MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' lawmaker underlines “visas are our business”
”Visas are a matter for the Falkland Islands Government to determine,” confirmed Member of Legislative Assembly Mike Summers this week.Reacting to a story in last Friday’s Penguin News the Argentine Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra claimed in the Argentine press it was not for the Islanders but the UK government to make decisions over visas. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“However we would inevitably consult HMG for their view on any proposals“.
May 05th, 2017 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse -3Why would you need to do that Mike?... if it's a matter for the Falkland Islands Government to determine...
What if they said no...?
Yep, it's called self-determination and the last time I checked it applied to ALL non-self-governing territories.
May 05th, 2017 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse +1Falklands – Some Relevant International Law: https://www.academia.edu/17799157/Falklands_-_Some_Relevant_International_Law
We as a nation need to grow some b$%^ and go ahead with the visas for all the Argentine nationals that wish to visit us. We need to also ask where are they staying while here, why they wish to visit. Also anyone caught wearing clothing with Malvinas, flag waving on will be arrested until the next flight in and deported stamped in their passports. The last group of school kids that came here from Chalten had been ripped off by one of their own Countymen that live here in the Islands, they stayed at his rented house, some sleeping on floor, this should not be allowed to happen. Why did the local officals at the airport let them in if they had no proper beds to sleep. ....thought they asked when stamping their passports where they were staying, the house was not in a fit condition for them as a group, even though we heard later that the owner of the house was called to Customs for a telling off...
May 05th, 2017 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse +4It's called courtesy, something you Argies know nothing about.
May 05th, 2017 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse +2TWIMC...
May 05th, 2017 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse -3Q:《”However we would inevitably consult HMG for their view on any proposals“》
A: And HMG answer will be...: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdjCb4LwQY
;-)))
Perhaps Argies foreheads should be stamped with this Visa in indelible ink when they arrive? Then Islanders can relax, no need to count the spoons.
May 05th, 2017 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +3This could lead to Argentina and Chile, Uruguay and Brasil (by Arg's pressure -Celac, Unasur, Mercosur, OAS-) to issue visas to the islanders.....you have to think this twice....you could lose considerably more than what you gonna win (specially after brexit). You have to be responsible with your future generations.
May 05th, 2017 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -2No local authority can modify what is established by a bilateral agreement. For the rest, if you wish to understand the sovereignty dispute, you can read: http://www.malvinas-falklands.net
May 05th, 2017 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1As a practical matter, who pays the wages of the border control staff in the Falklands.
May 05th, 2017 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1If it was London, then yes, then Malcorra would have a point. As it isn't then it's just the usual denial of objective reality from Buenos Aires.
Nothing new to see here...
The Republic of Argentina signed the UN Charter on 26 June 1945. Under the UN Charter and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights the people who live on the islands have the right to self-determination. There is nothing Argentina can do to change that.
May 05th, 2017 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +4As Marcelo Kohen has already explained in a previous article
http://en.mercopress.com/2004/06/23/international-hague-court-only-alternative-for-dispute
the only way forward for the Republic of Argentina would be to take their “claim” before the fifteen judges at the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ) in the Hague. I wonder why they refuse to do so?*
*Don't worry......I know why ;-D
If Argentina has nothing to put before the ICJ in respect of their so-called case then the claim can only be described as illegitimate. Perhaps someone would like to complete the following, ''The Falkland Islands belonged to Argentina because...
May 05th, 2017 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvinas Islands belonged to Argentina because... http://www.malvinas-falklands.net
May 05th, 2017 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Think
May 05th, 2017 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Because of a front page to a book?
Give one reason why the Falklands belong to Argentina...
One little thing that the Argentinians have that they can take to the ICJ...
The Malvinas Islands belongs to Argentina because... http://www.malvinas-falklands.net/book/
May 05th, 2017 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Well, let's have a look at Nootka Sound
May 05th, 2017 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +3''At the time of independence Argentina, Spain was in possession and sovereignty of the Malvinas and Britain had conventionally obliged to respect the possession and sovereignty by the Treaty of 1790 islands.'' Comment: 1790 Nootka Sound - Even if Article VI did incorporate the Falklands the secret article would have put paid to Argentina’s claims as it states, ‘Since by Article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only as long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.’138 138 Nootka Sound Convention, Secret Article, British Columbia from the Earliest Times to the Present, Clarke, S.J., 1914, P666.
And then there's UPJ - 'Under a well-recognized rule of international law is the call uti possidetis juris or succession of States, Argentina inherited the Falkland Islands of Spain. Comment: Inheritance From Spain – Uti Possidetis Juris '' Comment: The concept that Argentina had inherited the Falkland Islands from Spain is false. The law of the time did not accept inheritance without settlement and stated that 'an unopposed settlement of some years was necessary” before sovereignty was accepted. (The Law of Nations, Vattel, Cpt XI, p337) Vernet had sought aquiescence from the British consul in BUENOS AIRES on two occasions before establishing “his” colonies and the British protested when he was appointed military and political governor by the BA. authorities. Jewett had no settlement. The concept of uti possidetis juris (inherita
Visas for Islanders... would that even be possible or would it have to be visas for all British citizens? Because that sounds like a really bad idea.
May 05th, 2017 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's good to see Marcelo wading in with his insightful and excellent propaganda exercise, even providing a link to his wonderful book. It's such a shame that “uti possidetis”, as used by him to justify his version of Argentina's claim has been disproved so many times. But ten out of ten for trying to sell his book here. It's a pity that Think believes his tripe. Still, keep on trying, boys.
May 05th, 2017 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Lets put it this way..., Mr. DemonTree...
May 05th, 2017 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3If the UK decided to ask those Pesky Poles for a Visa..., would be the same as asking all EUians for one...
And..., of course the EU would... Tit for Tat...
Ergo...
If the Malvinas BOT got permission from London Headquarters to ask us Adorable Argies for a Visa..., would be the same as asking all MercoSureans for one...
And..., of course the MercoSur would... Tit for Tat...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
May 05th, 2017 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I doubt that FIG would in anyway care what Mercosur may do. As they have quite willing engaged as accessories ‘after the fact' in aiding Argentina’s illegal claim.
Mr. Fitz Roy...
May 05th, 2017 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You say...:
“But ten out of ten for trying to sell his book here.”
I say..:
He ain't trying to sell nothin'... laddie...
Free of charge for all that want to educate themselves...
http://www.malvinas-falklands.net/book/
@Think
May 05th, 2017 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, but that wasn't the question. If you start asking Falklanders for a visa, is that the same as asking all Brits for one? And if so, is that the same as asking the whole EU for one for the next two years? This could cause all kinds of problems.
Mr. DemonTree...
May 05th, 2017 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I would consider the visa Tit for Tat to be kept as strictly local BOT phenomenon...
And, of course, Argentina would ask the rest of its UNASUR partners to follow MercoSur...
Sounds reasonable, but don't they all have British passports? So how can you keep it a local phenomenon?
May 05th, 2017 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
May 06th, 2017 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse -6Hepatitis will be returned to the “manicomio” this afternoon!
May 06th, 2017 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse +4Within 25 years the Falklanders will exercise their right to self-determination under the UN Charter and become an independent island State in their own right. In terms of GDP/capita they will be among the wealthiest nations on Earth.
May 06th, 2017 - 06:36 am - Link - Report abuse +2http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560864/Hands-Argies-Thesell-soon-richest-islands-Earth-New-oil-Falklands-earn-islanders-billions-SIMON-HEFFER-theyre-ready-fight-old-enemy-gets-ideas.html
If I were them, for a laugh, I would do it in 1833 ;-D
I have stated before that “The Argentine claim to sovereignty of the Falklands archipelago is made up of lies, fairy stories, myths, misinterpretations of historical events and, worse, crass arrogance.” Just have a look at http://www.malvinas-falklands.net as suggested by Marcelo Kohen and you will see what I mean - especially the “crass arrogance”. His dismissal of Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper is just plain rudeness and “sour grapes”.
May 06th, 2017 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse +1How this man dares to make the claims he does is beyond comprehension!
Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe
Apologies everyone. What I meant to say was if I were the Falklanders, for a laugh, I would declare independence in 2033 (on the 200th anniversary of 1833). Of course the Falklanders would never rub the Argies noses in it like that. They have more class and better manners than me.
May 06th, 2017 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse +3Think
May 06th, 2017 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse +3This is why Argentina can't use Nootka Sound in any court case -
Nootka Sound – Article vi of the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790 did not apply to the Falklands. It referred to ‘islands adjacent’ and was restricted to islands farther south. Even if it did apply, the secret article stated that the agreement shall remain in force only ‘as long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of other powers.’ United Provinces by establishing settlement would have made the treaty null and void. United Provinces did not inherit the Nootka Sound Convention as the law of the day stipulated that, ‘a treaty binds none but the contracting parties...’
And UPJ - Consensual Nature of UPJ - Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
But some people 'pretend' - Some Argentine commentators give the opinion that in the El Salvador/Honduras case the ICJ decided on its own, in the absence of the compromis to apply the uti possidetis juris. Not true -the actual ICJ judgment in the above case states, 'Both parties are agreed that the primary principle to be applied for the determination of the land frontier is the uti possidetis juris...' (El Salvador/Honduras Judgment p39, parta 40).
Further reading: Falklands -
Uti Possidetis Juris: https://www.academia.edu/28967823/Falklands_Uti_Possidetis_Juris
So, using Dr. K's publication perhaps you would like to explain 'why the Falklands belong to Argentina?' ....
Just one little reason...
The Falklanders Anglo heritage strikes again.
May 06th, 2017 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Aren't these the same folk who go on tirades about how Argentina is so evil for involving itself in flights to the Falklands? Of course, when all these flights FLY OVER ARGENTINE AIRSPACE?
So they have the rights to do whatever with Visas, but Argentina should keep totally hush over who or what flies into its territory.
Sounds like classic, typical Anglo logic. The EUians have been finding out a lot about this logic recently in the warm up to the negotiation.
I have never invented a better Aphorism:
ANGLOS will be ANGLOS.
My understanding is that it was Argentina who wanted the service to call via Rio Gallegos. The Falklanders wanted the existing flight to Punta Arenas plus an additional flight to Montevideo so they could go to Chile and Uruguay (with no requirement to cross Argentine airspace).
May 06th, 2017 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Voice...@1, I am guessing that as an Argentine would have to apply for a visa pre travel....which consulate/embassy would they go to....hence why they would consult with the UK.
May 06th, 2017 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Argentine citizens are not required to obtain a visa when travelling to the UK as tourists. Why should they have to acquire visas to visit the Falkland Islands?
May 06th, 2017 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Gordo1
May 06th, 2017 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Because they outnumber us more than 100,0000 to 1 and increasingly a larger minority than normal are coming over here with the intention of intimidating some us and vandalising our property. Those acts may sound like everyday occurrences where you live but they hardly happen here at all so when they do they stand out. We don't need to put up with that sort of behaviour. It's not like we're getting some other trade-off through having them here that makes it worthwhile.
The Falklands could go for independence and sign a defence treaty with the UK.
May 06th, 2017 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Problem solved.
AustrOllOpithecus
May 06th, 2017 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Carefull, your anglophobia is on display again.
“Who or what flies into its territory.”
As long as Argentina is in compliance of international law then there is no problem.
Chicago Convention
right of passage
closure of airspace
• in exceptional circumstances, or during national emergencies, State may temporarily restrict or prohibit flights over a portion or all of its territory (Article 9)
The International Air Services Transit Agreement, 1944
containing what has come to be known as “The Two Freedoms” :-
1) The privilege to fly across the territory of a state without landing;
2) The privilege to land for non-traffic purposes;
gordo1
Why should they have to acquire visas to visit the Falkland Islands?
The reason is because the Referendum of 2013, as an act of self-determination has conferred limited quasi-independence to the Islanders.
Jo Bloggs and Terence Hill
May 07th, 2017 - 05:45 am - Link - Report abuse +1I was only asking the question! In my view no Argentine national should be permitted to set foot in the archipelago! Why? Because, as my great friend, Walter Gasquet(a porteño) always says “No hay nada allí que nos atraiga”
Letting Argentines visit is the price of the flights from Chile. It makes me wonder if Falklanders really want a second flight as it would mean having them there two weeks per month instead of one.
May 07th, 2017 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Demon Tree,
May 08th, 2017 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Not necessarily, 2nd flight- unlikley it will happen though as Macri could not get it past his congress at present, would be on a Wed - and we could ensure that came via Arg same week as the monthly sat flight via Rio Gallegos so we would only have them for 10 days
Economically the 2nd flight would be good, but would only be acceptable here if it came from Santiago, Chie. Also Falklands businesses have a political limit they would not pay even if good financial results.
We all know what all Argentine Govts want to happen, and most of the 43million Argentines also - but we will pay the economic price needed to make sure it does NOT happen.
We lived under the Argentine jackboot for a few weeks in 1982 - and their elected Government jackboots come in the same colour and quality as regards what they are prepared to allow us to have in our own homeland.
@AustrOllOpithecus
May 08th, 2017 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“The Falklanders Anglo heritage strikes again”
Explaining why the Islanders are not xenophobic about non-English derived placenames such as San Carlos, Bombilla, the Lantioca river, and of course the name for the countryside, camp (from Campo)?
There is multi national heritage in the Islands.
“about how Argentina is so evil for involving itself in flights to the Falklands?”
It's about whether flights from Argentina are of any use to the Islanders or not .
Why have Argentine flights to the Islands if they aren't going to achieve anything?
Is there actually any benefit to the Argentines in flying to the Falklands other than income from Argentine passengers?
Flights to the Islands are surely based on whether there is a need for them.
It is not clear that the Argentines would regard flights to the Islands as anything more than expensive flag waving exercises which would get Argentina further into debt.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!