlWJTh7o
And Argentina future looks a lot brighter than uk...
Oh isol de is pulling the ICJ,uk WILL NOT take into account any issues prior to 1974

. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accept as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after 1 January 1974, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date, other than:

www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=GB
BTW,the ICJ is part of the UN.THe UN already spoke about the MAlvinas issues in the 2065 UNGA RES,and 9 afters.
C24,over 25 declarations about it..poor deluded pirates...so alone in the world....
29 José Malvinero (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 10:16 pm Report abuse
19 Yanquee Baby

The Malvinas Argentinas ARE our country, so we deal with them, pelotudo.
30 reality check (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 10:20 pm Report abuse
Malvi

Anyone who as ever had anything to do with the law always, always reads, the the OTHER THANS.

2. The Government of the United Kingdom also reserve the right at any time, by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and with effect as from the moment of such notification, either to add to, amend or withdraw any of the foregoing reservations, or any that may hereafter be added.

If your going to post it, at least have the common to read it, or perhaps you have and your to ferkin thick to understand it.
31 SusexRokx (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 10:26 pm Report abuse
Reality, going by the standard of English from Malvi, probably doesn't understand a word of it anyway.

José, apart from Argentina, show me a map with Malvinas Argentinas on it. There is no such place, other than in the somewhat skewed minds of certain, but not all, Argentines.
32 yankeeboy (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 10:28 pm Report abuse
29. They're not and you should have learned that 30 yrs ago. When you ha your as* handed to you.

Can't you see CFK is manipulating the weak minded in your country?

Don't you care that your savings and wages dropped again today and will everyday until the Ks are gone?

My advise is to buy sugar..I hear they are hoarding it in Venezuela now and that is the path you are on.
33 briton (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 12:28 am Report abuse
Amazing they keep claiming the islands that they say they own,
But we don’t see an argentine flag over it,
We don’t see argie soldiers on them, we don’t note an argentine government ruling them,
All we see is British,

So once again they show just how deluded they are .

Still,
They can always claim Spain, by way of inheritance lol.
34 XAVIERV (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 04:55 am Report abuse
As Argentine agree, cutting ties with the Islanders once!

Do not want to live under jurisdiction of Argentina, that's fine! Nothing to go to the islands should touch neither heaven nor jurisdiction Sea Argentina! And anything that comes out of the islands Argentina jurisdiction must play!

No more flights to the islands from the mainland, no more cruises calling at the islands Argentina will neither backwards!

Lockdown, we do not know anything about you or you pretend nothing with us!

One who wants to visit the islands to go to London and take a flight to Stanley! Sorry for the Argentine family, war is so dead it's always pray from here and go!

They want to leave their island as they should only need to look to the est ..
35 A.J.Rimmer (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 07:46 am Report abuse
I seem to remember Argentina taking Chile to the ICJ over the Beagle Channel Dispute.

I also seem to remember Argentina putting forward a map, showing territories of the said area.

I also remember there was a group of islands situated 300 miles from the coast of Argentina, that was also shown on this map.

Can somebody please remind me what name was given to these islands on this map. Remember this was submitted by Argentina themselves.

LOL
36 Anglotino (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 10:52 am Report abuse
@35 A.J.Rimmer

The map you are referring to is the 1882 Latziner Map. It was officially issued by the Argentinean government and clearly showed the islands as foreign territory.

During the Beagle Channel arbitration it was submitted by Chile. The map called the islands 'Islas Malvinas', however this is akin to English maps referring to Germany instead of Deutschland. It does however call the actual islands East and West Falkland in Spanish. Interestingly it called the Falkland Sound 'Estrecho de Falkland' and not 'Estrecho de San Carlos' as it does now.
37 Pete Bog (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 10:58 am Report abuse
@34
“no more cruises calling at the islands”

No, the cruises are calling in at the islands-you seem to have forgotten that Argentine thugs have STOPPED (in the present tense), cruise liners calling in at BA.

That is because your country is a country of BULLIES and THUGS, who find terrorising unarmed civilians easy.

When it comes to facing proper soldiers your country soils its pants very quicky and gets its ass kicked hard all the way back to BA.

That is what happens to bullies.
38 Monty69 (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 07:17 pm Report abuse
34 XAVIERV

Yes, ''lockdown'', I seem to remember that was the plan.

But the Chileans refuse to stop flights, and the cruise ships refuse to sop coming here.

IT'S NOT WORKING VERY WELL, IS IT???

Mwaaahahahahaha
39 Malvinero1 (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 12:13 am Report abuse
The Government of the United Kingdom also reserve the right at any time, by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and with effect as from the moment of such notification, either to add to, amend or withdraw any of the foregoing reservations, or any that may hereafter be added.

Sure too bad uk declined the invitation to settle the issue in a court of law,by Argentina,6 times at least....HAHAHAHHAHA poor deluded ex empire
40 briton (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 12:52 am Report abuse
yeh yeh
more lies, for the masses.
41 Anglotino (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 06:27 am Report abuse
@39 Malvinero1

I know you can't answer this question but I will ask anyway.

“uk declined the invitation to settle the issue in a court of law,by Argentina,6 times at least”

Please list the dates for the 6 times
Who issued the invite?
Which court of law?
42 reality check (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 08:34 am Report abuse
Given Argentinas recent spate of success using the courts, I would have thought that they would be banging on the doors of the ICJ, briefs in hand, screaming, “Let us in.”

However the conspicious lack of their presence at that august temple of International Justice, seems to me, to speaks in volumes.

Could it be, that their legal people are advising them that they are likely to loose their case?

I would suggest it does.
43 Martin Woodhead (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 02:20 pm Report abuse
Unfortunatly the uk garrison not being made up of drugged students nuns and small children who can be sold on.
I dont think they have anything to fear from the mighty argentine armed forces apart from ear ache and possibly explaining how to use a toilet.

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!