Tuesday, May 21st 2013 - 06:45 UTC

Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future

UK conditioned a possible re-launching of agreements on hydrocarbons and fisheries in the South Atlantic to Argentina accepting ‘there will be no sovereignty negotiations’ regarding the Malvinas Islands and called for the Argentine government to respect the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.

Foreign Office minister Swire: Falklands would gladly resume cooperation agreements with Argentina but with no sovereignty discussions

Hugo Swire minister of state at the Foreign Office for Latinamerican affairs was interviewed via e-mail by Argentina’s Diarios y Noticias news agency, courtesy of the British embassy in Buenos Aires.

The British official rejected arguments that the British presence in the Falklands was because of oil and its strategic closeness to Antarctica, and ratified that UK has “no doubts” about “its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and surrounding maritime space, or the right of the Islanders to decide their own future”.

Swire said that an agreement on oil and fisheries in the South Atlantic would also “benefit the Argentine economy which certainly would be something positive at this moment”.

Follows the interview as it was published in the Argentine media.

DyN.- At what point are relations between the UK and Argentina? How would you describe them?

HS.- “We want to have a full and friendly relation as neighbours of the South Atlantic and G20 members. Some aspects of our relation are positive but they have the potential of being even more productive, including at G20, sustainable development, science and technology, combating nuclear proliferation and climate change. We are willing to take advantage of this potential and we wish Argentina collaborates with us”.

DyN.- On the Malvinas, in Argentina we believe that London more than supporting the self determination of the 3.000 residents in the Islands, it is trying to control hydrocarbons in the zone and have the archipelago as a strategic base to jump to Antarctica. What have you to say?

HS.- “To quote what our ambassador in Argentina (John Freeman) said recently, we’re talking about people not oil. An overwhelming 99.8% of Islanders voted in a referendum last March to remain British. What else can they do to express their opinion and right to self-determination? As long as the Islanders wish to continue being British, they will have 100% support and protection from the UK.

All the resources from the Falklands territorial waters belong to the Islanders, not to the UK, and we fully support their right to develop those resources for their own economic benefit. As to Antarctica, the UK is proud of its long history of scientific activities, protection of the environment and peaceful cooperation in that continent. We are fully committed and comply with the international governance framework established by the Antarctic Treaty System which has all territorial claims on hold. We recently authorized an Argentine vessel on a scientific research cruise in waters surrounding South Georgia, so that shows we take our responsibilities seriously.

DyN.- For London “sovereignty is out of discussion” but the conflict has 180 years; the Islands are in the Argentine platform, 13.000 kilometres away from Great Britain. How to advance?

HS.- The path to follow is for Argentina to respect the wishes of the Islanders clearly expressed in the result of the recent referendum. Our position is clear and has not changed. We have no doubts about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and the surrounding maritime space or on the Islanders right to decide their own future. It is the right to self determination enshrined in the UN Charter and the International Pact on Political and Civil Rights. There are three sides in this debate, and the Islanders can’t be simply marginalized from history, their human rights must be respected. As such there can’t be negotiations on the Islands sovereignty unless and until the Islanders so wish it.

DyN.- In this framework, can the agreements on hydrocarbons and fisheries of the nineties be re-launched? On what does it depend?

HS.- Yes, we would be delighted to return to the kind of cooperation that existed in the framework of the agreements on fisheries and hydrocarbons exploration in the nineties. In fact, the government of the Islands offered to discuss such cooperation but the Argentine government refused because it refuses to recognize the right of the Islanders to participate in that debate.

To resume cooperation Argentina would have to accept that there will be no negotiations on sovereignty and that the Islanders are included, and will have a voice in any discussion on the natural resources in their territorial waters. That would also benefit the Argentine economy, which certainly would be something positive at this moment.
 

127 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 Usurping Pirate (#) May 21st, 2013 - 07:37 am Report abuse
The title is wrong on two counts .
1 ) There is nothing to debate
2 ) Even if there were something to debate , it would be a matter between the UK and the Falkland Islanders .
2 LEPRecon (#) May 21st, 2013 - 07:43 am Report abuse
@1 UP

Agreed.

Argentina should just Foxtrot Oscar!
3 commonsense (#) May 21st, 2013 - 07:51 am Report abuse
We all know Argentina will never stop harassing The Falklands, its the only way Cruella and tinpot man can deflect internal unrest away from their corrupt government.
4 Usurping Pirate (#) May 21st, 2013 - 08:14 am Report abuse
It might get some of their own supporters in a frenzy , but 99% of Argentines no longer care , it's just background noise to them .
5 Mr Ed (#) May 21st, 2013 - 08:18 am Report abuse
The only thing to debate is where the cruise missiles go if there is any more aggression from Argentina.
6 Monkeymagic (#) May 21st, 2013 - 08:47 am Report abuse
“the islands are in the Argentine platform”

That is hilarious, they are on the Patagonian platform, a landmass seized by Argentina through genocidal slaughter in a blatant exercise of 19th century colonialism.
7 Mr Ed (#) May 21st, 2013 - 09:16 am Report abuse
Oh look, the UK owns the Faroes, and half of Iceland, shared with Greenland.

The USA owns the Bahamas and France the Channel Islands. Canada owns St. Pierre et Miquelon.

And Germany owns France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, the Czech Republic, a fair chunk of Poland, Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Belarus. After all, they were there once, so it is theirs forever.

It's just a search for Lebensraum.
8 British_Kirchnerist (#) May 21st, 2013 - 09:40 am Report abuse
Its not a 3 sided debate, the British and Falkland governments are on the same side, for obvious reasons! Btw a question for Hugo Swire, who killed Pat Finnucane? And who payed for your duck house?
9 Usurping Pirate (#) May 21st, 2013 - 09:58 am Report abuse
BK : What is the relevance of your questions ?
What are you going to call yourself after the October elections ?
British_ Moyanoist ?
10 LEPRecon (#) May 21st, 2013 - 10:02 am Report abuse
@8 BK

So by your argument the Scottish Parliament has no say because the UK parliament should make all the decisions? Okay, I'll just ring up Alex Salmond and get him to dismantle the hugely expensive (my tax money pays for it you know) Scottish Parliament, fire all the MSP's, because BK says that only the British government can speak for British people and they are not allowed self government at all.

Crap and you know it.

No one has the right to make decisions for the Falkland Islanders except THEIR elected representatives. I know, you know it (in your own little deluded way) and the Argentine know it (they just don't like it).

By the way BK, a question for you. Just how long have you been sponging off the welfare state, only taking and never putting a penny in? All your life, probably.

Hugo Swire is a former Grenadier Guardsman. He doesn't have a duck house, and Pat Finnucane was murdered by terrrorists.

Does that answer your ridiculous questions BK? PatYou really are getting more pathetic as time goes by.

As for Argentina they should butt out of the Falklands because they are NOTHING to do with Argentina.

Perhaps, BK, you should call up your bestest friend CFK, and ask how she intends to raise 11 million people in Argentina out of poverty? Ask why native Amerindians are still being driven off their lands and murdered? Ask her where all the money has gone? Ask her where freedom and democracy has gone in Argentina? Ask her to pay her debts?

When she has done all of these things, the actual work she was elected to do, then she can come back to the Falklands. The answer will be the same, a great big Foxtrot Oscar, but at least then she'll have her own house in order.
11 darragh (#) May 21st, 2013 - 10:55 am Report abuse
@8 BK
Interesting for me as an Irishman to read the controlled, diplomatic reasonable statements of Hugo Swire compared with the idiotic rantings and ravings from various twonks in the Argentine government

Oh and by the way Pat Finnucane was murdered by terrorists.

For duck house read bunker full of cash at CFK's house
12 Lord Ton (#) May 21st, 2013 - 11:00 am Report abuse
“ .. All the resources from the Falklands territorial waters belong to the Islanders, not to the UK, and we fully support their right to develop those resources for their own economic benefit. ..”

From the horses mouth Think :-)

But then you probably don't believe in horses !
13 Devolverislas (#) May 21st, 2013 - 11:23 am Report abuse
“The path to follow is for Argentina to respect the wishes of the Islanders clearly expressed in the result of the recent referendum”, says Hugo Swire.

And the path for the UK to follow? To start talks with Argentina, as directed by the United Nations, on the question of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas, taking into account the “interests”, but not the wishes of the population of the islands.

The Foreign Office is clearly at sea. In desperation the minister now invokes the islanders' human rights, which nobody would deny them.
14 bushpilot (#) May 21st, 2013 - 11:59 am Report abuse
“which nobody would deny them.”

What a lie.
15 Redrow (#) May 21st, 2013 - 12:16 pm Report abuse
@13

But the WERE talks. William was there and so were the FI representatives. There was paper and pencils and even a nice chair for Mr Timerman who had asked for the talks and who was in London at the time. Oddly, he forgot to actually show up for the talks he had demanded. It was all very confusing. Initially, it looked like he really, really wanted the talks, yet when the time came it turned out that he didn't really. I think he just wanted to SAY that he wanted them. I wish he had made that clearer beforehand because they'd got biscuits in and everything.
16 Benson (#) May 21st, 2013 - 12:21 pm Report abuse
@13
Requested not directed.

Considering the state of argentina it would not be in our interest to become part of it so at the moment our wishes and our interests are the same.
17 Monkeymagic (#) May 21st, 2013 - 12:32 pm Report abuse
There were talks in the 60s and 70s and it became apparent that Argentina were in NO WAY INTERESTED in respecting the UN Charter (the rights to all people to self determination) nor the respecting the interests of islanders.

In this way Argentina BROKE the non-binding UN resolution.

They followed this up with an illegal invasion, this time breaking a BINDING UN Security Council Resolution.

The UN secretary General confirms the UK is in violation of no relevant UN resolutions.

Devolverislas is in denial...
18 Simon68 (#) May 21st, 2013 - 12:37 pm Report abuse
13 Devolverislas (#)
May 21st, 2013 - 11:23 am

As is usual with my compatriots, they have a semantic problem with the words “wishes” and “interests”.

They find it really hard to understand that, essentially, both words have EXACTLY the same meaning. One only “wishes” for something that is in your own “interest”!!!!!!

As to Pat Finucane, he was murdered by Ken Barret, a former polceman and member of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) which was actually legal organization recognized by the British Government. I would love to know what this has to do with Mr. Hugo Swire, BK, could you please let us know!!!!!
19 darragh (#) May 21st, 2013 - 12:55 pm Report abuse
@18

Normal obdfuscation and diversion tactics from BK and his ilk when they have nothing relevant to say.

As for the UDA being recognised by the Brits....so was Sinn Fein/IRA
20 HansNiesund (#) May 21st, 2013 - 01:02 pm Report abuse
@13 Devolverislas

The right to self-determination is recognised by the UN as a fundamental human right. This is exactly the right which you would deny to the islanders. While claiming that “nobody” would deny them their rights. How very Malvinista,

As for negotiations, the UK variously attempted negotiations in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, right up until several weeks before Argentina decided to start a war instead.

Now if you couldn't manage a successful negotiation when elements of the British government actually wanted to give you the Falklands, what on earth makes you think you could negotiate anything 1000 deaths later, when nobody in their right mind either wants your or trusts you?
21 Monkeymagic (#) May 21st, 2013 - 01:30 pm Report abuse
Hans

You are not thinking like a Malvinista.

1) the right to self determination, is a right of all people's. The Falkland Islanders are not a people as they are “implanted”.

Curiously, according to the Malvinistas, the Chagossians, the French Polynesians, the Argentines, the Canadians, are all “People's”. It is unclear as to the distinction.

2) the negotiations in the 50s-70s were a sign that Argentinas claim is strong, and that Britain knows it, according to axel arg and Raul, these negotiations were the cause of the 1982 war, and it was Britains fault.

However, they'd like Britain to restart negotiations...

3) the 1982 war had nothing to do with Argentina it was the fault of the Junta (who were supported by less than 0.000001% of Argentines) and Margaret Thatcher in equal measure.

A) The Falklands are Argentine because they are closer (now they've completed their genocidal slaughter through Patagonia)

B) the Falklands are Argentine because they inherited them from Spain, even though Spain don't recognise this, the Spanish civilians who voluntarily left the islands in 1811 went nowhere near Argentina, and that no Argentine civilian population has lived on the islands.

C) the Falklands are Argentine because in November 1832 50 Argentine milia turned up, murdered their captain, raped his wife, and we're evicted 7 weeks later.

There, that's better, you can think like a Malvinista...impressive logic you have to admit.
22 TroLLey_to_Truth (#) May 21st, 2013 - 01:56 pm Report abuse
Then I guess no fisheries and carbohydrons discussions are ever to occur. Argentina's position anyway. We don't negotiate our fisheries. Stick to your own waters and I have no problems.
23 Monkeymagic (#) May 21st, 2013 - 02:26 pm Report abuse
troll

I am not sure what you mean by carbohydrons, but I assume you mean hydrocarbons.

This isn't a problem for the islanders, the oil discoveries have no need for, or economic benefit from associating with Argentina. The FPSO developments mean (as they do all over the world) that oil tankers won't go anywhere near the mainland until their ultimate refinery destination.

The potential benefit to Argentina would be a cheap gas supply. Argentina has a large onshore gas distribution network going all the way down to the Magellen straits.

If there were a large gas discovery in the Falklands, Johnson and Loligo certainly look promising, there would be potential for a 300mile pipeline.

This would mean that the Falklands could provide gas to Argentina far cheaper than it could by converting to LNG and shipping to the ROW.

This is called a Win:Win, the Argentines get a very cheap gas supply, and the FIs get an income.

However, as you know, nobody would invest the necessary fortune to build a 300mile pipeline to Argentina where the insane hag in charge would look to worm out of any agreement, lie, steal and cheat...and sooner see her own people freeze to death through energy shortages than behave like a human.

So, you a correct, whilst a deal on hydrocarbons would be mutually beneficial, it won't happen. This will mean that Argentines will pay more for their heating, some probably freezing to death, whilst the Falklanders will have to make do with their oil, condensate and LNG revenues, making them the richest people per capita on earth.

TUM-ti-TUM.....LOLOLOLOL
24 manchesterlad (#) May 21st, 2013 - 02:28 pm Report abuse
When this corrupt, autocratic, inept kirchnerite government finally get thrown out of office, the rhetoric over the Falklands will hopefully die down

With a more pragmatic leader (Scioli seems to be the best of a bad bunch) maybe negotiations can be restarted & everyone can get on with their own lives for a change........ wishful thinking perhaps???
25 TroLLey_to_Truth (#) May 21st, 2013 - 02:30 pm Report abuse
Since sovereignty is rightfully not something to negotiate, what is there to negotiate?

The only thing the British/Falklanders I guess want to negotiate is ARGENTINE TERRITORY (our EEZ waters beyond the Falklands, because their waters are not up for negotiation right?)

Britain can forget trying and using negotiation to take over our territory.
26 Conqueror (#) May 21st, 2013 - 02:32 pm Report abuse
@8 No, it's not a debate at all. Argieland are being offered a chance to, maybe, make some money, if they work for it. There will be NO debate about sovereignty because argieland has no say. Regarding your Irish question, who killed 705 members of the British Army, 301 members of the RUC, 24 members of the NIPS, 7 members of the TA, 6 members of other British police forces, 4 members of the RAF and 2 members of the RN?
@13 There will be NO “talks” with argieland on the matter of sovereignty. Not least because the United Nations has NO authority to “direct” anything. Numpty!
@22 Ah, the “isolationist” is back! “no fisheries and carbohydrons discussions are ever to occur.” Fine by us! By the way, they are “hydrocarbons”, dickhead. But stay out of our sea unless you want to risk getting sunk. Done that before, haven't we?
27 Spainexpat (#) May 21st, 2013 - 02:34 pm Report abuse
@TTT

Yawn.............I don't know how many times you have posted that nonsense on here but do try and think of something else.
28 TroLLey_to_Truth (#) May 21st, 2013 - 02:34 pm Report abuse
Argentina does not negotiate trade or economics with anyone, even Mercosur, we are going to negotiate with you? lol!
29 Captain Poppy (#) May 21st, 2013 - 02:57 pm Report abuse
#22 toby....if you believe they are your territorial waters, why not patch the hole s in one of your puddle pirate naval vessels, right it from listiung in it's berth, then go over into the Falklands territorial waters shaking your balls and see thew results come about, if you truly believe they are your waters?
And BK, since pretending to be a Scotsman, you should be respecting the self governing and determination of the Falklanders considering that is what you Scots, pretend or not are planning to do not year, govern yourselves, why do you deny the Islanders the same human rights? All you RG's are total hypocrits.
30 TroLLey_to_Truth (#) May 21st, 2013 - 03:04 pm Report abuse
I don't need to, by “their waters” I mean those waters you speak of, the ones sorrounding their islands.

What is needed is for you to get a brain transplant and re-learn how to read the only language you will ever know. I think you monolinguals (English speakers), criticizing someone for writing “carbohydrons”, when I have six languages in my head, and have barely used English in the last two months, is quite ridibund.
31 Think (#) May 21st, 2013 - 03:38 pm Report abuse
TWIMC

The English opening for negotiations is the following....:
1) It’s a three-sided debate....
2) Argentina must recognize the Islanders right to decide their future...
3) England conditions a possible re-launching of agreements on hydrocarbons and fisheries in the South Atlantic to Argentina accepting ‘there will be no sovereignty negotiations’ regarding the Malvinas Islands.

Here's an Argentinean opening for negotiations....:
1) It’s a two-sided debate....
2) England must recognize Argentina's sovereignity over them Islands...
3) Argentina conditions a possible re-launching of agreements on hydrocarbons and fisheries in the South Atlantic to England withdrawing their troops, their Governor & Co. and any known uncooperative Kelper troublemaker from the Malvinas Islands.

Your move, Goddams......
32 andy65 (#) May 21st, 2013 - 03:42 pm Report abuse
@TroLLey_to_Truth says“when I have six languages in my head, and have barely used English in the last two months, is quite ridibund”

Now we know why you talk such shit thanks for explaining.
33 golfcronie (#) May 21st, 2013 - 03:44 pm Report abuse
@30
Really concentrate on one language. Reminds me of Eric Morecombe when he said “ he played all the right notes but not neccessarily in the right order”
Do keep up.
34 Benson (#) May 21st, 2013 - 03:51 pm Report abuse
@28 TTT
And hows that working out for you, creating a good strong economy?
35 Simon68 (#) May 21st, 2013 - 03:51 pm Report abuse
31 Think (#)
May 21st, 2013 - 03:38 pm

Obviously there will be no dialogue!!!!!!!
36 slattzzz (#) May 21st, 2013 - 03:58 pm Report abuse
stink says........ Argentina conditions a possible re-launching of agreements
I say the only launching to be done will be by the British Submarine Service
37 TroLLey_to_Truth (#) May 21st, 2013 - 03:59 pm Report abuse
@33

I don't need to. Why should I adjust my lifestyle to intolerant, racist, jealous twats like you and the others, for making one mistake out of thousands of words I have written today?

Again, don't let the jaundice ooze so much of your clogged anglo pores.
38 andy65 (#) May 21st, 2013 - 04:01 pm Report abuse
Think Only a peasant like you an in planted Argentine living in northern Europe could believe that negotiations have to end in Argentine sovereignty it's not going to happen so I believe you will remain bitter and twisted.
39 Faz (#) May 21st, 2013 - 04:06 pm Report abuse
Think, you and Toby are sunk, or, you will be if you approach our English Falklands. End of...

As for Toby's carbohydrates, that's what Maximo is always stuffing down has gob. He has relations in England - Cyril Smith, John Prescot and Eric Pickles, they all have something in common. Personally I think he looks rather like Chavez did? mmmm...

Are all Rgs as ignorant as you two?
40 TroLLey_to_Truth (#) May 21st, 2013 - 04:11 pm Report abuse
This is what the British call “negotiations”:

Sovereignty is off the table (fine).
Our EEZ Falkland's waters are off the table.
Our flight links are off the table.
Our relations with other nations are off the table.

What we can negotiate is Argentina's EEZ waters (we impose fishing quotas on you)

Argentina's fisheries in your own EEZ (you destroy your own fishing industry by prohibiting catches and let us have your fish swim to our waters)

Argentina's foreign policy with other nations (must become exactly as Britain's)

Argentina's airspace (you must grant us whatever access we want)

Argentina's port (you will allow us to dock Falkland Island flagged ships, British ships, our warships, and whatever else we demand...errm “negotiate”...)

That is Britain's offer of negotiations.

They actually are bewildered when Argentina refuses.
41 Devolverislas (#) May 21st, 2013 - 04:11 pm Report abuse
@20
“The right to self-determination is recognised by the UN as a fundamental human right”, writes HansNiesund.

I think not, but will happily stand corrected if he can supply evidence.
Human rights are individual rights. The right to self-determination is a collective right and applies to peoples.

@31
And your proposal for a United Nations backed “opening for negotiations”?
42 Captain Poppy (#) May 21st, 2013 - 04:28 pm Report abuse
Once again toby can't respond to direct questions so he/she diverts the topic. You are really comical in you monolingual rhetoric. You cannot defend so what you thinks works for you is insults. BTW......we are really happy with the shift changes...the other troll that uses your ID is way too passive......we all like the angry troll, the arrogant one with the false persona of self grandiosity. Momma's tit milk is good....no toby?

Toby it is really a simple solution.....if you really believe that the Falkland Island are Argentina's, take it to the ICJ......You had your ship Liberstad released last year.......go for it. If not...why is that are you not talking this to the ICJ?
You say Stink:

”1) It’s a two-sided debate....
2) England must recognize Argentina's sovereignity over them Islands...
3) Argentina conditions a possible re-launching of agreements on hydrocarbons and fisheries in the South Atlantic to England withdrawing their troops, their Governor & Co. and any known uncooperative Kelper troublemaker from the Malvinas Islands.”

1) Is Argentina so afraid of the Falklanders to ignore them?
2) WHy-you ignore the Falklanders, so prove that they MUST?
3) This is your, excuse me your not Argentine, Argentina's loss, not the Islanders.

Argentina is a bunch of pussies. You cry they are your islands as you wipe the sand away that was kicked in your face. Muscleless twats hole, sperm recepticles, cum buckets. Go fly Tango 1 in circles to keep the rust away.
43 Think (#) May 21st, 2013 - 04:33 pm Report abuse
(41) Devolverislas

You ask me...:
“And your proposal for a United Nations backed “opening for negotiations”?”

I say...:
They would, of course, have to be softer.... Something like this....:
1) It’s a two-sided debate....
2) England must recognize Argentina's sovereignity over them Islands...
3) Argentina conditions a possible re-launching of agreements on hydrocarbons and fisheries in the South Atlantic to England withdrawing their troops and their Governor & Co. from the Malvinas Islands.
4) Known uncooperative Kelper troublemaker to be “Monitored” by the
*UNMGKUKT.
*(United Nations Monitoring Group for Known Uncooperative Kelper Troublemakers)
44 reality check (#) May 21st, 2013 - 04:43 pm Report abuse
You go and talk all you like on the sovereignty of the Islands.
You will be talking to yourselves, but hell, at least someone will be listening
45 malen (#) May 21st, 2013 - 04:54 pm Report abuse
A minister is offering a “canje” on sovereignity??, juaaaaa, they look desperate....
46 HansNiesund (#) May 21st, 2013 - 05:02 pm Report abuse
@41 devolverislas

> I think not, but will happily stand corrected if he can supply evidence.

“By the terms of the amended resolution, the Assembly would further reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right. ”

Can't say clearer than that.

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

> Human rights are individual rights. The right to self-determination is a collective right and applies to peoples.

So the absence of a 'collective right' negates an individual right? Where on earth does this innovative legal doctrine come from?
47 reality check (#) May 21st, 2013 - 05:07 pm Report abuse
Desperate, not a word I would use to describe the British position on the Falkland Islands.

Tell you what, you lot STFU for a couple of years and lets see how often we raise the subject?
48 Clyde15 (#) May 21st, 2013 - 05:18 pm Report abuse
#43
2) England must recognize Argentina's sovereignity over them Islands... spelling mistake SOVEREIGNTY

In the unlikely agreement of “England agreeing - why does the expression ”Hell freezing come to mind ” ? - then it's still a no go scenario.
If Scotland , Wales and N.Ireland don't agree then you are stuffed. We probably dislike you more than the English do.
49 Think (#) May 21st, 2013 - 05:31 pm Report abuse
(48) Clyde15
Many thanks for helping this old and humble Argentinean man with his hopeless English spelling......
I will do my utmost not to let you down again.......
Don't know so much about the English province of N. Ireland...., never been there...... but during my visits to the English provinces of Scotland and Wales, I have always felt very welcomed as the Argie London-skeptic I am.....
50 Britninja (#) May 21st, 2013 - 05:38 pm Report abuse
@49 I'm Welsh and I think you're a twat.
51 Captain Poppy (#) May 21st, 2013 - 05:50 pm Report abuse
Perhaps the English can help me out here, but Scotland and Wales are not provinces.
52 HansNiesund (#) May 21st, 2013 - 05:52 pm Report abuse
@31 Think

> Your move, Goddams......

Dear United Nations,

We have tried once again to negotiate with these people, but in the absence of responsible adults our efforts to introduce some basic common sense into this rather artificial dispute have failed. We are sure that those of your members who have ever entered into a contract or trade agreement with them will know what they're like and understand what we mean.

Her Majesty's Government considers that all its obligations under UN resolutions have been met, and we will no longer entertain efforts to undermine the founding principles of the UN, the UN Charter, and fundmanental human rights.

We hope that's clear.

Yours sincerely
The British.
53 Steve-33-uk (#) May 21st, 2013 - 05:54 pm Report abuse
Not much FI related news today, but I found a few interesting bits...

''Democracia K': What’s going on in Argentina!? - May 25th marks the tenth anniversary of Néstor Kirchner being inaugurated President of Argentina. At the time, few Argentines would have imagined what was in store for their country with the advent of the “K” – for Kirchner – Regime....'
rt.com/op-edge/democracia-argentina-cristina-kirchner-566/

'Chilean Foreign Minister Timerman by red complained to airline LAN
Chilean Minister, Alfredo Moreno, expressed discomfort with the Argentine foreign minister, during a meeting prior to a binational meeting. From Chile to La Campora blame squarely on the problem that forced the cancellation of dozens of flights in recent days...'
www.unoticias.com.uy/2013/05/21/internacionales/canciller-chileno-se-quejo-ante-timerman-por-trabas-a-aerolinea-lan/

'President of Montenegro agreed to visit the Chaco for the redevelopment of Durmitor - ...'He noted that “Montenegro's interest in filing an embassy in Argentina, specifically the province of Chaco is the most famous Montenegrin diaspora in the world. Of course we have made progress on a bilateral agenda. We, representing Argentina, the emphasis is on the order of diplomatic support our claim over the Falkland Islands...”
www.diarionorte.com/article/88785/el-presidente-de-montenegro-acepto-visitar-el-chaco-para-la-remodelacion-del-durmitor

'French Polynesia, between democracy and decolonization??'
es.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/21/polinesia-francesa-entre-democracia-y-descolonizacion/
54 Think (#) May 21st, 2013 - 05:59 pm Report abuse
(12) Mr. Lorton

You say....:
“ From the horses mouth Think :
“ .. All the resources from the Falklands territorial waters belong to the Islanders, not to the UK, and we fully support their right to develop those resources for their own economic benefit. ..”
But then you probably don't believe in horses !

I say...:
From the very same horse mouth Mr. Lorton:
”UK has “no doubts” about“ its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands ....“

Meaning.....: England has no doubt about the Islands being English because the Islands belong to the Islanders who are English therefore the Islands are English.....

I do believe in horses indeed........ One of the most irrational and stupid lifeforms on this planet...”
55 Redrow (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:02 pm Report abuse
Historically, England & Scotland were considered nations, N.Ireland a province and Wales a principality. However N.Ireland and Wales have both gained their own assemblies and N.Ireland even has its own judicial system, banknotes and right to secede from the Union should it wish. Thus Province barely applies.
56 golfcronie (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:03 pm Report abuse
@37
Touched a nerve I think. I think you are a very bitter man. I am not rascist, in fact my last wife was Argentinian. But being English I don't expect everything to be perfect.
57 Monkeymagic (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:04 pm Report abuse
Think

In response to your three pre-requisites for negotiations:

1) Argentina must recognise Chilean sovereignty over Patagonia, Uruguaian sovereignty over Buenos Aires and the River Plate area and Bolivian sovereignty over the remainder of Argentina, Argentinians must either assimilate into these new nations (with no vote-as they will be an implanted population in some else's land), Argentians must be banned from breeding (including your penchant for incontinent women..yuk), and ideally encouraged to commit suicide.

2) the use of the words argentina, Argentine, Argentinian would be punishable by death, unless used alongside shitheap, corrupt, turd,

3) the people of the Falklands would be keen to develop relationships with Greater Chile, Greater Uruguay or Greater Bolivia.

These negotiations are fun...all the while the Falklands still lie with the islanders as they always will.
58 Mr Ed (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:20 pm Report abuse
@ Redrow 55. Northern Ireland was created at partition in the 1920s, and has its own bank notes still but the same £ sterling as the rest of the UK. It has its own legal system, but based on English Common Law. It had its own Parliament and Home Rule on most matters (not national taxes, foreign affairs, defence, constitutional matters, citizenship) and government. This was replaced by direct rule in the 1970s as the Troubles grew, and then autonomy was restored after the Good Friday Agreement, but with a rigged powersharing agreement.

Scotland has always had its own legal system quite distinct from English law, and Scottish £ notes for Sterling. Wales has an assembly with limited powers compared to Scotland and Northern Ireland and essentially the same legal system as England.

England too has the right to secede from the Union if it wishes, but any secession needs the consent of the UK Parliament and England would need to have a Parliament.

I'd quite like to see the UK Parliament expel Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and England from the UK, perhaps leaving Rockall as the UK with all the debt, and the EU obligations for the gannets to worry about.

Oddly enough, the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark dispute Rockall without any threats or violence.
59 briton (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:32 pm Report abuse
I'd quite like to see the UK Parliament expel Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and England from the UK, perhaps leaving Rockall as the UK with all the debt

Now wouldn’t that be brilliant,
The UK goes bankrupt,
And the brits start again, debt free.

Lol.
.
60 golfcronie (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:34 pm Report abuse
@54
THINK
I THINK that you will find that the nationality of the residents of the FALKLAND ISLANDS are in fact FALKLANDERS ( ie NOT ENGLISH ) the same as any person residing in ARGENTINA is ARGENTINIAN ( they may have have been Spanish, Italian,German ) but are still ARGENTINIAN, in fact how long do you have to be resident in ARGENTINA before you become ARGENTINIAN. I would appreciate your responce.
61 Brit Bob (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:34 pm Report abuse
Argentine politicians have proved consistently proved over the past 30 years that they cannot be trusted. It is Argentina that needs to be isolated from the World.
62 Conqueror (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:34 pm Report abuse
@31 Our move?
Argieland can get fucked. Oh sorry, it already is!
@37 Why not? “intolerant, racist, jealous twats like you” more or less describes argies.
@40 All sounds pretty reasonable. And your problem is.............?
@41 Look, you don't have enough brain to comprehend. Go back to playing with yourself.
@43 Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I've got it! The perfect “opening for negotiations”. Here it is. All Camporistas, Malvinistas, members of the federal “government, members of provincial ”governments”, spouses, children and grandchildren to be rounded up by British troops, and shot. Oh, and anyone else we don't like!
@49 Of course you did. Celts are kind to beggars. Sorry, I meant buggers.
63 LEPRecon (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:36 pm Report abuse
@51 - Captain Poppy

You are quite correct.

England is a Kingdom. Scotland is a Kingdom too.

In 1603 when Queen Elizabeth I died, she named her 2nd cousin James VI of Scotland as heir to the English throne. Upon his coronation he became King James I of England and it was his idea to unite the crowns, and thus the Kingdoms, hence the name United Kingdom. Thus the UK was a Scottish invention not an English one (think will be disappointed).

Wales is a Principality. It never had a King as such only Princes and Lords.

King Edward I of England, defeated Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (Llywelyn the Last) Lord of Gwynedd, the last true Welsh Prince, and afterwards proclaimed that if the Welsh wanted a Prince he would give them one. He named his son Prince of Wales, and that title is bestowed on the eldest son (or daughter) to this day. Something the Welsh are eminently proud of, I might add.

Northern Ireland is made up of several 'provinces' of the island of Ireland and wished to remain a part of the UK, so voted to do so (self determination).

Of course these days we consider each nation a country in its own right, united under the Crown. Each has their own assembly or parliament (with the exception of England, I might add), and basically manages it's own government and affairs within their own areas, with the exception of foreign policy and defence (sound familiar?).

Also the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, and many of the other 'smaller' islands of the British Isles also manage their own affairs at local level.

I believe a similar system is in use in the USA too. You have your State Governments under a Governor who manage the State's internal governance, and then your Federal Government, which manages foreign affairs and defence, and the running of the nation as a whole.

This concept of giving up power to local governance seems to be alien to our Argentine friends.

Only the Falkland Islanders can negotiate on the matter of sovereignty. Argentina take note & F.O.
64 Think (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:41 pm Report abuse
(58) Mr Ed

You say...:
“Oddly enough, the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark dispute Rockall without any threats or violence.”

Vi Skandinaver siger...:
Get out of our Rockall you skide Engelske pikhoveder or we will disembark and burn your ugly churches, kill your weak men, eat your meager sheep and pleasure your redhaired women as we have done before for some 1,000 years...
Consider yourself warned.
65 briton (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:46 pm Report abuse
But apparently
According to argentine folklore,
If you are not argentine, then you don’t exist,
And the only chance you have [to exist] is if Argentina claims sovereignty over you, and thus you become Argentinian,
Or,
You don’t exist. Lol

Common sense has no place in that isolated immunity called argieland lol.
66 LEPRecon (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:47 pm Report abuse
@64 Think

So you are Danish today and not Argentinian.

Can't blame you, it would be embarrassing to admit you come from such a failing 3rd world country as Argentina is.

Back on topic.

Argentina is right about one thing. The Falklands is a bi-lateral matter between the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands Government.

Argentina should get it's own house in order and feck off.
67 Redrow (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:49 pm Report abuse
@58

The issue I was addressing was the use of “Province” for the constituent parts of the UK. I was simply pointing out why NI and Wales are more than just administrative provinces. Think called NI an “English province” - I realise he was just doing it to be annoying nevertheless I wanted to point out why the UK's constituent countries are not provinces in any classic sense.

I think there's a bloke living on Rockall at the moment. He will be very miffed to discover he owes a trillion quid!
68 briton (#) May 21st, 2013 - 06:51 pm Report abuse
The argies dismiss or destroy anything they dont understand..
69 andy65 (#) May 21st, 2013 - 07:16 pm Report abuse
Think is a parasite not sure why anyone wants to engage with this idiot squatter.
70 manchesterlad (#) May 21st, 2013 - 08:15 pm Report abuse
Thick is a mental lightweight who spends morning, noon & night trolling on this news site trying to get reactions from the serious bloggers on here
What he doesn´t realize is that his comments are comic relief & nobody takes him seriously.
I don´t see him on any of the Argentine blogs mainly because he would probably only get one ´like´ all day & that wouldn´t be enough to justify his pathetic existence !!!
71 Captain Poppy (#) May 21st, 2013 - 08:20 pm Report abuse
ALways been a fascinasting history Lep, I was always intrigued by the Tudors.
“I believe a similar system is in use in the USA too. You have your State Governments under a Governor who manage the State's internal governance, and then your Federal Government, which manages foreign affairs and defence, and the running of the nation as a whole.”

You are correct and each state also can act as a soverign entity, which is why at times states push back on the federal government and even sue the Feds as unstitutional as if it is not spelled out in the consitution, it is a state right. Local governments are incorporated under state laws but states are members of a federation that makes up the United States.
72 Islander1 (#) May 21st, 2013 - 08:54 pm Report abuse
Think - you forget- Argentina has zero grounds for demanding ANY preconditions to talks about co-operation etc.
For the very simple reason that Argentina broke/wrecked or simply tore up every single agreememnt that we did have and or were talking about beforehand!
We can and are proceeding happily WITHOUT any Argentine involvement in anything. Yes it would be commonsense and better for all to have co-operation, but until your Govt grows up - there is no point.

Talks on Sovereignty were happening - then destroyed by a no-warning Military Action by Argentina in 1982 - cancelling out and wiping all offers made to/by through the UN.
So Sovereignty was removed from the table by unilateral Argentine action.

In the 1990s- under the Sovereignty Umbrella where both sides agreed to differ and avoid the topic - Agreements were reached on Hydrocarbons, Communications, Joint Fisheries stock studies and catch recordings - and were processing towards a joint overall South West Atlantic Fisheries Management Policy.
Do please enlighten me as to WHO walked out of or tore up all of these?
So- sorry - but if Arg and Falklands are ever to sit at the table again - WE say how and we have offerred to, through the UN and elsewhere for a year now!
Entirely up to Arg if she wants to take up the offer. We are frankly not bothered either way.
73 Captain Poppy (#) May 21st, 2013 - 09:10 pm Report abuse
#72 they and even thinkless believe they can make demands. But just like monkeys at a zoo.....they sit in their cage watching the world pass by and not a freaking thing they can do about but stomp their feet, jump up and down and cry.

Think.....have some Brie with your whine.
74 Think (#) May 21st, 2013 - 09:14 pm Report abuse
(72) Islander1

You ask...:
“Do please enlighten me as to WHO walked out of or tore up all of these?”

I say....:
We have been through all this before 1n 2011, remember?
YOU did break those agreements, remember?
25 years licenses, remember?
Remember?
75 golfcronie (#) May 21st, 2013 - 09:27 pm Report abuse
THINK
You have not answered my post @60
You don't know the answer do you or are not willing to answer.
76 Monkeymagic (#) May 21st, 2013 - 09:33 pm Report abuse
, I would like to further the discussions on make-believe inheritance as a new precursor on sovereignty.

Spain never had Patagonia, but a couple of Chileans went there once, maybe, before it was usurped by a blatant act of 19th century Argentine colonialism. Patagonia should be returned to Chile as it disrupts their territorial integrity and is “on their shelf”.

Spain ceded the rights of Buenos Aires and the River Plate area to Uruguay. There is no documentation that supports this, or any historical precident, but clearly the current Argentine inhabitants of BA and River Plate are usurping pirates and an implanted population from Spain and Italy. This is a colonial hangover and a 21st century anachronism. Argentina must negotiate sovereignty of these areas immediately with Uruguay...we “demand it”.

Bolivia have long wanted a land route to the ocean. Clearly, the remainder of Argentina would provide Bolivia with this. There is no legal, moral or historical right to this claim, but the Bolivians want it...so we should make silly videos and indoctrinate children about an imaginary usurption. This territory was usurped by Argentina and was ceded to Bolivia from Spain.

In these new territories Argentines or “turds” as they will be called will have no voting rights, as they are not “a people”, but an implanted population on Chilean/Bolivian/Uruguaian soil.

I am happy to negotiate...in fact I “demand it”. Argentina is breaking make believe UN resolutions by not discussing it, even though the Secretary General says they are not.

I will be holding a rally supporting my cause in Buenos Aires, and bringing some embarrassed looking stooges with me to the UN.

this is fun...perhaps I can hire a troll or two to repeat some snippets ad nauseum.
77 Think (#) May 21st, 2013 - 09:38 pm Report abuse
(75) golfcronie

Answering you post @60:
I “Think” that you will find that the nationality of the residents of the MALVINAS ISLANDS is in fact BRITISH. ( ie ENGLISH )
78 LEPRecon (#) May 21st, 2013 - 10:09 pm Report abuse
@77 -think

Exactly think, they're British living in British territory.

So Argentina can feck right off. Only the Falkland Islands Government, representing the people of the Falklands have the right to discuss matters relating to the Faklands.
79 andy65 (#) May 21st, 2013 - 10:44 pm Report abuse
Those Argentine trollops involved in the e-mail session must have been quite taken aback talking to a real diplomat in a controlled and eloquent manner unlike the usual latino ranting and raving they get from there dear lady leader THE BOTOX QUEEN.
80 Clyde15 (#) May 21st, 2013 - 10:46 pm Report abuse
#64
I think you will find that Rockall is within ”UK - Scottish territorial waters. As to Vikings coming to sort us out I would point out that the last time a Viking fleet, under King Haakon of Norway invaded Scotland in 1263, he was soundly defeated and it ended the Norse rule of the Western Isles.
Notwithstanding that, we like Norwegians and get on fine with them.

The UK claimed Rockall to safeguard its use of the rocket range on the Uists. It was considered possible that the USSR would build monitoring equipment on the rock to spy on the testing of missiles.
81 screenname (#) May 21st, 2013 - 10:47 pm Report abuse
@77 Think:

I “Think” that you will find that 97% the residents of the bit of SOUTH AMERICA which your mob would describe as ARGENTINA would identify as LATIN. ( ie FROM SOUTH WESTERN EUROPE )...

Chuckle Chuckle
82 golfcronie (#) May 21st, 2013 - 10:48 pm Report abuse
No they are FALKLANDERS ( living on the FALKLANDS )
If, as you say, that the FALKLANDS are Argentinian then the residents must be Argentinian.
If Spaniards and Italians are living in Argentina then they are Argentinians
Therefore the FALKLANDERS( on the FALKLANDS ) are FALKLANDERS by your logic.
83 Chicureo (#) May 21st, 2013 - 10:54 pm Report abuse
Well Think, one's nationality depends on the passport(s) one has a rightful possession to...correct? Unfortunately, when an invasion takes place, sometimes other nations obligate inhabitants to adopt their nationality or be exiled and a few cases...executed.
For example: If Chile were to rightfully reclaim their stolen territory of Patagonia from you thieving Argentines, obviously there would be the same mentioned change of nationality, along with an obligatory re-education.* (Dual nationals, such as yourself, would be given the privilege of using a cédula identidad extranjeros)

*This re-education would include the Required learning of how to dance the cueca, drink terrible Pisco and not question paying your taxes or try to bribe Carabineros.   ¿Cachai?
84 José Malvinero (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 12:40 am Report abuse
Unbelievable these British officials.
The conclusion to be drawn whenever they talk the matter is that the Malvinas Islands “are British” because:
1) They are British because “They have no doubt of its sovereignty” (!)
2) They are British by the “self-determination” (!)
Nice reasons, almost scientific by its definition ....
The nice thing when they say they “have no doubts about its sovereignty” never explain “why” have no doubts.
The truth is that they “have no doubt” that there are Argentine and the theater of the false-selfdetermination.
The most colonialist country of world that reluctantly and for reasons of force majeure, it was shedding its colonies, speaks of “self-determination”.
Self-determination of Argentines in the Falklands in 1833
Self-Determination of the hindus in India
Self-determination of the Boers in South Africa
Self-determination of Argentines in Buenos Aires in 1806, 1807 and 1845.
Self-determination of people in lots of African and Asian countries.
Self-Determination of the Ilois in Diego Garcia Island in 1965 to the present.
Self-determination of the Polynesians (native, non-implanted) of Polynesia “French” in ..... 2013!
Etc., etc., etc..
85 Captain Poppy (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 12:56 am Report abuse
For the record, Britain offered to go to international arbitration several times in the 1940s and 1950s to settle the sovereignty issue.

blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-why-are-the-falklands-british/10144

Argentina declined on every occasion, saying it did not recognise the jurisdiction of the court.
86 Chicureo (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 12:57 am Report abuse
AND the return of Patagonia to its historical national association with Chile, which those thieving Argentinians unfairly pressured our nation to succeed illegally. PATAGONIA BELONGS TO CHILE! Kick those illegal Argentine colonists out of our territory now....
87 Falkland Islands (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 01:01 am Report abuse
Argentina, bog off. we own the Falkland Islands, 1833 was when the people from the river plate, Now called Argies (well they were pirates and criminals) invaded us the 1st time, then again in 1982, sorry to tell you, but that will be the last time.
88 Islander1 (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 01:19 am Report abuse
Think - you will find if you check dates that the fisheries “agreements” were ended by Argentina refusing to attend any more meetings somewhat BEFORE 2011!
Not sure how the long term licences are a problem - they are in what were agreed as our waters, and had the talks been going on then naturally the points would have been in them and discussed.

Jose- do grow up - What Argentines had self determination to the Islands in 1833- how long had they been resident and I think you will find that the Islands were disputed between UK-Franceand Spain long before 1833 - and Uk was the last resident power.
Argentina did not exist before 1810 - check your history and you will find that UK and Spain were on opposite sides then in the Napoleonic War in Europe - nothing to do with Argentines.What happened in 1845? Oh and are you suggesting that UK did not wind up its old empire by allowing self-determination? I recall that UK got the “Boer” South Africa chucked out of the Commonwealth eventually because they were racist - but then I understand how many Argentines and old Boers would think and act the same.
If you bother to think - you will find that UK does support Self Determination in French Polynesia - UK supports what the people there voted for- to remain a French Territory- what is wrong with the free democratic choice made by the majority of those people?
89 Malvinense 1833 (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 02:08 am Report abuse
@86 It seems that you do not bother to read the treaty of 1881.
Chile did not steal anything.
Argentina do not steal anything.
Do not repeat the lies of the ultranationalists of the 2 countries.
90 Chicureo (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 02:27 am Report abuse
No doubt there were some weak individuals who signed worthless documents that gave away Chilean national territory, but these so called treaties were made nul and void by the numerous treaty violations by those thieving Argentines. Mendoza is rightfully ours as well. We want you all out as Patagonia belongs to us!
91 Islander1 (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 02:47 am Report abuse
Wasn,t the Teaty of 1881 signed by Chile under duress as they were naturally unable to fight a war in 2 places so had to “pacify and please Buenos Aires” so they could concentrate on Bolivia and Peru who had already attacked them?
I assume had the 1881 Treaty not been signed - then Argentina would have attacked before long anyway?
92 DanyBerger (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 04:30 am Report abuse
Fucklanders don’t have a say in this matter because they are British so Britain will speak by them.

BTW sorry about my poor English and if I made any spelling mistake.

I’m learning you know.
93 Monkeymagic (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 06:49 am Report abuse
Jose Malvinero. I looked at your list, its extraordinary ignorance and hypocrisy made me laugh a lot.

Self-determination of Argentines in the Falklands in 1833

50 militia who'd been there 6 weeks...are they not “implanted2. They certainly weren't a 2people” or an “indigenous population”

Self-Determination of the hindus in India

Exactly what they have, largest democracy in the world, delivered within months of the formation of the United Nations.

Self-determination of the Boers in South Africa

Do you know that the Boers were Dutch, Jose, and every bit as “implanted” as the British. In fact, 90% of the current Black population of South Africa are implanted too. They all have a vote..self-determination.

Self-determination of Argentines in Buenos Aires in 1806, 1807 and 1845.

We were at war with Spain...more twaddle.

Self-determination of people in lots of African and Asian countries.

All of them have self-determination.

Self-Determination of the Ilois in Diego Garcia Island in 1965 to the present.

There are no Ilois in Deigo Garcia at present. The Ilois were given funds to relocate, the current debate is whether they should have more funds or be given british citizenship. Very little to do with self-determination.

Self-determination of the Polynesians (native, non-implanted) of Polynesia “French” in ..... 2013!

We respect the recent elections in French polynesia (self-determination in action).

Interestingly, Jose that you want to only grant self-determination to indigenous peoples. Excellent, The Argentine electorate is now about 1 million Amerindians..I am thinking CFK wont win the next election.
94 Conqueror (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 12:05 pm Report abuse
@64 What's with this “our” crap? Variable nationality is it? You're an argie. Rockall is not your concern. Unless you want to PROVE, to our satisfaction, your Irish, Icelandic, Norwegian nationality.
@74 Sorry. A sovereign country can do what it likes. Isn't that what CFK says? And it can renege on agreements, tear them up, default, cheat, steal, lie. That's what argieland does. I don't have enough motivation to research your “claims”. But it occurs to me that, if you don't like these things when they happen to you, it might be an idea not to define them as “acceptable” by doing them yourself!
@77 No, it isn't. Try again.
@84 Must stop you at the beginning. There are no “Malvinas Islands”. Logic alone, not to mention courtesy, indicates that if you are going to use English, you should use it properly. Therefore “Falkland Islands”. Simple. You should “get” that, because you are. Simple. What's your problem?
1) The evidence has been outlined many times. Is your problem illiteracy, incomprehension or delusion?
2) Gibberish
There were NO “argentines” in 1833.
There were NO “argentines” in 1806, 1807 or 1845.
The Ilois were neither native nor indigenous.
The PEOPLE of French Polynesia voted in favour of autonomy with France. Self-determination. Sorry it doesn't work out in your favour....NOT!
@92 Yes, we understand that you are really “Dunny Burger” as in “shit regurgitated minced soya”. Anything intelligent to say? Thought not. Is it right, gleaned from previous posts, that you are “female”? I can't refer to you as “feminine”, “lady”, “girl” or “woman”. Perhaps the problem is that I've seen too many “political”, quasi-intelligent slags that reckon opening their legs is a justifiable recruitment method. Funny how they never mention that getting screwed frequently by as many males as possible is THEIR primary motivation. Guys, dogs, donkeys, horses, broom handles. Anything will do! Anything intelligent? Offers? Think you can “convert” me? Call it a challenge!
95 Vestige (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 01:45 pm Report abuse
No. Its a two sided issue.
Same old trickery.
96 Chicureo (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 02:11 pm Report abuse
#91
It doesn't matter if Argentina had the might to win a Patagonian war. It belonged to Chile at one point and therefore must be returned to us. The current inhabitants are nothing but colonists who have no rights in determining the matter. Theiving Argentine squatters must leave out national territory.
97 Monkeymagic (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 02:18 pm Report abuse
Chicureo

As well as Patagonia, which is rightfully yours, is there any other part of Argentina, to which you have no right which “you just fancy”...we could lobby Ban Ki Moon for you, and make silly videos and have rallys.

By the way, when Patagonia is rightfully returned to you, The falklands will be closest to you..I trust you will respect their right to self-determination.

LOL
98 Simon68 (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 02:56 pm Report abuse
96 Chicureo (#)
May 22nd, 2013 - 02:11 pm

When you guys take back “your” Patagonia, will you let me stay on????
99 Captain Poppy (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 03:09 pm Report abuse
I can see by dumburger's opening word in his first sentence the level of frustration.......poor dumburger, being a cheerleader for a team that has never won a game must be not only frustrating.....but demoralizing.
100 Devolverislas (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 04:20 pm Report abuse
@46

HansNiesund is right. In the text to which he refers (www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm) the Fourth Committee (Special,Political and Decolonization) reported that “in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right.” I stand corrected.

It is most unfortunate, however, that the very text selected by HansNiesund, instead of vindicating his case for Falklands self-determination, destroys it. For the Amended Omnibus Text on Non-Self-Governing Territories is not applicable to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas. It applies only to 11 of the 16 remaining non self-governing territories - specifically to those “where there is no dispute over sovereignty”.

So in the case of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas it is immaterial whether the right of self-determination is a human, individual or collective right. In the eyes of the United Nations the islanders have no such right. The rest of the world follows the United Nations. Just the Foreign Office is being obtuse.
101 reality check (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 04:36 pm Report abuse
WALOB!
102 Chicureo (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 04:38 pm Report abuse
Simon,
As I walready informed THINK: When Chile does eventually and rightfully reclaims their stolen territory of Patagonia from you thieving Argentines, obviously there would be the same mentioned change of nationality and we would obligate inhabitants to adopt Chilean identity or be exiled to some miserable place like Mendoza (Which also rightfully belongs to Chile. Check your old maps...) Strange foreigners like THINK would be given the option of using a cédula identidad extranjeros.
You all would be shipped to re-education camps in Viña del Mar for learning how to dance the cueca, not question paying your taxes or try to bribe Carabineros and speak proper Spanish... ¿Cachai?
103 Monkeymagic (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 04:39 pm Report abuse
@100

You obviously can't read, the AMMENDMENT you posted removes the wording of “no sovereignty dispute” from be pre-requisite to self determination.
104 Chicureo (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 04:54 pm Report abuse
Simon,
As I walready informed THINK: When Chile does eventually and rightfully reclaims their stolen territory of Patagonia from you thieving Argentines, obviously there would be the same mentioned change of nationality and we would obligate inhabitants to adopt Chilean identity or be exiled to some miserable place like Mendoza (Which also rightfully belongs to Chile. Check your old maps...) Strange foreigners like THINK would be given the option of using a cédula identidad extranjeros.
You all would be shipped to re-education camps in Viña del Mar for learning how to dance the cueca, not question paying your taxes or try to bribe Carabineros and speak proper Spanish... ¿Cachai?
105 Monkeymagic (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 05:02 pm Report abuse
@100

Your link is hilarious, have you read it in detail?

The c24 put a motion in place saying that self determination is an absolute human right for the 11 non-self governing territories. (leaving out the five where there is a sovereignty dispute)

The AMMENDMENT is then passed saying that a sovereignty dispute DOES NOT remove that basic human right

The amendment (document A/C.4/63/L.6) to delete the following phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” in operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution VI (document A/63/23) on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands, was adopted by a recorded vote of 61 in favour to 40 against, with 47 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Argentina, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, Spain, Suriname, Syria, Tunisia, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam

fucking LOL
106 Terence Hill (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 05:11 pm Report abuse
100 Devolverislas

There is no dispute over sovereignty since Argentina lost the legal argument a long time ago, due to her own negligence. She knows it which is why she wont put the issue in court. She wont win through politicking since its unenforceable. The rest of the world may choose to follow the UN even when it is legally wrong, but the UK wont.

ICJ judge, Dame Rosalyn Higgins, wrote: “Attractive an aphorism though [self-determination] is, it still has to be said that the territorial issue does come first. Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right to self- determination” (Dame Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process - International Law and How We Use It, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994)

The British jurist Rosalyn Higgins arrived at a similar conclusion when she pointed out: ”No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.80“ There was therefore little doubt that Britain acquired title to the Falklands by extinctive prescription. In other words, it was in this mode that the strength of the British claims resided.
80. Rosalyn Higgins, ”Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
The Falkland War : Britain versus the past...Daniel K, Gibran.

It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared
in 1970 that the modem prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'
Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
107 Monkeymagic (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 05:27 pm Report abuse
@106

The rest of the world didn't follow the UN (C24) it followed the BRITISH AMMENDMENT and voted that a sovereignty dispute is irrelevant to the right to self determination.

The votes were 61 to 40, with more than half those not respecting self-determination coming from LATAM.

I have never seen someone post a link that quite so comprehensively DESTROYS their own argument.
108 LEPRecon (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 05:55 pm Report abuse
@107 - Monkeymagic

That's because malvinista's only read part of the article, they see something that they think supports their argument and don't bother to read the rest of it.

They do the same thing with UN resolutions, only they misinterpret 'talking' to mean 'give Argentina everything that they want'.

Amusing really.
109 Monkeymagic (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 06:01 pm Report abuse
@108

What is transparent here is what the Latam lead C24 were trying to do.

Q- Do you think these 11 territories have the right to self-determination?
A- of course we do.

Ah ha says C24, we deliberately missed 5 off, therefore you must believe they don't...LOL

Well that was the plan, completely scuppered as 61 brave and true countries added the amendment which totally undermines the whole reason C24 invented the motion.

More time and money wasted...but thats the C24.

Here is my motion.

Allow all 16 territories a one every 10 years referendum...do want independence, status quo, or something else.

If they vote independence then the process stops, if they vote anything else we'll see you in 10 years.
110 HansNiesund (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 06:15 pm Report abuse
@100 devolverislas

It's a a rather obvious straw for you to clutch at, but you're evidently having difficulty in distinguishing a general principle from the specific case that gave rise to it. Try reading the text of the actual resolution itself, instead of just the press release. The resolution is not in any way limited to the 11 NSGTs, it makes no mention of any specific NSGT at all, but affirms a UNIVERSAL right :

The General Assembly, blah blah, blah, :

“1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples,
including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
2. Declares its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention,
aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world; ”

Not much comfort for you there, I'm afraid.

www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/63/163&Lang=E
111 Steve-33-uk (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 06:31 pm Report abuse
'Give Falklands and Gibraltar their own MP, says Farage: UKIP leader says territories' voices are dangerously 'muted' - Nigel Farage claims voices of territories are dangerously 'muted' - Territories collectively have 260,000 people and land area of 667,000 sq miles - Mr Farage says they should be able to elect their own 'MP for the Territories...'
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328746/Give-Falklands-Gibraltar-MP-says-Nigel-Farage-UKIP-leader-says-territories-voices-dangerously-muted.html

'A specialist will Malvinas ambassador to Ireland - Silvia Maria Merega, an expert in the Falklands, Argentina will be the ambassador to Ireland after the government there granted the placet..'
www.ambito.com/noticia.asp?id=689499

'Malvinas: no conditions for shared tribute - The South Atlantic war death equaled in Argentine and British soldiers. But there is still remedy the situation that led them there...'
www.clarin.com/opinion/Malvinas-condiciones-homenaje-compartido_0_923907745.html
112 British_Kirchnerist (#) May 22nd, 2013 - 11:18 pm Report abuse
#9 “BK : What is the relevance of your questions ?”

An embarrasing one I'm afraid, I seem to have mistook Hugo Swire for Douglas Hogg! I was able to find the original video on Hogg (who I misremembered as Hugo Swire, maybe because of the similarly porcine names) via some links from the other Galloway video Dany B posted on the Ken Clarke thread; the relevant part is about 20 minutes in www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_avWk6TojA

“What are you going to call yourself after the October elections ?
British_ Moyanoist ?”

No, never. Moyano, always on the right of the labour movement anyway, has in my opinion broken with the core trade unionist values of solidarity in his opportunist and unprincipled attacks on Cristina; if by some weird twist of fate he became President (do you REALLY think it likely?!) all it would mean is I'd have to find my political inspiration elsewhere than Argentina. If I was to change my name I suppose it would be to Britsh Cristinista, since I do seem to talk more about her than Nestor!
113 Monkeymagic (#) May 23rd, 2013 - 05:59 am Report abuse
@100

Cat got your tongue?

Come on explain to me how 40 votes is more than 61 and agree that the amended text removed the very phrase you lied and said it added.

So, from your original post where you said self determination was only a right for “people's”

WRONG: it's a fundamental human right

Then you said its only a right where there is no sovereignty dispute

WRONG: as per the very link you posted
114 LEPRecon (#) May 23rd, 2013 - 06:37 am Report abuse
@112 BK

At least you admit you've made a mistake.

Let me point out another one you've made.

The name Swire is in no way related to porcines. It is old English meaning 'neck of land' or 'someone who lives near a neck of land'. Originally spelt Swyre.

Now you have confused this name with the word swine. This makes me think that you are either very stupid or not a native English speaker.

Maybe it's just both.

Either way, just what was the relevance of your questions?

Answer: none.

Argentina should concentrate on its own rush to 3rd world status, and come up with a plan to stop it. I'll start them off:

1. Arrest the thieves in government.
2. Call for new free and fair elections, under international observation to prevent election fraud.
3. Start rebuilding Argentina's tattered reputation on the international stage by following the international rules and regulations that Argentina promised to follow when they signed all those treaties.
4. Tackle corruption at every level.
5. Work hard, and accept responsibility for all of Argentina's faults instead of constantly blaming others.

Maybe Argentina can save itself if it starts on this road of redemption, but it'll never happen whilst the thieving hag they call a President is in power, she's far too busy stuffing her bank accounts with the money that belongs to the people.

But whichever way Argentina goes it will never get sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, either legally (which if they actually had a legal case they would've gone to the ICJ years ago) or illegally, as the UK would give them a sound thrashing, just like we did in 1982.
115 Devolverislas (#) May 23rd, 2013 - 01:43 pm Report abuse
@110

Thank you for bringing to my attention the text of Resolution 63/163 Universal realization of right of peoples to self-determination (www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp symbol=A/RES/63/163&Lang=E). The Resolution, based on a report from the Third Committee, is very interesting but of no relevance to the question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas. This is because the United Nations has always defined the inhabitants of the Falklands/Malvinas as a “population” and not a “people”. The right of self-determination does not apply to the former.

@103 @105

Thanks for putting me right on the sense of the amendment.

All discussion of the Fourth Committee’s Omnibus Text on Non-Self-Governing Territories , however, is in vain, because this text, with or without the amendment, only applies to 11 of the 16 non-self-governing territories and not to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.

@106

“There is no dispute over sovereignty since Argentina lost the legal argument a long time ago, due to her own negligence”, writes Terence Hill.

Terence Hill then goes on down to lay down some interesting legal arguments, which show that the dispute is very much alive. He picks the British jurist Dame Rosalyn Higgins, who like any good lawyer, provides theoretical support for both sides.

The General Assembly may have recognized in 1970 the validity of acquisition of territory through conquest, but the ICJ observes the principle of uti possidetis juris, which gives pre-eminence to legal title over possession as the basis for sovereignty.
116 Monkeymagic (#) May 23rd, 2013 - 03:19 pm Report abuse
@115

Wrong again.

The Special Comittee on Decolonisation (which is a committee of the UN NOT the UN) put forward a proposal based only on the 11 territories. This was an attempt to do exactly what you wanted...AND THEY FAILED.

They attempted to suggest that territories where no sovereignty dispute existed (I.e. the eleven) were entitled to self-determination, THUS IMPLYING those where a sovereignty dispute did exist were NOT entitled to self determination.

This was defeated. LOOK at the VOTE. LATAM, a few pariah states, plus countries who are trying to steal territories against the will of the people were DEFEATED by pretty much a diverse cross section of the world.

The vote REMOVED any context where sovereignty disputes are in any way reduces the FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.

Your link highlights the LATAM bias of the C24 and the General Assembly telling them to fuck off.
117 HansNiesund (#) May 23rd, 2013 - 04:29 pm Report abuse
@115 devolverislas

> This is because the United Nations has always defined the inhabitants of the Falklands/Malvinas as a “population” and not a “people”. The right of self-determination does not apply to the former.

One thing I've noticed here is that a typical Malvinista argument has these distinct characteristics :
- it is unsupported by any serious documentary evidence
- the documentary evidence which does exist flatly contradicts it
- it violates both logic and common sense
- it is contradicted by subsequent events.

This applies, for example, to the myth of the 1883 expulsion, the renunciation of the Treaty of Settlement, and now this claim that the UN has decided to deny to the Falkland Islanders the 'universal' and 'fundamental' human rights which it repeatedly ascribes to everyone else on the planet.

Your only evidence for this contention is the use, without definition, of the term 'population' in a 50 year old resolution which Argentina itself violated in flagrant contradiction of the most fundamental UN principle there is.

Yet when you did attempt to sneak through a limitation of the right to self-determination, you were shot down in flames. Don't you think if the UN intended to deny self-determination to the Falklanders they have had ample opportunity to state this explicitly? Like, every year, since the foundation of the C24? Of the more than 40 resolutions which you claim support your case, which of them states that the Falklanders are not a “people” in the sense of the resolutions on decolonizations? Which of them state that the principle of self-determination does not apply? If that is what they mean, why don't they just say it?

You'd also have us believe that there exists some notion of 'collective rights' which sets limits on individual rights, in such a way that an individual's rights may be negated by the group he belongs to. Did somebody say logic? Please elucidate, I think there is a rich new mine of Malvinista irrationality here.
118 Biguggy (#) May 23rd, 2013 - 07:07 pm Report abuse
@115
I believe if you check you will discover that the C24 committee is a sub committee of the 4th Committee.
The proposed Resolution of which you speak made it, not surprisingly owing to its make up, from the C24 committee to the 4th Committee where it was considered, and amended prior to being submitted to the General Assembly, where it was accepted.
119 Terence Hill (#) May 24th, 2013 - 02:28 am Report abuse
115 Devolverislas

Alvarez (1909: 290), for example, notes that the uti possidetis of 1810 “was, moreover, recognized in fact by all the states, and proclaimed in the Congress of Lima in 1848.”

www.paulhensel.org/Research/iowa06.pdf

Such an application of the doctrine in law is only to the parties to those nations that are signatories, and no others. In any case it could not be applied to Islands as the dispute arises from 1833, and it was not accepted law formally among the former Spanish colonies until 1848. As there is in international law a bar against applying laws retroactively.

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

”...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. ...
35

The author is a former ICJ president
120 Devolverislas (#) May 24th, 2013 - 04:27 pm Report abuse
@117 HansNiesund

The earliest conclusions and recommendations concerning the Falkland Islands, which were adopted by the Sub-Committee III on 18 September 1964 , refer to the “population of the islands”. This sub-committee had drawn up and considered a report by the Secretariat on the islands (A/AC.109/L98/Add.2, section II incorporated in paras. 1/25). This report was adopted by the Special Committee on 13 November 1964. The Special Committee again referred to the interests of the “population of the islands”. On December 16th 1965 the General Assembly “took into account….in particular the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the (Special) Committee with reference to that Territory” and passed resolution 2065 (XX) , where reference once again is made under para. 4 sec 1 to “the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas”.

All subsequent resolutions of the question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas have, as far as I know, consistently referred to the “interests of the population” of the islands. An easily accessible example would be the Draft Resolution: Question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas adopted by the Special Committee on 3 June 2008. Look up A/AC.109/2008/L.8 at www.un.org/ga/search/symbol.shtml

I am sympathetic to your argument:- “Which of them (resolutions) state that the principle of self-determination does not apply? If that is what they mean, why don’t they just say it?” But, on the other hand, it could be argued that by specifically referring always to the inhabitants of the Territory as a “population”, they are leaving no room for doubt that they are a “people”.
121 Simon68 (#) May 24th, 2013 - 05:34 pm Report abuse
120 Devolverislas (#)
May 24th, 2013 - 04:27 pm

It seems that GA when drafting Res. 2065 stuck strictly to the Special Comission's wording and used “population” as a synonym of “people” as they can be used without making a difference in meaning.

As an example we can ask “What is the population of Argentina?”

Or we can ask “How many people live in Argentina?”

To try and differentiate between “population” and “people” is the ultimate in hair splitting!!!!
122 Monkeymagic (#) May 24th, 2013 - 06:12 pm Report abuse
@121

It may well be the case that the Special Commission (which we know supports Argentinas position as it is full of LATAM countries and pariah states) deliberately used the word population as a synonym to people for exactly the reason @120 suggests.

However, given that they are synonyms it would have been extremely petty of the General Assembly to make them swap population for people (two words that are completely interchangeable).

It seems that the Special Commitee likes these snide, underhand uses of language (perhaps its the LATAM bias)

Question: Do you support self-determination for these 11 territories?

general Assembly: Of course....

Aha: that means self determination doesn't apply to the other 5!!!

GA: who said that??!

It's all complete bollox.

Self determination is a fundamental human right for people's, populations and individuals.

Self determination shouldn't impact the territorial integrity of a country. This is aimed at stopping the population of wholly enveloped small villages/towns declaring independence, not for island groups hundreds or thousands of miles off the coast.

Self determination is NOT affected by territorial disputes, as confirmed by the UN General Assembly above.

Self determination could be affected by treaties. Hong Kong would be an example of this, and in some ways Gibralter. This is where people may have gone to live somewhere in full knowledge of an existing agreement between nations.

So far, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING which Denys the right of self-determination to the islanders, which is why we are we are, where sovereignty lies with them.
123 Pete Bog (#) May 24th, 2013 - 08:09 pm Report abuse
@120
“interests of the population”
If the word 'population' here does not refer to the people of the Falkland Islands, it must refer to the populations of either, plants, birds or animals of the archipelago.
Please note, nowhere in the UN resolutions does it state that account must be taken of the interests of Argentina or the UK.

It refers solely to the population that lives on the Falklands, which if not people, must refer to the interests of the non- human species that live there which I personally find unlikely.
124 HansNiesund (#) May 24th, 2013 - 11:00 pm Report abuse
@120

> it could be argued that by specifically referring always to the inhabitants of the Territory as a “population”, they are leaving no room for doubt that they are a “people”.

If that's all you've got, it's not very much. There's enough room for doubt there to drive a herd of elephants through in line abreast. If they really wanted to leave no room for doubt, they would leave no room for doubt by saying what they mean. As it is, the best you have here is something akin to the usual tactic of getting people to sign up for 'dialogue' and/or 'peaceful settlement', and then going round claiming this means they support the transfer of sovereignity to Argentina against the wishes of the inhabitants. It doesn't. And it s even more absurd to maintain that the use of the term 'population' means that the UN has voted to jettison its most fundamental founding principle without even a specific debate on the question.
125 British_Kirchnerist (#) May 25th, 2013 - 07:35 pm Report abuse
#114 “At least you admit you've made a mistake.

Let me point out another one you've made.

The name Swire is in no way related to porcines. It is old English meaning 'neck of land' or 'someone who lives near a neck of land'. Originally spelt Swyre.

Now you have confused this name with the word swine. This makes me think that you are either very stupid or not a native English speaker”

Neither. I know Swire doesn't actually mean swine, and Hugo doesn't mean Hogg, I wouldn't consider the names of the great Lockerbie victims' advocate Jim Swire, or Hugo Chavez,or the great leftist author Victor Hugo, whose Les Miserables helped convert Chavez to socialism, in any way porcine. But “Hugo” and “Swire” together just seem a little bit of a porcine combination to me, and made me mix him up with Douglas Hogg

“Either way, just what was the relevance of your questions?”

None for Hugo Swire; a very vutting one had it been Douglas Hogg. For full details watch the video. My other mistake though, which I will admit, is that I said duckhouse, thinking of yet another expenses con. In fact it was a moat, as in for a castle! Don't think that makes things better...
126 Conqueror (#) May 26th, 2013 - 01:48 pm Report abuse
@100 Your problem is that you don't understand the real world. Simplification for you. NO UN General Assembly resolution is binding. Get it? ”the Fourth Committee (Special,Political and Decolonization)“ has NO authority. The ”best“ it can do is to report and/or recommend. But it can only do so to the General Assembly. It can't do so to the Security Council. The ONLY UN body with the authority to issue a binding resolution. But, as we can see from history, argieland IGNORED a Security Council resolution. In legal terms, this is a matter of ”precedent“. Argieland ignored the Security Council. Why shouldn't the UK? Moreover, even the Security Council doesn't have the ability to ”enforce“ resolutions, unless the Security Council members choose to employ their ”might“. Bottom line? The UN is powerless. As is argieland. Bye!
@107 PLEASE could I ask everyone to note that the word is spelled ”AMENDMENT“.
@112 Still desperate to sniff her pants then? By the time they are 60, it's not so attractive. That ”I'm sexually active“ odour has gone. It's more like ”I just peed myself“. Still, maybe you couldn't tell the difference between her and yourself!
@115 Unfortunately, for you, the ICJ affirmed the applicability of uti possidetis in the 1986 Case Burkina-Faso v Mali. Uti possidetis juris does not apply since the ”activity“ related to uti possidetis post-dates that of the ”activity“ related to uti possidetis juris.
@120 This is not a court of law. Your obscure legalistic ”arguments“ have no force. You can argue for the next hundred years over a difference between ”people“ and ”population“. It makes NO difference. WE, the British and Falklanders, are in possession. WE have proven that we can beat argieland anytime with 80s technology. But now OUR technology has advanced 30 years. Argieland's hasn't. But here's a simpler truth. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. And WE are in possession.
And it's still not a ”debate”!
127 Pete Bog (#) May 28th, 2013 - 10:35 am Report abuse
@126
“Argieland ignored the Security Council. Why shouldn't the UK? ”

Yes all Argentine supporters out there. If it was OK for Argentina to reject a BINDING UN resolution, and by the way that isn't the only UN resolution Argentina has ignored, why is it OK for Argentina to ignore resolutions and not the UK?

No Malvanista has yet had the intelligence to dispute that in the resolutions such as 2065 that they have to take account of the UN Charter and with the interests of the population in mind (ie the population are the Falkland Islanders). Nowhere does it mention in these resolutions that the interests of Argentina and the UK have to be taken into account or take priority.

That my friends, is the whole point of DE-colonisation NOT RE-colonisation.

In any case, every time the Argentines seek dialogue, the UK offers it with Falkland Islanders present. They have to be present TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS as Argentina and the UK CANNOT dictate the interests of the Falkland Islanders, otherwise by definition that would amount to colonialism.

And as the Argentines see this as a two sided dispute, and only recognise the Falkland Islanders as being from the UK I can't LOGICALLY see the problem of Falkland Islanders being present from the Argentine point of view, if they are not in their view, separate from the UK?
128 Clyde15 (#) May 29th, 2013 - 10:08 am Report abuse
#127
A concise and intelligent statement of the case, but Argentina's case is “we want it -give it to us ”

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