Friday, April 26th 2013 - 07:46 UTC

Falkland Islands’ lawmakers in a round of European visits to inform on referendum results

A delegation of Falkland Islands lawmakers made a round of visits to European capitals and the European Union to inform on the recent referendum results in which an overwhelming turnout and vote indisputably decided the Islands wanted to remain as an Overseas Territory.

MLA Jan Cheek said the Irish view on the Falklands is an interesting one and “I enjoyed some lively discussions”

Members of the Legislative Assembly Jan Cheek and Roger Edwards stopped in Brussels where they met with members of the European Executive and Parliament as well as Belgian officials.

“There was also a surprising number of television interviews and meeting with newspaper journalists”, said MLA Cheek who underlined the good reception from EU and Belgian authorities.

“We were delighted with the interest and attention from the authorities we met, and we were more than eager to tell them about the referendum results and the overall political situation in the South Atlantic. I’m sure we left everyone we met better informed”, said MLA Cheek.

Another stop was in Dublin, meeting government officials, members of the legislative Foreign Affairs committee as well as journalists and academics.

“The Irish view on the Falklands is an interesting one and I enjoyed some lively discussions”, revealed MLA Cheek. Some Irish academics have written at some length about the Falklands.
 

Finally there was The Hague, but this time accompanied by a young Islander Zoran Zubic who gave the perspective of new generations.

“Our first appointment was breakfast with the UK Ambassador Paul Arkwright who had visited the Islands when he worked at the UK Mission to the UN in the mid ‘90s. Like all the Embassy representatives we met he was keen to help”, said MLA Cheek.

Breakfast was followed by a full day of meetings at the Dutch Parliament and Foreign Affairs ministry.

“We also had an opportunity to brief all the available staff at the British Embassy and some journalists and academics who joined us”, pointed out the Falklands’ lawmaker adding “all agreed that they now knew much more about the Falklands and that Zoran had been able to give them a useful extra perspective”

MLA Cheek also revealed how she heard about the death of Baroness Thatcher while in a meeting at the Foreign Office in London with Hugo Swire, Minister of State at the Foreign Office.

“Having met Lady Thatcher several times and seen a glimpse behind the one dimensional caricature so often portrayed, I felt her death really marked the end of an era” confessed MLA Cheek.

“It was an honor to represent the Islands at her funeral and all the more touching as she had chosen all the hymns and readings. The music was wonderful as the anthems sung by the choir swirled around the beautiful St Paul cathedral”.

MLA Cheek said the streets all the way to the cathedral there were lined with people who had turned out to pay their respects, with only the occasional protester.

Other MLAs, Dr. Barry Elsby and Gavin Short, were involved in a similar round of visits but to Latin American countries which resulted more successful than expected both in coverage and openness to listen the Falklands position the message from the referendum.
 

48 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 Faz (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 08:05 am Report abuse
Spread the word to counter Rg lies. I wonder if Marcos heard. Or, if he was on his Big Issue duty?
2 Pete Bog (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 08:25 am Report abuse
Part of the beginning of the end for false, misleading Argentine lies.

Argentina's so called support around the world will erode as the MLA's tiny presence in the world takes effect-telling the truth about the Falkland Islanders, the true facts of history and how their status relates to UN founding principles.

Again, it's quality and the truth that matters in this case not size of population, diamonds are more valuable than bricks.

Oh and Argentina have gone quiet recently in their relentless pursuit of wearing people down with the continual lies over the history of the South Atlantic.

Could it be that they have finally realised they have blown a great opportunity to make money out of HELPING the islands rather than having waved goodbye to it by being bullies?
3 brit abroad (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 08:32 am Report abuse
all our RG trolls are probably waiting in line for the rations
4 travellingscotsman (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 10:33 am Report abuse
please see programme about Argentina's “economic miracle”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxATngnqgv8
5 Devolverislas (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 12:25 pm Report abuse
The United Nations does not recognize the referendum held by the Falkland Islanders. The territory of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas is subject to a dispute in the United Nations. The Foreign Office, its ambassadors, the Falkland Islanders and their travelling representatives should wake up to these facts.
6 Faz (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 01:04 pm Report abuse
There is no dispute and no such place as the Malvinas. Argentina should wake up, realise that that the Falklands was NEVER given to Argentina as there is no documentary proof of that. Argentina is suffering horribly under its present government who are beginning to resemble the Nazis. People should be concentrating on getting rid of them instead of constantly warmongering and whingeing, and taking their place in the civilised world instead of transforming into a pariah. The United Nations position is that the parties involved should talk, no more than that. Recent attempts at dialog were stopped by Hector Timer man, not the Islanders or the UK. Paid Argentinian trolls don't have an opinion, they just read from a trolls handbook Devolved islas. Isn't that correct?
7 Gordo1 (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 01:39 pm Report abuse
@5 Devolverlasislas
Kindly show exactly when and where the authorities of the UNO have categorically stated that “The United Nations does not recognize the referendum held by the Falkland Islanders and that the territory of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas is subject to a dispute in the United Nations”

I have been following this matter for many years and I just do not recall the facts as you allege them to be.
8 HansNiesund (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 01:40 pm Report abuse
@5

The United Nations is not an instrument of Argentine foreign policy. Its permission is not necessary either to hold a referendum or to explain the context and results of that referendum to interested parties. Malvinistas should wake up to these facts.
9 manchesterlad (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 02:13 pm Report abuse
It´s funny that only a few years ago most RGs thought that the Falklanders were a subjugated people under the colonial rule of big bad Britain

How times have changed & even the RGs are having internal debates about self determination (eg Aldo Rico) ...... keep up the good work MLA´s, the truth is out there
10 Steveu (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 03:48 pm Report abuse
@5 The UN only acknowledges that a dispute exists

As you sad Muppets keep harping on about things that did and didn't happen in 1833 or before, this is outside of the UN's remit as it can only rule on post 1945 borders.

As Argentina signed away any rights it thought it might have had over The Falklands in the 1850 Arana Southern Treaty and made no protest for 90 years thereafter, as far as I'm concerned the case is closed.

If you disagree with this synopsis, please take it to the ICJ
11 Conqueror (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 03:51 pm Report abuse
@5 Irrelevant. The Falkland Islands aren't members of the UN, so whether it recognises the referendum doesn't matter. The important thing is that the UK recognises it. You remember the UK. It's the nation that kicked your sorry little arses 31 years ago. And now our armed forces are more than FOUR times the size of yours. And MUCH more capable. You should wake up to these facts! As it happens, I believe you may be one of the misguided, uneducated fools that think that the UN makes international law. It doesn't. It's a big debating society. At the end of its debates, it may pass “resolutions”. These aren't international law either. In fact, not one single resolution of the UN General Assembly is legally enforeceable. The GA offers “wishes”, “opinions”, what it would like to see. No-one is obliged to comply with any of them. On the other hand, there are the resolutions of the UN Security Council. The “big boys”. Of which the UK is one. All UN members are “supposed” to comply with them. I say “supposed” because, in 1982, argieland ignored two of them. On the strength of that, why is argieland even a member any more? It always makes me laugh when argies come out with “The UN this...” or “the UN that....” when argieland ignored two SC resolutions and doesn't understand that GA resolutions are NON-BINDING. An incredible example of “The rules don't apply to us.” Just who do you think you are? What you are is a third-rate third-world failing territory with delusions. See whether you can wake up and GRASP all those FACTS. Then you could stop making yourself look incredibly uneducated and stupid and wasting people's time.
@6 Sorry to have to disagree with you but there is a place called Malvinas. In fact, it's called Malvinas Argentinas. It's a municipal district of Cordoba City in Cordoba province. It's absolutely chocker with argies.
@9 Remember how, in 1982, the argie girlies thought they were “liberating” the Islanders. And how shocked they were when they were hated!
12 reality check (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 05:04 pm Report abuse
If you have not yet watched the link posted by travelingscotsman, I recommend you guys do so. The people in the report are not the reason I post on here, they are not the people I take exception with over the Argentine claim of the Islands. If anything they are bigger victims than the islanders.

It explains some of the reasoning behind the distraction tactics over the islands.
13 Stevie (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 05:13 pm Report abuse
No comments about the looks?
No parallels to the origins of bacon?
Nothing?

No?

Weird...
14 Devolverislas (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 06:35 pm Report abuse
@11 @10 @8 @7

1) The United Nations was formed in 1945 in order to prevent and resolve disputes.

2) General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX) Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) notes “the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty the said Islands.” (Falkland Islands/Malvinas)

3) The United Nations does not recognize the referendum of March 10/11 because it was not instigated by the United Nations.

4) The General Assembly does not make law but its deliberations and resolutions are taken into account by the International Court of Justice, which is itself a branch of the United Nations.
15 briton (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 06:38 pm Report abuse
Still the future looks bright , when the sun comes out..

.
16 reality check (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 06:48 pm Report abuse
Oh dear, does that mean that next months council elections are illegal, after all, the UN did not instigate them them either.

Damn complicated this process of democracy, I blame the ancient Greeks myself, though they could not have foreseen the Argentines coming along 2000 years later, I am sure they would have made a bigger effort in introducing the system had they known!
17 briton (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 07:05 pm Report abuse
poor democracy,
so good yet still very complicated to some.

still,
as argentina has just voted for dictatership [so they say]
then democracy becomes even further out of their reach..
18 Monkeymagic (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 07:39 pm Report abuse
@14

You miss the key part of UN resolution 2065 (XX).

The UN wants the dispute to be

1) resolved peacefully
2) taking into a account the UN Charter (I.e. all people's have a right to self-determination)
3) taking into account the interests of the islanders.

Now, in all seriousness (and agreed by the UN Secretary General), it is not Britains position that completely is at odds with 2065 (XX).

Britain has always sought a peaceful resolution, Argentina has invaded at the cost of 1000 lives.

Argentina uses semantics to try and ignore the core principle of the UN Charter, the very principle by which it's genocidal colonialism allowed Argentina to exist.

Argentina has absolutely no idea about the interests of the islanders who quite clearly expressed what was “in their interest” by 99.7%.

So...please don't quote non-binding GA resolutions which your country continually wipes its arse on, to try and justify a land grab, that has never been Argentine.
19 HansNiesund (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 08:11 pm Report abuse
@14

You should also note that noting the existence of a dispute is not the same as accepting the validity of a dispute. In fact the UN had never pronounced one way or another on the validity of one side or another in the dispute, and has chosen instead to confine itself to recommending a peaceful solution. With one exception, namely binding Security Council resolution 502 of 1982 requiring Argentina to withdraw its invasion forces, which resolution Argentina chose to ignore with the consequences that we all know.
20 reality check (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 08:17 pm Report abuse
UN and disputes! Anyone on here remember Bosnia and Ruwanda!

Could not sort out a handbag fight in a pub, unless it suited them!
21 Marcos Alejandro (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 08:35 pm Report abuse
“lawmakers in a round of European visits to inform on referendum results”

What about if they head to their beloved Britain first?
They are having a hard time to sell this fiasco to their own people.

“This isn't self-determination. It's a Ruritanian colonial relic”

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/falklands-vote-ruritanian-colonial-relic

“This meaningless Falklands referendum will resolve nothing”

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/09/meaningless-falklands-referendum-uk-sovereignty

“Falklands referendum: Why ask British people if they want to be British?”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/falklands-referendum-why-ask-british-people-if-they-want-to-be-british-8528331.html
22 Steve-33-uk (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 09:15 pm Report abuse
'Pro-British in Malvinas seeking “ideas” among the islanders to honor Thatcher - The authorities pro-British in the Falklands opened a process for residents to bring “ideas” to pay “tribute” to the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, died nearly three weeks ago.'
elsolonline.com/noticias/view/170651/pro-britanicos-en-malvinas-buscan-ideas-entre-los-islenos-para-homenajear-a-thatcherhttp://elsolonline.com/noticias/view/170651/pro-britanicos-en-malvinas-buscan-ideas-entre-los-islenos-para-homenajear-a-thatcher
23 Faz (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 09:41 pm Report abuse
Marcos, those two newspapers have a circulation of about 100,000 combined. Our population is 61 million! They are irrelevant, practicaly no one reads them, they are unrepresentative left wing toilet paper . Stop biting the hand that feeds you, stick to the Big Issue..
24 reality check (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 10:13 pm Report abuse
Marcos loves the broadsheets, feel sorry for is local paperboy!

He will be posting articles from the Telegraph next, never fails, same three,
25 screenname (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 10:32 pm Report abuse
Reading the Malvinistas from La-La land taking a massive huff because people are talking...

I thought it was good to talk? Is that not what CFK wants?

Or maybe Argentina expects people to just quietly listen and obey? The Falklands, not being Argentina, does not have to do that.
26 agent999 (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 11:02 pm Report abuse
21 Marcos Alejandro

Alejandro Betts !!!!
27 Devolverislas (#) Apr 26th, 2013 - 11:33 pm Report abuse
@19
“In fact the UN had never pronounced one way or another on the validity of one side or another in the dispute, and has chosen instead to confine itself to recommending a peaceful solution”, writes HansNiesund.

Yes, but a forerunner of the Special Committee on Decolonisation left open the possibilty of seeking a recommendation
28 agent999 (#) Apr 27th, 2013 - 12:40 am Report abuse
@27
???
29 Anglotino (#) Apr 27th, 2013 - 01:23 am Report abuse
“Yes, but a forerunner of the Special Committee on Decolonisation left open the possibilty of seeking a recommendation”

I just love how people make stuff up but then ignore concrete proof such as the UN Charter.
30 Devolverislas (#) Apr 27th, 2013 - 01:24 am Report abuse
@19 @28

resuming... Yes, but a forerunner of the Special Committee on Decolonisation (Sub-Committee III)left open the possibility of seeking a recommendation on the substance of the matter of the sovereignty or rights over the Falklands/Malvinas. That recommendation would have to come from the ICJ.
31 HansNiesund (#) Apr 27th, 2013 - 02:47 am Report abuse
@30
That possibility has existed since the International Court of the League of Nations was created in the 1920s. Given that Argentina has left this possibility open for nearly 100 years, one has to wonder why. And indeed if by declining to avail itself of the competent channel for all that time, Argentina has not legally acquiesced in the status quo.
32 Trunce (#) Apr 27th, 2013 - 07:59 am Report abuse
@21 Marcos

Your links are from the Guardian and Independent. Botton two papers in terms of circulation. There is a reason for that status - a minority agree with their editorial stance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
33 HansNiesund (#) Apr 27th, 2013 - 08:02 am Report abuse
@32
Which you can see by reading the comments to the posted articles. Only a tiny minority has any sympathy with the Argentine position.
34 Simon68 (#) Apr 27th, 2013 - 03:01 pm Report abuse
14 Devolverislas (#)
Apr 26th, 2013 - 06:35 pm

”3) The United Nations does not recognize the referendum of March 10/11 because it was not instigated by the United Nations. “

This is not true, or in other words it is a lie. The reaction of the UN to the referendum is contained in: www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=2738

”New York, 12 March 2013

In response to questions about the referendum on the Falklands/Malvinas, the Spokesperson has the following to say:

“The Secretary-General has taken note of the referendum. He reminds Argentina and the United Kingdom that his good offices remain available if both parties engage.”

The other proof that the UN does not take our (Argentine) side in the “dispute” is that the UN recognizes the UK as the Administering Authority over the Islands, if the UN supported our spurious claim it would recognize us as Administering Authority. Likewise the UN would have expressed a different point of view when delivering the UNSC 502, and not recognized that WE had invaded the Islands, we couldn't have invaded territory that blongs to us!!!!!!

So obviously the UN has NEVER recognized the Argentine claim to be valid!!!!!!
35 briton (#) Apr 27th, 2013 - 07:31 pm Report abuse
it could all end so easily,

take us to the ICJ,
dont moan abt it
dont cry abt it
dont slag us off abt it
dont crawl to the UN abt it
dont cry to south America abt it
dont beg the pope abt it
TAKE US TO THE ICJ,

or keepy quiety.
36 Devolverislas (#) Apr 27th, 2013 - 11:56 pm Report abuse
@34

1) You are mistaken, Simon 68, if you equate “take note of” with “recognize”. The two verbs have quite different meanings.
The United Nations does NOT recognize the referendum on the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.

2) The UN may well recognize the de facto administration of the islands, as does the USA. But neither the UN nor the USA have taken a position on sovereignty.
37 Terence Hill (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 02:50 am Report abuse
36 Devolverislas

Well “take note” doesn't mean “does not recognize”, which is the point that poster 34 Simon68 was querying. By definition it means:

Princeton's WordNet

note, take note, observe(verb)
observe with care or pay close attention to
“Take note of this chemical reaction”

Wiktionary

take note(Verb)
To pay attention; to take notice; to note

www.definitions.net/definition/take%20note

So how can you not recognize something you taken note of?
38 Anglotino (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 04:58 am Report abuse
Actually Devolverislas, the UN has taken a position of the Falkland Islands sovereignty.

It TAKES NOTE that there is a sovereignty dispute. However is solely recognises the UK as having sovereignty because only it can “decolonise” the islands.

If they recognised Argentina's sovereignty then the UN would treat it like Palestine, North Cyprus, South Ossetia, Kashmir, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria etc.

None of which are on their list of territories needing decolonisation.

It says the UK:
-is the administrative power
-is the only country that can change this.

It recognises there is a sovereignty DISPUTE - this is not a recognition of ACTUAL sovereignty.
39 Terence Hill (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 07:41 am Report abuse
Then if Argentina really wants to resolve the issue, all they have to do is ask the General Assembly to submit the sovereignty issue to the ICJ for an advisory opinion. The UK is already on record saying she would be bound by such a decision. So why doesn't Argentina?
40 Anglotino (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 10:12 am Report abuse
Terence Hill

Why would they ask the General Assembly to do anything? The UN really doesn't care.

Argentina is quite capable of taking the issue to the ICJ or they could even ask for an Advisory Opinion which the UK wouldn't have to agree with.

The simple fact is that Argentina gains more by have a cause célèbre. It doesn't want a resolution.

Falkland Islands independence as a Commonwealth Realm will change the nature of Argentina's claim but it will never disappear. Just as Guatemala claims Belize, Venezuela claims half of Guyana and Bolivia claims part of Chile - the only countries held back in these disputes are the countries doing the claiming.
41 briton (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 11:00 am Report abuse
its british,
and will remain so untill the islanders say otherwise.
full stop.
42 ljordao (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 02:13 pm Report abuse
Falklanders will neither abandon the land they rightly own nor welcome Argentinian rule. Britons will not deny them military protection. Brazilians and Venezuelans, even when they publicly endorse Kirchner's dream of ethnic cleansing, will not dare walk the walk. Therefore, the big question for Lebensraum Argentinians is this: What the hell are you going to do, bitches? Here is my suggestion: Valium will do you greater good than self-pitying whining.
43 Terence Hill (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 03:38 pm Report abuse
40 Anglotino

Actually Argentina lost the right to submit the issue on her own behest, under the doctrine of extinctive prescription along time ago. So via the UN to the ICJ is the only legal route open to her, but even that is dubious because of time constraints But as to the rest of your post, that Argentina doesn't want the issue legally resolved I agree.
44 Devolverislas (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 07:33 pm Report abuse
@39 @43 @38 @40

“The UK is already on record saying that she would be bound by such a decision” (from the ICJ). Not true.

In its Declaration, dated 5 July 2004, the UK stated that it accepts the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice only in all disputes arising ater 1 January 1974.

For its part, Argentina has not signed the Charter, recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

So, an impasse. The only way out is for Argentina to sign the ICJ Charter and to seek, through the General Assembly, an advisory opinion on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas. The UK would then be under considerable pressure to accept the Court's opinion.
45 Pete Bog (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 09:04 pm Report abuse
@44
“seek, through the General Assembly, an advisory opinion on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas”

That has got to be in relation (as res 2065 stated) to the provisions of the UN Charter.

Which support the Falkland Islander's position.

Argentina has no case.
46 HansNiesund (#) Apr 28th, 2013 - 09:27 pm Report abuse
@44

There is nothing to prevent the UK and Argentina agreeing to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court for this particular dispute. Even Thatcher declared back in 1984 that if approached by Argentina the UK would respond positively.

The only impasse here, is that Argentina won't go to the Court because it knows it would lose. Indeed it has already been argued on here that Argentina's failure to avail itself of the competent channel for resolving this dispute means it has lost already.

The alternative strategy of misrepresenting the conflict and persuading the gullible to sign resolutions in favour of peaceful settlement, which are then presented as resolutions in favour of Argentina sovereignty, has also failed to bear fruit despite some 50 years of trying.

Quite odd, really, when all you have to do is convince slightly more than half the islanders they'd be better off with you. Why is that so hard?
47 Pete Bog (#) Apr 29th, 2013 - 11:43 am Report abuse
@46
“Quite odd, really, when all you have to do is convince slightly more than half the islanders they'd be better off with you. Why is that so hard?”

That would seem to be the easiest route.

For all the protests, their claimed worldwide support and“ we demand this, we demand that”, the Argentines don't appear to have persuaded the UK to talk with them.
48 briton (#) Apr 29th, 2013 - 06:44 pm Report abuse
Well they have succeeded in a few departments,
1, they have turned to islanders against them
2, succeeded in breaking agreements
3, abused the human rights laws
4, ignored the UN.
How mach more successful could CFK possibly get lol.
.

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!

Advertisement