Wednesday, November 13th 2013 - 06:38 UTC

Falklands/Malvinas: Visiting MPs refuse to organize working group on the Islands sovereignty

A group of visiting British MPs and Lords refused to organize a working group over the issue of Falklands/Malvinas Islands sovereignty with their Argentine counterparts during a visit to Congress in Buenos Aires on Tuesday.

The UK delegation visited Congress and in the afternoon met with foreign minister Timerman

 The British delegation was received by the presidents of the Lower House and Senate external affairs committees, Guillermo Carmona and Senator Daniel Filmus who presented the proposal for the working group and meeting which was originally scheduled for 2012.

The visiting delegation was comprised of representatives from the House of Commons, Robert Walter and Mark Menzies (Conservative) and Ann McKechin and Chris Bryant (Labor); and representatives of the House of Lords, Angela Evans Smith of Basildon (Labor); Vivien Helen Stern (Independent) and Gloria Hooper (Conservative).

Carmona and Filmus asked their British colleagues to reopen talks over the Falklands/Malvinas issue and proposed creating a special commission to discuss the issue. However, the initiative was rejected by the British MPs.

“Unfortunately, we haven’t achieved a positive response, but we will keep insisting on a path to dialogue”, said Carmona who underlined Ambassador in UK Alicia Castro's efforts in London to try and promote ”an inter-parliamentary dialogue“.

However the dissent over the Falklands/Malvinas did not prevent the lawmakers to address other issues referred to energy, bilateral trade and human rights.

”They praised the thirty years of democracy in Argentina and consulted us on the human rights issue, since they know we have a vast experience on the subject“, added Carmona.

Attending the meeting with their British counterparts were lawmakers from all the Argentine political arch with congressional representation. They all shared lunch in Congress.

On Wednesday the delegation is scheduled to meet with YPF CEO Miguel Galuccio who will inform them of the famous Vaca Muerta shale gas and oil deposits, as well as how the company seized from Spain's Repsol is on the track to recovery.

On Tuesday afternoon the delegation met with Foreign minister Hector Timerman as the San Martin Palace, where the host again reiterated Argentina's claims over the Falklands/Malvinas.

”We addressed all issues that make to the Argentina/UK relation, among which the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands and the South Atlantic and also about the protectionist policies implemented by the European Union which have a direct impact on Argentina, and the coming negotiations for a trade deal with the EU“, Timerman told waiting journalists following the meeting.

”It has been a very positive dialogue. We are very happy with their visit. It's an important step that they should have come to see firsthand the reality of our country and that they were able to meet with all the blocks in the Lower House and in the Senate, and understand how vast and deep is the support for the Malvinas cause among the Argentine people”, added Timerman.

Present also at the meeting of the British delegation with Timerman was Deputy minister Eduardo Zuaín; Senator Filmus, Deputy Carmona and diplomats from the Malvinas and Europe desks.

101 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.

1 toooldtodieyoung (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 07:19 am Report abuse
“They praised the thirty years of democracy in Argentina”

Buying votes, ballot box rigging and intimidation at the polling booth, is that what passes for “democracy” in argentina these days is it?
2 reality check (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 07:27 am Report abuse
A Special Commission not including the Islanders, wonder what the reply was, something along the lines of, “in your dreams.”

Politely put of course.
3 HansNiesund (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:25 am Report abuse
”They praised the thirty years of democracy in Argentina and consulted us on the human rights issue, since they know we have a vast experience on the subject“

How odd that Argentina's vast experience on the subject has somehow missed the universal human right to self-determination.
4 Britworker (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:30 am Report abuse
Albeit I can see the necessity of keeping lines of dialogue open, which is a good thing. The Argentines know full well that this British delegation would not discuss the sovereignty of someone else's home if they are are not present and represented. It's a bit rude to keep harping on at your guests about a the same issue over and over and over again in the hope that you can eventually grind them down before they go home again.
Seriously though, why would the British need to consult Argentina on their vast wealth of human rights knowledge, I think the conversation must have been running dry at that point.
Argentina needs to learn how to conduct itself in meetings like this, it is always very clear what is on the table for discussion beforehand.
5 trenchtoast (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:35 am Report abuse
I read that they offered to help put Filmus and Carmona in contact with the Islanders but that offer was refused. Not that keen to talk then.
6 Usurping Pirate (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 09:16 am Report abuse
The UK group includes Chris “Capt Underpants” Bryant .
Falklanders can sleep safely in their beds knowing that .
7 toxictaxitrader2 (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 09:34 am Report abuse
While I do support the right of self determination for the Falkland/Malvinas islanders,they have a higher per head income than the hard pressed U.K. taxpayers ,and should beer more of the defence costs ,after all its only fair,and good politics and public relations.
8 downunder (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 09:45 am Report abuse
“and consulted us on the human rights issue, since they know we have a vast experience on the subject“, added Carmona”

Oh really! Does that include throwing momma from the plane?
9 reality check (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 09:50 am Report abuse
Silly sod probably believed every word he said.
10 GALlamosa (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:05 am Report abuse
#7 I'm afraid you are incorrect. Whilst GDP per capita is around the same level as UK, personal incomes are lower. The Falkland Islands already pays very much more per capita, and as a proportion of total budget, on defence than does the UK (or its taxpayers). There is a constant dialogue about where we can assist further. The FIGovernment is building 5 wind turbines for MoD at Mount Pleasant to provide up to 40% of the power demand, repayable against usage. We will soon take over and run the terminal facilities at MPA enabling the release of a number of military personnel. Go to the FIG website for accurate fugures.
11 LEPRecon (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:38 am Report abuse
@7 Why? The UK taxpayer doesn't mind defending the Falklands (no such place as the Malvina's - do you mean Maldives?).

The British Armed Forces have to be stationed somewhere, and have to train somewhere, and the Falklands are just as good a place to do that as anywhere else.

Added to that is the fact that the UK has already spent 255 lives liberating the Falklands from a murderous dictatorship, and it would be a poor reflection on us to turn around and spit on their memories by mentioning something as tacky as money.

The people of the Falklands have repaid the UK in spades: by looking after the graves of those that fell in their liberation and remembering their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of 3 Islanders. No one can ask more than that.

Perhaps Argentina should thank them too, for looking after their war dead, because it is certain that the political classes in Argentina don't care about them, and wouldn't look after them with the same care and attention that the Falklanders do.
12 Britworker (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:41 am Report abuse
Lets not forget all the lovely oil coming our way and keeping my future heating bills down. :-)
13 Usurping Pirate (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:53 am Report abuse
Has Argentina got enough rocks ?
14 Perekeme (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 11:09 am Report abuse
It is time for Britain to allow dialogue to take place in order to resolve the falkland islands issue with Argentina. This will help in promoting unity between Europe and South America.
15 reality check (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 11:18 am Report abuse
There are people who live on those islands and have done so for nearly two centuries.

They say whether or not there should be talks with Argentina, not the British.

If Argentina wants dialogue, it should start by respecting their rights, all of their rights.

That's never going to happen, so there is never going to be any dialogue.
16 macsilvinho (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 11:19 am Report abuse
#14 Britain already allowed a dialogue to take place, Argentina seems not to understand ever. The Kelpers have told Argentina: “We are 100% British”. Britain also dialogued with Argentina through winning a war. What dialogue does Argentina still want? A full British invasion of Buenos Aires will do? And to better understand the Article, what is Malvinas if this is an English newspaper? In English there is only The Falkland Islands. Malvinas in in another language other than English.
17 GeoffWard2 (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 12:02 pm Report abuse
Last year Timerman tried to get bilateral negotiation with the British over the future status of the Falklands. When he was told that the main and essential party to any discussion was missing and and no such talks could take place in their absence, Timerman exited pretty sharply.

Now Argentina again tries a 'backdoor' attempt at getting Brits to talk without Falklanders present ... same flea in the ear!

They keep trying the same old track and, when they get the same old response, they never seem to learn.
Even rats in a Skinner Box do better than this.
18 Musky (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 01:06 pm Report abuse
@14 Perekeme
No, it is not time. Perhaps it is time for britain to open dialog to acquire the southern small islands and seaside towns within your territory. Not interested then? OK, that's fine, so please allow the residents of the falklands to make the same response..and don't ask some guys in london, ask the islanders themselves. You know you'll get a big fat NO.
19 brasherboot (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 01:18 pm Report abuse
One thing Argentina should keep in mind is that as technology improves the Falkland's dustance from the UK reduces.

In 50 years time we wont need a garrison on the islands. We'll just protect them from the military canopy extended from the UK.
20 reality check (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 01:21 pm Report abuse
Beats me how they could ever belief that they can negotiate a hand over of sovereignty? For that matter, shared sovereignty.

Still optimism is a good trait to posses, even if it is manifestly misplaced.

Always nice to believe in something though, like father Christmas or the tooth fairy for instance.
21 Conqueror (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 02:04 pm Report abuse
@7 You've just used a dirty word. There are no “Malvinas” in the South Atlantic. There may be a couple in argieland, but that's their problem. And why would the Falklanders pay more? Britain has a legal obligation. Britain will fulfil its obligation. Britain will not ask the Falklanders for money. What difference would US$164.5 million make to Britain? The Islanders have already said that, when/if gas/oil income reaches an appropriate level, they will be more than happy to pay for their defence. But, as it stands, defence of the Falklands accounts for 0.3% of the UK's defence budget. The Islanders are quite welcome to my 2 or 3 pence per year.
@11 Just to correct you slightly. The Falklands are a much better place to train than many others.
@14 There are better ways. Personally, I am in favour of wiping argieland off the face of the planet. This “solves” the problem and lets other latam places know to keep their sticky little fingers to themselves. Actually, I'm also in favour of shipping unwelcome migrants to the UK to “New Britannia”. There, they can “live”, “work”, “breed”, “mutate” without interference. As, in a relatively short time, they will all be radioactive!
@17 Perhaps argieland could learn from Spain. That's going well, isn't it? Is it true that when Timboy heard that he was actually going to meet Falklanders, he actually RAN?
@19 Not really a problem even today. Royal Navy sails into North Atlantic and opens fire. Around half an hour later, something in the region of 400 nuclear warheads “land”. Is “land” the right word? What about “airbursts”? Can argies figure out where the warheads might “activate”? Can we all watch?
22 Brit Bob (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 04:05 pm Report abuse
@14 'Resolve the Falkland Islands issue with Argentina'

Argentina has no legal nor moral claim to the Falklands. Their claim is based on proximity only - 320 miles. All they have is the 'Great Malvinas Lie'. The biggest problem is that their population has allowed itself to become indoctrinated by lies and propaganda for 70 years. Hopefully, one day the Argentinian people will realize this.
23 GFace (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 05:13 pm Report abuse
Argentina unilaterally rejected chance dialog 1982 and again ran away from it in February of this year. Case closed -- by Argentina.
24 Gordo1 (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 06:07 pm Report abuse
@14 Timerman had the opportunity earlier in the year to discuss the Falklands/Malvinas problem with the British Foreign Minister and a representative of the Falklands/Malvinas but he declined.
25 screenname (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 06:31 pm Report abuse
It seems to be lost on tinman that ”how vast and deep is the support for the Malvinas cause among the Argentine people” just shows them up as savages.

No normal person would promote such wide-held beliefs within their nation. Can you imagine the German Foreign minister going to the EU and trying to promote a wish for Poland and the Baltic states to become Eastern Germany?

26 GFace (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 07:13 pm Report abuse
@25 Indeed, the tonedeafness of the Argentine government and Malvanistas is mindboggeling.

But of course such unrepentant goose-stepping fascism is for domestic use only to distract a population of indoctrinated and well trained Pavlovians ready to drool at the ring of a bell while they drag the country to ruin (and to a lesser extent provide a common rage-against-the-Nortes for Latin American poseur solidarity that evaporates the minute trade money and realpolitk enters the picture -- everyone is behind Argentina, rolling their eyes and laughing behind their back).

Argentina make no legal claim to the ICJ. Argentina runs from “dialog” whenever such a window presents itself. There is NO real clam on “Las Malvinas.” Just an incompetent and corrupt government running a 419 con against its own people -- who gladly fall for it every time hook-line-and-sinker just like they did for the Junta they were about to oust -- but then cheered onward -- until it let them down.
27 super hijitus (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 07:40 pm Report abuse
28 pgerman (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:03 pm Report abuse
I cannot forget that in an radio interview made by the argentine journalist Andy Kusnetzoff to Nigel “Sharky” Ward, former pilot of the RN and british hero of the FI War, told that “we had to fight because our Governments didn't find the way both countries could share the islands”.

The audio of the interview is still in youtube. Nigel Ward was asked about the argentine C-130 he shot down killing the whole crew. The son of the argentine pilot, who is himself a FAA pilot was also on line. Nice interview.

I really doubt that he might be considered a traitor to the British cause.

It's also nice to hear that someone like him can be so honest and understand the need of a wide diplomatic solution to this issue.
29 Audi Consilium (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:19 pm Report abuse
I take it that the vast experience of human rights issues the article talks of is the vast experience from the abusers point of view ??
30 LEPRecon (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:30 pm Report abuse

Your caps lock appears to be stuck.

However a word of advice.

Take it to the International Court of Justice or STFU about it.

Go on, put your money where your mouth is. The ICJ is the ONLY body in the world that can order a transfer of sovereignty. THE ONLY BODY IN THE WORLD.

So why won't you take your case to them? If you truly want the Islands and are convinced that you have the EVIDENCE to back up your claims, it should be a walk in the park. A formality, surely?

So WHY won't Argentina take their sovereignty plea to the ICJ?

Can you answer that or are you going to type more nonsense in CAPITIAL LETTERS??????

@28 pgerman

This issue can be solved peacefully AND once and for all if Argentina refers it to the International Court of Justice. It's very simple. All they have to do is produce evidence that supports their claim and then convince the court why their claim trumps 180+ years of continuous habitation by the Falkland Islanders, AND why their claim nullifies the universal human right to self-determination in regards to the Islanders.

Can you answer WHY they won't go?
31 nota (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:32 pm Report abuse
Actually the Diego Garcia problem is being dealt with. Yes we do have moral standards...shame you cant match them...and pirates 18th century...if your going to try and insult us...try something more cutting edge
32 agent999 (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:58 pm Report abuse
28 pgerman

Unfortunately Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, refused to obey United Nations Security Council resolution 502 demanding a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces.
To blame the British government for the war is wrong.
33 GFace (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 09:47 pm Report abuse
@32.. “To blame the British government for the war is wrong.”

And is no different than saying that Poland attacked Germany. Unrepentantly and unforgivably fascistic... but all too predicable when it comes to Argentina's disgusting stance on the Islands.
34 Musky (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:42 pm Report abuse
And with the new airport in st.Helena, far less inflight refueling is needed. Opens 2016 I think!
35 Pete Bog (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 11:00 pm Report abuse
“Unfortunately, we haven’t achieved a positive response, but we will keep insisting on a path to dialogue”

But without the islanders whose interests are considered in all UN resolutions relating to the Falklands(not, according to those resolutions, the interests of Argentina and the UK and every other Tom Dick or Harry).

The only solution to this problem for Argentina is to talk to the Islanders and persuade them to be come Argentinian.

Takes some incompetence when 40 million people cannot persuade 3000 people it would be a good idea to join them.

” promote ”an inter-parliamentary dialogue“.

Absolutely pointless when none of the inter-parliamentarians were born in the Falkland Islands-doooh.


I notice you haven't mentioned Gibraltar Tristan da Cunha, St Helena Bermuda, Pitcairn Island etc etc etc .

Not happy? Take your case to the ICJ then like you did with the Beagle Islands.

How much money does the British taxpayer get back from the Afghanistan government. How much has Libya paid us? How much has Iraq paid us? Belize? Sierra Leone?etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Most likely £0.00, but we are used to giving people freedom.

If the Falklands pay (which they say they will if there's enough oil) then every country that has been defended with the UK's defence assetts should pay Britain for defence costs. Fair enough?

“I really doubt that he might be considered a traitor to the British cause”

Definitely not a traitor. And he's perfectly entitled to his opinion, but there's one slight problem.
Sharkey Ward was not born in the Falkland Islands.
36 pgerman (#) Nov 13th, 2013 - 11:50 pm Report abuse

The 502 Resolution was approved on April 3, 1982 and demanded the immediate cessation of hostilities to the parties involved in the Falklands conflict. The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Islands and urged both, Argentina and the United Kingdom, that they should seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict respecting the Charter of the United Nations.

Saddly, none of them respected the Resolution....


He might not be born in the FI but he is as british as the islanders.

I find it nice to see that those who fought the war, and had to kill people, is more open minded that most of the british and argentine that usually write posts here.
37 Conor J (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:54 am Report abuse

“Saddly, none of them respected the Resolution....”

Errrr.......I don't know were you got that idea from mate as the first part of the resolution called for complete withdrawal of all their forces, the second part about ceasing all hostilities was made mute by Argentinas decision to ignore the first part of the resolution, a resolution by the way which was drawn up by the British.

The immediate cause of the war is 100% blame against Argentina and not the UK, which was attacked and defended its people in accordance with international law.

“I find it nice to see that those who fought the war, and had to kill people, is more open minded that most of the british and argentine that usually write posts here.”

First part very true, but every veteran I have ever seem or heard have stated that although it could have been avoided (like every other war) it was one of those wars that was worth it and produced enormous benefits.
38 Escoses Doido (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 01:25 am Report abuse
Have you ever visited planet earth?

Somebody invades your teritory and you imply they are wrong to eject the ursurpers?
39 rupertbrooks0 (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 03:50 am Report abuse
36 pgerman
The text of resolution 502 reads:

Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Security Council on 1 April 1982 (S/14944) calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina,

Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;

2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);

3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations

The hostilities against Argentina conducted by the UK were entirely compatible with Article 51 of the UN Charter giving the UK the right of armed self defence.
40 macsilvinho (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 05:08 am Report abuse
I wonder why all agonizing governments find a way to create a discussion. Argentina is “agonizing” against Uruguay, “agonizing” against The Falklands, “agonizing” against Chile (remember Picton, Lenox y Neva), “agonizing” against Brazil (trade barriers), etc. When will argies “agonize” against their own agonizing government?
41 downunder (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:23 am Report abuse
There are two issues with the idea of ‘sharing’ the Falkland Islands with Argentina. The first goes to the question of the legitimacy of any claim that Argentina may hold over the Islands. While some folk in Argentina believe passionately in their cause, this does not make the claim lawful. The claim needs to be tested in an impartial court. Argentina has consistently refused to do this which indicates that it has no faith in the veracity of its claim. So, if this is the case, why give them a share of something for which they have no entitlement?
If Argentina was to be offered a share of the Islands and they accepted, it would be an act of expediency on their part, for they don’t want half of the Islands, they want all of them and then some!
History should have taught us that there is no point in pussy footing around with these sort of people, they respect strength and despise what they regard as weakness and suggestions like offering them joint sovereignty just encourages them to continue with their fascist behaviour.
42 LEPRecon (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:47 am Report abuse
@41 downunder

Agreed. Good post.


Regarding sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The only legal ways open to Argentina are persuading the Falklanders to voluntarily join Argentina (to which they have a really strange way of going about this), or to get a legal ruling that orders Britain to hand the islands over. Now here is a list of International Organisations which Argentina has gone to, to try and get them to force the British to hand over the Islands.

The UN Security Council: has no power to order this - yet Argentina has wasted their time.
The UN General Assembly: has no power to order this - yet Argentina has wasted their time.
The C24 Decolonisation Committee: has no power to order this (despite their bias towards Argentina) - yet Argentina is constantly bleating to them about it.
The International Court of Justice: has the power to order this - yet Argentina has avoided them like the plague.

So, pgerman, would you like to answer the question as to WHY Argentina won't go to the ONLY body in the world that can order a change in sovereignty?

An actual answer please.
43 toxictaxitrader2 (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:18 am Report abuse
To all who have replied to my post about Malvinas/Falklands(no Conker I wont be modifying that title) tax contributions.
I will say this,80% of the planned government cuts have not been implemented yet,come 2015 a Labour government,no friend of military spending! (thats the polls prediction)will you be so sure? do what you can ,make sacrifices ,secure your long term position now.
P.S. The forces are going to be 30% Terriers now,Salisbury plain will be where they train,the costs of training elsewhere unsustainable.
44 Pete Bog (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:20 pm Report abuse
“I find it nice to see that those who fought the war, and had to kill people, is more open minded that most of the british and argentine that usually write posts here.”

Its's a bit like the Spanish telling the Argentines what to do because they used to rule Argentina, but it is the people born in Argentina that make decisions about their homeland, not Spain or for that matter Chile.

Also there are many British people in the world but according to the United Nations when discussing de-colonisation-it is the populations of the territories due to be granted independence (the UN's stated aims for these territories) that have to say on what happens to them.

In fact if I say that I believe the Falkland Islanders should aggressively at at the earliest opportunity seek Independence that means Jack Squit if the Falkland Islanders do not wish to be independent. But if I believe they should be independent and they don't, I may still express the opinion.

I am British, but an Englishman, therefore my views, merely because the islanders are British too, do not have any legal force because I am not
1/- A citizen of the Falkland Islands
2/- I was not born in the Falkland islands.

That does not prevent me, Sharkey Ward, an Argentine or someone from Outer Mongolia stating an opinion on the Islands, but the final decisions on what happen to someone's homeland must come from people born there.
45 LEPRecon (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:30 pm Report abuse
@43 toxictaxitrader2

You seem very sure that Labour will get in. I don't see it myself, especially as their lead in opinion polls is shrinking. They have no policies, no ideas how to get out of the financial bind they got us into, and the current Labour leader is like a mill stone around Labour's neck. Plus everyone remembers that the financial crises was all Labours fault. Can we trust them not to destroy the UK's recovery with frivolous spending and borrowing? Of course we can't.

As for the Falklands (no such place as the Malvinas - do you mean Maldives - which are not Britain's responsibility), there is no requirement for them to pay tax. None.

By the way, no British person would ever refer to the Falklands as you have, which makes me believe that you are not British, so don't worry yourself over what British taxpayers are willing to have their tax money spent on.

Freedom is priceless. You seem not to understand that. Stop trying to put a figure on it. It's tacky, and sullies the memories of those who made the supreme sacrifice.

I guarantee there are very, very few in the UK that would expect the Falkland Islanders to pay for defence.
46 pgerman (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:42 pm Report abuse

Sir, at a certain point you are right. I find it hard to understand why every time I tell my fellow countrymen that we must find a peaceful solution with the UK about the FI that would imply to cede some of the alledged rights they always call me “cipayo ” or “entreguista”.

Up to now, not a single Argentine Government, have ever made public the idea that negotiating with the UK will mean that we won't have the 100% at stake. Otherwise it would not be a negotiation. It would be a UK retreat.

Every time I told the same thing to british people here, in this site, they express their rejection about this idea. With agressions and insults.

Being a moderate is not an easy thing.

Anyway, Argentina and Chile found the way to share the Beagle Canal and the islands there. Once a treaty was signed by both countries, a nonbinding plesbicite was held and the Argentine Congress accepted and ratified it.

A war between these two brothers countries, Argentina and Chile, would have been a tragedy that had affected the relationships of the whole continent during decades.

I don't see the reason why a similar solution cannot be arranged between Argentina and the UK


Sir I cannot answer why.

I'm just an Engineer that lives outside my country. I'm not a diplomat

I don't know why Argentina haven't taken advantage of the Chagos Island issue until now.

I don't know why CFK rented a private jet of a British company while she, herself, has promoted sanctions on these companies.

I don't know why CFK government has been quarreling with Spain instead of trying to work together for mutual convenience.

The Argentine Government is so unpredictable....
47 Stoker (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 03:33 pm Report abuse

On Tuesday 6 August 2013 Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council during which she made some comments regarding the Falkland Islands. The following was the response of the UK Ambassador to the UN.

“Madame President, Several Ministerial participants referred in their statements to Argentina’s so called “legitimate” claim on the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdom does not accept that Argentina has any legitimate claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The historical facts and legal position are quite clear. The United Kingdom has administered the Falkland Islands peacefully and effectively for more than 180 years. In 1850, by ratifying the bilateral Convention on Settlement of Existing Differences, Argentina acknowledged that there was no territorial dispute between the two countries. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba on behalf of CELAC said that respect for self-determination was a founding principle of CELAC. The UnitedKingdom also attaches great importance to this principle, which is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. In March of this year, the people of the Falkland Islands exercised their right of self-determination in a referendum which established overwhelmingly their wish to remain an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. In her national statement, President Kirchner said that the United Kingdom and Argentina should bilaterally discuss the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdomis clear that any such discussion is not just a matter for the two governments. The views of the people of the Falkland Islands cannot simply be ignored. There can be no discussion of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the Islanders”.
48 RICO (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 03:57 pm Report abuse
@46 A peaceful solution was found in 1849 - the British and Argentina signed a treaty of friendship ratified by both governments in 1850 under which the British removed their forces from territory that Argentina claimed and Argentina agreed to peaceful trade with the British. Friendship was restored until the 1940s when elements in Argentina decided to claim territory that had been settled by the British for 100 years. Since then Argentina has ratcheted up tension, feeding their schoolchildren with lies and propaganda peaking in 1982 with a surprise military assault on a virtually unarmed friendly neighbour. The modern Argentinian government is again ratcheting up the tension and increasing the propaganda it feeds its children and proletariat.

As for the Chagos islanders there is little of benefit there for Argentina. They can't decide if they should condemn Britain for the events or endorse them. If they condemn them do they say that Britain has no right to to dictate the fate of the population of an overseas territory. If they endorse it how do they persuade Britain to use their right to dispose of an overseas territory to give the FI to Argentina in the way that DG was effectively given to the USA. There is little gain for Argentina.
49 screenname (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 06:15 pm Report abuse
@48 RICO:

With regards Diego Garcia: condemn or endorse, there is no benefit to Argentina.

There has been no transfer of sovereignty. The US has a lease but the British Indian Ocean Territory laws still rule on Diego Garcia, not American law. The territory is still British.
50 Monty69 (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:12 pm Report abuse
46 pgerman

Are you for real? Can you really not see the difference between Argentina and Chile settling their differences with a treaty, and Britain and Argentina taking the same approach?
Let me spell it out for you. There are people living here, with a unique culture that has developed over nearly 200 years of peaceful settlement and hard graft. And we won't, absolutely will not, ever, accept any part of Argentine sovereignty over our home. Britain will not force us down this path against our wishes (and interests).
You can insist on this being a matter for Argentina and Britain all you like; it isn't true. There is a third party, and our wishes and interest count.

This isn't 'agression and insults'; I'm just telling you what the situation is. Falkland Islanders do not want to be part of Argentina, because we aren't Argentines. We have nothing to do with Argentina, very little shared culture and no common language. Even if that we not so, you will never be forgiven for what you did in 1982, and what your government continues to do to us now.
And if we don't want it, it isn't going to happen.
51 Think (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:23 pm Report abuse
(50) Monty96
.................................................................... Yes, it is.
52 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:33 pm Report abuse
Oh no it isn't

(the panto season seems to have started early this year)
53 HansNiesund (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:39 pm Report abuse

Indeed it has. Enter the pantomime horse.
54 Think (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:46 pm Report abuse
(52) Doveoverdover

Ohhhh yes it is :-)))
55 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:47 pm Report abuse
Followed swiftly by the principal boy.
56 HansNiesund (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:58 pm Report abuse

Look behind you!
57 Think (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 09:00 pm Report abuse
(52) Doveoverdover

Speaking about panto season...
What about exchanging those BS shares of us with something good?
YPF shares for example...
58 Doveoverdover (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:25 pm Report abuse
Too early to say.

As a final observation for this evening, I was prompted out of lurking duties by post number 7 above recommending they “should beer more of the defence costs” I'm more of a pink gin man myself but Bernard and the rest of the old sweats at the Dover RBL would agree wholeheartedly.

Trust you remain well.
59 Faulconbridge (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:53 pm Report abuse
There is a suitable precedent for a settlement which would give Argentina sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islanders autonomy, internal government and the right to retain their own culture. That is Ahvenanmaa, a group of Swedish-speaking islands which are part of Finland and have guaranteed and agreed autonomy. The only problem with such a solution in the Falkland Islands is that there has never yet been an Argentine government which could be relied on to pay attention to agreements it has made itself if it thought it could get away with disregarding them, let alone those made by other Argentine governments. Until Argentina has had several governments which behave responsibly and sensibly in international affairs the chances of the Falkland islanders even considering such a proposal are minimal.
60 Think (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:59 pm Report abuse
(58) Doveoverdover
Juppp... That was a funny one...
All as well as it can be expected.... Thanks for asking.

Geeeee..... You did it again..!
You mentioned that bloody Dover RBL...
This place will be crawling with turnips in a jiffy...
61 A_Voice (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 11:38 pm Report abuse
So that was Doveoverdover.......
Sounds nothing like me at all...
Fanciful foolish folk ....alliterative tonight...
62 Pete Bog (#) Nov 14th, 2013 - 11:39 pm Report abuse
“I don't know why Argentina haven't taken advantage of the Chagos Island issue until now.”

In a way this is useful as I believe the Chagos Islanders should be given a symbolic place in the Chagos group to return to even if t the moment it cannot be Diego Garcia. Their expulsion in my view was not right, and neither was the Argentinian invasion of the FI in 1982 -but supporting the Chagos Islanders logically supports the Falkland Islanders position and not the Argentine position.

The Argentines never seem to mention Bermuda, St Helena , Tristan da Cunha etc where the inhabitants also for the time being, also wish to remain British.

Argentina seems to wish to emulate the British when they are/ were in the past, at their worse, ie condemn what they call past British colonialism whilst themselves seeking Imperialism.

Surely for Argentina to have an effect, it is no good making fairy stories up about how wicked the UK was over 100 years ago if Argentina is trying in the 21st century to emulate that wickedness?
63 toxictaxitrader2 (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 01:02 am Report abuse
@45 LEPRecon
No ,I,m not sure Labour will get in , your points about their history and policies are all valid but electorates often vote irrationally i.e. we are fed up with this lot ,lets vote for another lot! but remember a good General should always hopes for the best and plans for the worst.
By the way I,m a West Briton,Dublin Protestant.
64 A_Voice (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 01:33 am Report abuse
.....“By the way I,m a West Briton,Dublin Protestant.”
Last time I checked Dublin is not British...
West Briton.....Cornwall??
65 Think (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 01:52 am Report abuse
(61) A_Voice
You say..:
“So that was Doveoverdover.......
Sounds nothing like me at all...”
I say..:
Nope, he doesn't...
But what do the Turnips care...

(63) toxictaxitrader2
You say...:
“By the way I,m a West Briton,Dublin Protestant.”
I say....:
I'll beer in mind that you are as British as the magnificent Francis Bacon...
66 A_Voice (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 02:17 am Report abuse
Damn right Mr Think, he doesn't use Ellipses......;-))))

haha the phrasing of...“By the way I,m a West Briton,Dublin Protestant.”
I have never seen anything like it....
If from ...say Devon or Cornwall, Dorset, Somerset a Brit would say the West Country...
..and a Dublin Protestant, must be rarer than rocking horse shit...
....Triptych's for me are passé... there's no accounting for taste these days only investment....Corporate purchase no doubt, looks great in the boardroom!
67 LEPRecon (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 07:21 am Report abuse
@63 toxictaxitrader


“By the way I,m a West Briton,Dublin Protestant.”


Yup, you are definitely NOT British. No British person talks like that, and if you were a Dublin Protestant, that would make you IRISH not British. Plus it's “I'm” not “I,m”. ( ' ) is an apostrophe, and is used to contract English words, e.g. I am to I'm, you are to you're. ( , ) is a comma and it is used to break up a sentence and make it easier to read.

So as I stated earlier: Don't worry your head over what the British Taxpayers money is spent on. We certainly don't mind our tax money being used to defend the Falkland Islanders.
68 rupertbrooks0 (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 07:29 am Report abuse
65 Think

Francis Bacon was born in an upper class neighbourhood in Dublin of English parents, when Ireland was still a part of the UK. His father was an officer in the British army. I met him once in the Colony rooms in Dean street: Soho in London. Francis always thought of himself as English, not Irish. He even spoke in an English upper middle class accent without even a hint of an Irish twang.

I am reminded of the old saying; just because your born in a stable, doesn't make you a horse. Just because your born in Dublin doesn't make you Irish.
69 toxictaxitrader2 (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 09:02 am Report abuse
@67 LEPRcon
Not being British does not stop me being a British taxpayer,so I,ll carry on worrying.
@66 A Voice
At one time Protestants made up 25% of the Dublin population, we know what its like to be forced out by an overweening Catholic administration,THATS WHY I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO THE ISLANDERS.
@68 Rupertbrookso
Spot on sir.
70 A_Voice (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 05:21 pm Report abuse
....“Just because your born in Dublin doesn't make you Irish.”
....Actually it does, even if it was still part of the UK at the time, it would still mean you were born Irish....
71 super hijitus (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 05:21 pm Report abuse
Does brits take casese after 1974?, haaa
72 Think (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 05:38 pm Report abuse
(68) rupertbrooks0
You say...:
“Francis always thought of himself as English”
I say...:
Have I ever said he didn't?

(71) super hijitus
You say...:
“Does brits take casese after 1974?”
I say...:
No, they don,t....................................
My regards to Largilucho ;-)
73 Pugol-H (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 06:31 pm Report abuse
The Rep of Ireland is not part of the political entity of UK of Great Britain & N. Ireland, however it is part of the geographical entity of the British Isles (well in our atlases anyway), hence “Briton” and not “British” they are two different things.

Cornwall was called West Wales.

Being born in Dublin would mean you were “Born in Ireland”, or even “Irish born”, whether you grew up (either in Ireland, or elsewhere) to consider yourself as “Irish”, would be a matter of individual choice.

Identity is a lot more than just a matter of geography of birth, or put another way, accident of birth.

The examples of people considering themselves not being “of where they were born”, are legion.

You don’t have the right to tell someone what they are, or are not, in that situation.

Very little chance of Sillyband & Ball winning the next election, now the economy has clearly turned, unless of course Cameron does something really stupid.

Governments, loose elections, oppositions rarely win them, in the UK anyway.
74 Think (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 07:14 pm Report abuse
To my most esteemed Financial Adviser, Mr. McDod at (58)……

Are you sure it’s too early to assess the possible insertion of YPF in our shared portfolio?
As I read it, them shares have tripled their value during the past 12 months.

That’s more than can be said about some Small Cap Oil companies that shall remain unmentioned.....
75 Anglotino (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 08:32 pm Report abuse
Wow that is the most yawn inspiring thread hijack I've seen lately.

Not enough comments going your way?
Not enough Argentineans posting?
Trying to somehow save face after Guillermo and Daniel's faces were so publicly slapped by some British MPs?

Oh it is a joy to behold!

I know, how about talking about share prices…… ooops you already did!

PMSL look at how the mighty have fallen. Reduced to talking to himself AGAIN.
76 rupertbrooks0 (#) Nov 15th, 2013 - 10:44 pm Report abuse
73 Pugol-H

In 1909 when Francis Bacon was born the WHOLE of Ireland was a part of the UK of Great Britian and Ireland, sending some 90 members of Parliament to Westminster. The Irish Free State became independent of the UK in 1922, becoming a Republic in 1949.

Bacon's wealthy upper middle class family were of English stock who owned several properties in both Ireland and England which they constantly moved between. They just happened to be living in Ireland when Francis was born. They moved back and forth between Ireland and England at least four times before Francis Bacon was a young teenager.

The term “Anglo-Irish” is used to describe the particular social class of wealthy, prostestant English who lived in Ireland from the 17th and who effectively were Irelands ruling class. They also dominated irish cultural life. Most “Irish” writers and poets were from this class including, J. M. Synge, Samuel Beckett, Jonathan Swift, Edmund Burke, Oscar Wilde, Oliver Goldsmith, Bram Stoker, W. B. Yeats, Cecil Day Lewis and Bernard Shaw.

Francis Bacons family are not normally regarded as being part of this “ascendency” but merely moved to Ireland from England in the early 20th century.
77 Pugol-H (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:07 am Report abuse
@76 rupertbrooks0
I am not entirely unfamiliar with the history of Ireland.

My point here is that whether someone considers themselves, Irish, Anglo-Irish, Anglo, English/Scots or any shade in-between, is a matter of their individual consciences and not dictated simply by where they were born.
78 A_Voice (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:56 am Report abuse
I'm sure all those immigrants trying to get into the UK would disagree...
“....I don't know.... I told the officer that I consider myself to be English having watched Eastenders and Coronation Street for years...I even used to watch Crossroads...”
79 rupertbrooks0 (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 02:51 am Report abuse
77 Pugol-H

Point taken.

78 A_Voice
Good God man! You admit to watching Crossroads? Well I'm really sorry to hear that. it explains a lot. I wish you well, but I understand that there is as yet no known cure to the long term damage that exposure to Crossroads causes to the brain. Are you receiving counselling?
80 Pugol-H (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 03:28 am Report abuse
@78 A_Voice
And what would you know about “immigrants trying to get into the UK”.

Speaking as one who works with immigrants who have “arrived in the UK”

Spier dale, duzo cupa.
81 super hijitus (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 06:06 am Report abuse
82 Think (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 08:28 am Report abuse
(78) A_Voice
You say...:
“ I'm sure all those immigrants trying to get into the UK would disagree...
“....I don't know.... I told the officer that I consider myself to be English having watched Eastenders and Coronation Street for years...I even used to watch Crossroads...”
I say...:
They would stand a much better chance if they had watched ”Til Death Us Do Part”.............
83 Usurping Pirate (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 11:32 am Report abuse
Super Hijitus is a bit excited this morning .
Is he new ?
84 GALlamosa (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:30 pm Report abuse
#81. My understanding is that the “Chagossians” were in fact an implanted Mauritian population. Are you saying that all peoples in these circumstances gain territorial rights ?
85 A_Voice (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 02:46 pm Report abuse
82 Think
Now that is turning back the clocks....Alf Garnett...“Shut up you silly Moo”
86 Pugol-H (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 03:13 pm Report abuse
@83 Usurping Pirate
He’s probably always been a bit EXCITED by the sounds of it.

Either that or his Caps Lock key is broken.

Here to bring balance to the force, no doubt.

The Anti-Conq has arrived.
87 Think (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 04:03 pm Report abuse
(85) A_Voice

Maybe a bit old.............. but not dated ;-)
88 Pete Bog (#) Nov 16th, 2013 - 08:45 pm Report abuse

But this does not justify the Argentines wanting to do the same thing to the Falkland Islanders does it?

If the Argentines wanted to get one over on the UK, they would drop all claims on the Falkland Islands and continue to press for a Chagosian homeland, using the fact they had dropped their claim on the Falklands to morally defeat the UK into letting the Chagosians back.

But then you cannot deny that Argentina is an imperialist nation that wishes to copy the UK when they were at their imperialist worst.
89 Usurping Pirate (#) Nov 17th, 2013 - 12:19 pm Report abuse
This Chagos topic is just another smoke screen .
Malvinistas : Ever wonder where the name for Argentina's best selling beer comes from ?
The Quilmes tribe were forcefully evicted from Tucuman to a settlement south of Buenos Aires that became...Quilmes .
The conquista del desierto displaced about 15,000 more in fairly recent times .
Peron displaced hundreds of people to build dykes , airports , roads , power stations and factories .
Indigenous and Criollo people are being threatened right now with displacement by foreign mining companies .
Your new business partners the Chinese are particularly fond of evicting people , so any of you who have built villas on railway property better watch yourselves .
Those living in glass houses are not in a position to throw stones .
90 pgerman (#) Nov 17th, 2013 - 09:38 pm Report abuse

The Kilmes were displaced and evicted after a revelion against the Spanish Crown. The leader of this revelion was a spaniard. I'm sorry but the Argentine Government has nothing to do with the fate of the Kilmes People.

91 axel arg (#) Nov 17th, 2013 - 10:11 pm Report abuse
The government knew perfectly that it wasn't going to achieve the political will of the representants from the u. k., to discuss about the sovereignty fo the islands.
We all know that the u. k. will keep on making it's tipcal hypocritical use of the right to self determination, when that right actually has never been applied for the malvinas-falkland cause by the decolonization committe, as it did for other colonial situations, even after the so called referendum. I recommend you to have a look to the statements of the lawmakers from the islands before the u. n., where you'lll see how they complain about the way this cause is considered by that institution.
As i said in another comment, the only one way to finish with this humbling situation for arg. is to take the case to the i. c. j. I have said also in some opportunities that arg. suggested taking the case to the arbitration in 1884 and 1888, which were rejected by the u. k., and in 1947, britain manifested arg. that it would be disposed to discuss about the cases of the dependencies from the islands before the i. c. j., but it hadn't included the malvinas in that idea.
I see that some people here insist on comparing our claim for the islands, with the genocide suffered by our originary brothers in 1880, however, what you ignore is that despite that genocide, the claim and the rights of our originary populations are included in article 17th of chapter fourth from our constitution, which is a historic reparation. Anyway there is still a lot to do for them, because some populations are victim of powerful masters who try to expeall them from their lands, in order to plant soya.
In the case of the u. k., it has never made any historic reparation for arg, for having deprived it of exercising it's rights over the islands, that's why, beyond the admirable aspects of the u. k., in some aspects, it still behaves like the same thief of XIX century, although many of you don't accept it.
92 Troy Tempest (#) Nov 17th, 2013 - 11:01 pm Report abuse
70 A-Void

“....“Just because your born in Dublin doesn't make you Irish.”
....Actually it does, even if it was still part of the UK at the time, it would still mean you were born Irish.... ”

Does being born in England make you English, then?
93 Biguggy (#) Nov 17th, 2013 - 11:19 pm Report abuse
All the Islanders'/UK need to do is state that on two occasions the ICJ have stated that ALL NSGT's have the right to self -determination.

That boils down to, in very simple terms, that the Islanders' can do what the hell they like and NOBODY, UK or RGland, can do anything about it.

What is so difficult to understand about that?
94 Anglotino (#) Nov 18th, 2013 - 12:02 am Report abuse
“that right actually has never been applied for the malvinas-falkland cause by the decolonization committe, as it did for other colonial situations”

Why can NO ONE ever prove this claim?
95 Pugol-H (#) Nov 18th, 2013 - 01:09 am Report abuse
@91 axel arg
Whatever your constitution says, you still all but wiped them out, and continue to do so.

“As the Islands have never legitimately been administered by, or formed part of, the sovereign territory of the Republic of Argentina.”

The only case for reparations is how much you owe them, for deliberately and maliciously trashing their Islands

Cough up, dollars!!!
96 Biguggy (#) Nov 18th, 2013 - 09:31 am Report abuse
@ 94 Anglotino

Please, what is the source of your statement:
“that right actually has never been applied for the malvinas-falkland cause by the decolonization committe, as it did for other colonial situations”?
Further, what claim do you require proof of?
97 Usurping Pirate (#) Nov 18th, 2013 - 12:47 pm Report abuse
@89 : Kilmes eviction was “ the Spanish ” .
Is that the same “Spanish” you all say gave title of the Falklands to the Provincias Unidas by papal bullsh*t or somesuch .
Argentines of all hues and colours are being displaced right now by foreign open cast mining companies in league with the K government .
The K govt only bangs the nationalist drum when it suits them .
The last thing she did when she still had a brain was to sign away huge oil concessions to Chevron .
She should be arriving at work about now ...If she turns up .
98 Jack the lad (#) Nov 18th, 2013 - 09:33 pm Report abuse
Actually, the Argies are not very bright to bring up the Chagos islanders (Diego Garcia).

The UK goverment of the time bamboozled most the islanders to move abroad, and then deported the rest. Most had only been there for less then 20 years, and were recent immigrants.

Just because one government does something wrong does not make something legal or permissable. The Chagossians took the UK government to the UK courts, and got a ruling that their deportation was illegal, and won compensation. They then continued with further court cases, and eventually, in 2000, got a higher court, I think the House of Lords, to order the UK government of the day to allow them back to the Chagos Islands.

Problem is of course, that the UK can't give them their islands back just now, as some much bigger boys are playing with them. All very embarrassing for the UK governments, which keep having to pay out yet more compensation. At the moment, there is a court case in a higher European court about this.

So, if a UK government ever tried to order the Falkland Islanders off their home, or give their home away without their consent, the case of the Chagos Islanders provides a cut-and-dried precedent. A court order overturning any unauthorised disposal of sovereignty would be easy to obtain. Thanks to the case of the Chagos Islands.
99 rupertbrooks0 (#) Nov 19th, 2013 - 01:47 am Report abuse
98 Jack the lad

It’s a difficult case and I am not a lawyer but I understand that the Judicial committee of the House of Lords (the highest court in this instance) has upheld a government appeal against a lower court decision. The government case rested on the legality of the use of the royal prerogative by the Privy Council in this case.

After the ruling the Rt Hon David Miliband: Foreign Secretary at the time said:

“It is appropriate on this day that I should repeat the government's regret at the way the resettlement of the Chagossians was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s and at the hardship that followed for some of them. ”We do not seek to justify those actions and do not seek to excuse the conduct of an earlier generation.“ Mr Miliband added that that the courts had previously ruled that fair compensation had been paid to the Chagossians and that ”the UK has no legal obligation to pay any further compensation“. He added: ”Our appeal to the House of Lords was not about what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. It was about decisions taken in the international context of 2004.”

I don't understand why Argentina gets excited by this. If British treatment of the Chagossians was so terrible, surely they should be congratulating Britain on learning our lesson and granting the Falklanders all those rights that were so woefully denied to the Chaggossians under international law.
100 Pete Bog (#) Nov 20th, 2013 - 07:22 pm Report abuse
“As i said in another comment, the only one way to finish with this humbling situation for arg. is to take the case to the i. c. j.”

Good idea Axel.

“t's tipcal hypocritical use of the right to self determination,”

That's because the UK cannot act like a colonial power any more and tell the people born on the Islands to leave.

I don't understand your use of the word 'hypocritical?'

Why is it hypocritical to take the Islanders interests into account bearing in mind the provisions of the UN charter and the need to make colonies independent?

“ that right actually has never been applied for the malvinas-falkland cause by the decolonization committe,”

It has by the UN, as you would know if you had read posts in the past -linked by referencing by Biguggy and others.

Also Ban Ki Moon has said that Self Determination applies to all of the NSGT, under the remit of the C24.

“In the case of the u. k., it has never made any historic reparation for arg, for having deprived it of exercising it's rights over the islands,”

These so called rights are extremely dubious as the events of 1833 show, indeed examined in detail (something beyond the capability of most Argentines), the events from 1820-1833 do not categorically show that Argentina had definitive rights ,as the UK's and Spain's sovereignty claim over the Islands had not been withdrawn.

The sovereignty of the Islands was not uncontested in the 19th century-Great Britain did not just turn up in 1833 without having ever been on the islands before, and Argentina was not Argentina in 1833.
101 downunder (#) Nov 21st, 2013 - 06:23 am Report abuse
#100 “the events from 1820-1833 do not categorically show that Argentina had definitive rights ,as the UK's and Spain's sovereignty claim over the Islands had not been withdrawn.
The sovereignty of the Islands was not uncontested in the 19th century-Great Britain did not just turn up in 1833 without having ever been on the islands before, and Argentina was not Argentina in 1833.”
Precisely! Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

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


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!