MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands a “bilateral issue between Argentina and UK”, insists Washington
The Falkland Islands and the political figure of President Barak Obama were among the issues addressed by United States Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela during a Friday mid day press conference in anticipation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to five countries of the region. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe UN and the yanks aren't getting involed.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0What next?
“What next?” That's up to the Argentians. The British discovered the islands centuries before Argentina existed and thousands of people directly descended from the first ever settlers consider themselves British. The Argentinians are just aggresive imperialist thieves, they will be uttely igonored unless the start a war, in which case every British man will lay down his life to defend his Falkland borthers and sisters. The British are some of the most intelligent, tough, resourceful and fearless people on Earth, They invented and defined the modern world. They have often been attacked when people thought they were weak or peaceful, and they always come back and win decisively; play silly games with them at your peril. Either way Argentina will lose, either a a pathetic laughing stock on the stage of the world, or in a deep pool of blood.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am guessing your British it's funny how ignorent you are and you have proven to us how little you know about history the British have been cold hearted ignorent people that have always gone to war to just try to proove it was a strong nation and has gotten it's ass kicked multiple time and the one time it doesn't they think they can do whatever they want the British has taken over las malvinas just for the oil I can tell how peaceful they are do us all a favor and get a history book you will learn how ignorant and agresive they really are
Feb 27th, 2010 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where are you from Jake?
Feb 27th, 2010 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes Jake you are right, the British took the Malvinas in 1833 because of the oil. The British are weak if you look at all the places the British Empire went they are now being ruled by the indigenous people where as the brave victorious Argentinians are far more accomplished militarily as they managed to commit almost complete genocide against the indigenous people in Argentina. Teach those barbaric British a lesson by committing a second genocide in Las Malvinas.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 05Pau: Where are you from? Your knowledge of historical facts is deplorable.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...“if you look at all the places the British Empire went...”... oh yes, all I can see is that they went to many places around the world that did not belong to them, instead of remaining in the only islands of their own, that is those sourrouded by the North Atlantic
“Teach those barbaric British a lesson by committing a second genocide in Las Malvinas...” .... Ha,ha, ha... this is actually funny.
“The right to self-determination of the islanders – long the obstacle to any deal with Argentina – has to be qualified. Intransigent in their response to the Ridley negotiations and backed by neo-imperialist rightwingers in the House of Commons, the islanders demanded and got their rescue by the 1982 task force and extravagant support ever since. They have rebuffed all efforts by later Buenos Aires mediators to re-establish contact” <br />
Feb 27th, 2010 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0<br />
Simon Jenkins<br />
<br />
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance<br />
You're going to have to do somethinge better than quoting some left wing apologist from the Grauniad. Who'd rather see British subjects under the jackboot of a corrupt Argentine military regime than expressing the right to determine their own future. If only the islanders had the decency to be black, it would be very different.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OMG, how greedy can Buenos Aires actually be? They are acting like thugs! We all know how you deal with small minded thugs. But nobody in their right mind wants WAR. But I must admit I would totally support my government if an act of war took place. I feel this would be far more just than our soldiers being in IRAQ or Afganistan only this time around we shouldn't stop at just defending our Lands and our people. It should be necessary that if there is a WAR we make sure we end it once and for all. I hope to God that that will not be necessary and both sides talk and sort it.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jake, what planet are you from - in 1833 just WHO was interested in OIL? - it did not exist as anythting other than a greasy crude lubricant!As regards the British starting wars all over the place and getting their arsea kicked as they loose?
Feb 27th, 2010 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please tell me WHICH wars in the last 200 years a has Britain started (other than those with UN Backing like Iraq and Afghanistan).
Also please list the WARS that Britain has lost in the last 200 years? I think you will find that the last war britain lost was the american war of inpependence in 1776( and as they were british and only became americans after their independence we could say that was only a civil war i guess!) Before that I think you will find the last war lost was the invasion of England in 1066!
Britain has always only gone to war in either selfdefence or in support of an ally withwhon it has a treaty to assist(eg Poland in 1939) eand even then only with warning the opposing country in advance of the consequences.
Britain has lost a few battles in wars - but I dont think it has ever lost a WAR for a long long time. Britain has a habit of winning the important battle in a war - the last one of a war!
THE TRUTH HURTS?
Feb 27th, 2010 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The right to self-determination of the islanders – long the obstacle to any deal with Argentina – has to be qualified. Intransigent in their response to the Ridley negotiations and backed by neo-imperialist rightwingers in the House of Commons, the islanders demanded and got their rescue by the 1982 task force and extravagant support ever since. They have rebuffed all efforts by later Buenos Aires mediators to re-establish contact” <br />
<br />
Simon Jenkins<br />
<br />
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance<br />
Do you have anything original to say Patrick?
Feb 27th, 2010 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Truth my arse, its full of holes, so tell me Patrick, why doesn't Argentina take this to the Hague?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7039764.ece
Feb 27th, 2010 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sir, Celia Szusterman presents a confused and partial analysis of the situation over oil exploration in Falklands waters (“Future of Falklands”, letter, Feb 23). First, it was the Falkland Islands government (which Argentina consistently refuses to recognise) that granted the exploration licences. We are fully entitled to do this in our own territorial waters. This right was recognised by Argentina and the UK in the 1995 Joint Declaration over Oil.
The declaration stated the full claim by each side to the territory involved and was to allow Falklands oil exploration to go ahead in Falklands waters as defined by the fishing zones — effectively with the agreement of the Argentine Government and without interference or government involvement by it. The first round of exploration duly went ahead in 1998 on these terms. The agreement also designated an area straddling the border of the Falklands’ designated area as a special co-operation area to be exploited jointly.
A further licensing round in the Falklands took place in 2001 and ended in 2005; again within the terms of the 1995 agreement. So there is no question of a “unilateral decision to grant exploration rights”, as Dr Szusterman implies.
It was not until March 2007 (not 2005), that the Argentine Government unilaterally repudiated the 1995 agreement. To use Dr Szusterman’s words, “it signalled that co-operation over oil, fisheries, conservation and other matters should be steps in a path that must lead to talks on sovereignty.”
People may be forgiven for thinking that this announcement, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Argentine invasion and when the licensed companies had already invested two years’ work, was carefully planned to disrupt the exploration process and “revive the old cause”.
Argentina is attempting to achieve by economic sanctions what it failed to achieve by military means. It has withdrawn co-operation on fishing conservation and environmental protection. It has threatened sanctions against companies holding licences to fish in Falklands waters and tried to exclude Falklands Islands representatives from participating at international fish conservation conferences. Now it is attempting to disrupt oil exploration.
On one point I agree with Dr Szusterman’s analysis. It is time that Argentina recognised the islanders and their democratically elected government. We are no longer a British colony but a self-governing overseas territory with full rights of self-determination. We have chosen to remain British citizens.
We have no desire to be colonised by Argentina, which refuses to recognise our Government or our right to determine our own future, but simply wants to seize our homeland, where we have lived for nearly 180 years. We will not be bullied into submission.
Sukey Cameron
Representative
Falkland Islands Government
London SW1
Well said lass.
Arturo Valenzuela and la Divina Commedia.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's failure in not minding in the past to the Falkland Islands. I'm talking about long before the war. 40 years long. The Falkland Islands were almost deserted. the British and the Argentines are a people living in peace. The Argentine invasion was a bad idea and aggressive. England aprobecho clumsy government and the hunger for power of the ruling military aberrant at the time. This conflict was resolved by both governments. To cope with the declining popularity of Prime Minister of war. Hide And know about the black gold. Governments always claim to represent but only represent their interests and not those of the true will of the people. Falling into the baseness of destroying other lives. this is to be primitive and then tell us about the war as if it were a sport.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I just can't understand how the United States of America, born out of the struggle against British Tyranny and Colonialism, can get so wrapped up with such hoodlums.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's pointless. This is ignorant people. Only reading their comments one can realized abou that. They will always claim that “Argentines goverments claim Malvinas to divert people's attention”.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0No matter who is in the goverment or if they are donig well or not, argentine goverments will always claim Malvinas. Until this ignorants understand this, to debate here is useless. Only commenting personal opinions is useful.
The Americans have always been nuetral on this issue ........ including 1982! It's just politics. The Argentine case is too weak to take to the Hague as was the last case they took there in the dispute with Chile over the Beagle Channel Islands in 1977. The Argentinian case fell due to the 1882 Latzina map, produced bt the Argentinian Government which shoed that the Beagle islands did not belong to Argentina as it was claiming to the court. Interestingly that same map shows the Falklands as NOT part of Argentina. With no case in law and no hope in fact, there is only politics to fall back upon.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0@expcet82 The USA and the UK are such close bedfellows because they share a language and heritage. The War of Independence and the War of 1812-14 defined this relationship and reduced British influence in the Western Hemisphere, except for Belize, the Virgin Islands, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Chile. See the trend towards islands anyone? The Brits took control of BsAs for a while in 1806 too, but without a better flotilla, they were soon expelled mostly local militia. This led to the Argentines kicking the Spanish out a few years later when they realized that Spain was corrupt, vulnerable and weak.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Simon Jenkins's opinion is a reasonable opinion, qualified and realistic. Leave aside the emotional and reasoning, not as you JustinK
Feb 28th, 2010 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The right to self-determination of the islanders – long the obstacle to any deal with Argentina – has to be qualified. Intransigent in their response to the Ridley negotiations and backed by neo-imperialist rightwingers in the House of Commons, the islanders demanded and got their rescue by the 1982 task force and extravagant support ever since. They have rebuffed all efforts by later Buenos Aires mediators to re-establish contact” <br />
<br />
Simon Jenkins<br />
<br />
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance<br />
I just cut and paste this posted for one of your own lads.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Dan
Not so sure mate #1
“The news that the seabed around the Falklands might contain rich oil deposits was first conveyed to a British government in 1969. Richard Crossman, then a member of the cabinet, recorded in his diary his surprise at the fact that ”the Foreign Office said that the only thing to do was to conceal the suggestion and prevent any testing“. What the FCO feared was that exploration would aggravate the territorial dispute with Argentina. In public, British politicians maintained a show of confidence in Britain's legal sovereignty over the islands, just as they do again now in the face of Argentinian protests over the drilling rig in the north basin. In private, they were less sure. In 1936, John Troutbeck, head of the FCO's American department, wrote a memo summarising the problem. The difficulty of Britain's position was that ”our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/feb/27/falklands-oil-dispute-ian-jack
Can anybody see the irony of Spanish speaking people who colonised a continent far from Spain accusing a few hundred English speaking people living on an island far from Britain of being colonialists?
Feb 28th, 2010 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's stop using the jingoistic language of 1950's Soviet Russia.
It is time for the wonderful freedom and fun loving people of both Argentina and Great Britain to sit down and thrash something out.
Britain and Norway created something magnificent in the North Sea and we have the technical skill to do something similar in the south atlantic for the good and benefit of all our people.
Paul
UK
There was going to be a deal Paul, but then Argentina abruptly and without explanation withdrew from the negotiations ..... even the Argentinian media has wondered why !<br />
Feb 28th, 2010 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0<br />
There can be many negotiations between Argentina and the UK, it's just that sovereignty isn't one of them !<br />
<br />
The Argentinians have declined arbitration by the Internetional Court of Justice 4 times. If they really believe they have a case then that's what they should be going for.
I have read that the Argentinian Government have requested the Australian Government to put pressure on BHP Billiton to not drill for oil in the Falklands.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have also read that much of the natural gas imported into Argentina comes in liquid form from Trinidad.
Meanwhile, the UK gas company 'Centrica' has purchased all of the gas assets
in Trinidad belonging to 'Suncor' of Cananda.
What will the Argentinian President do about this?
Will she blockade Trinidad?
Paul.
UK
Why not sit down and discuss sovereingty as the UN resolution asks if it is a debate that British are so sure to win?
Feb 28th, 2010 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well... that is something not even worthy of acknowledgedment, right?
That is the position I see in these comments time after time from Brits, kelpers and some pseudo historian kelpers as well...
At the same time they still treat Argentina like it was 1982. Things have changed guys... we have politicians now for the better, even if some are corrupt, that is flaw in all democracies (should I remind recent scandals in London about this?)
We have poor people in Argentina, so does the USA... we have unemployed people too, so does the USA...
Argentina is an emerging country, and we are working together for a better future for our children.
Fact of the matter is that if you ask 100 Argentines about Malvinas very, VERY few will say that UK should keep them, probably 1 out of 100.
That is not something a kelper can say about the UK population, and not even the press, in London.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article7043099.ece
The UK companies will not risk putting other business at risk in Argentina and LatAm, thus no recoverable oil will be found in the Malvinas basin. This would have been the last attempt by London to make the islands work economically, after this failure the date for talks over sovereingty will be set... behind closed doors, marking the end of British colonialism in LatAM.
MAP, the UN resolutions do not ask anyone to discuss sovereignty. They simply invite the UK and Argentina to settle their differences with regard to sovereignty. This does not mean the transfer of sovereignty to Argentina is the only option - as Argentina would have everyone believe. There are other options and all have to be looked at, considering the Islanders' right to self determination - something ever UN resolution about the Falkland Islands refers to. Argentina is only prepared to negotiate the transfer of sovereignty. Hardly surprising there is stalemate.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK does not get any revenues from Falkland oil, so I think your analysis doesn't really hold water. The UK is defending Falkland Islander rights on principle, not because of potential oil.
Don't twist my words J.A. Roberts.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UK is interested in the oil not to profit directly from it, as a country it will mean a strategical advantage. Private businesses will profit from it.
The interest in making the islands work economically is so they can pay the huge military expense bill that they generate every month for themselves. If no solution to this is found, Malvinas for the Brits are bad business.
About the UN resolution, as you said... it simply invites both parties to sit down down and talk... no sovereingty transfer implicit, yet the UK will not sit down... wonder why (I bet you have the answer...)
MAP, I'm not sure how I “twisted your words”, all I said was that I did not agree with you, which is something else. I really don't see how oil in the Falklands could be a strategic advantage for the UK. Perhaps you could elaborate. Of course private business will profit from it, and there is absolutely no reason why that could not be Argentine business (except for Argentine restrictions of course). You are right, there is a large defence bill, but it's only 1% of the UK defence budget and there is more than enough political support for it in the UK. As for the Falklands being bad business I don't understand why? Apart from defence they cost us nothing.<br />
Feb 28th, 2010 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0<br />
Yes, I do have an answer: You are incorrect that the UK will not sit down. The UK has stated quite clearly that is is prepared to talk, with no preconditions. On the other hand Argentina has made it clear over and over that they will only talk about a transfer of sovereignty.
28 J.A.Roberts: You said “On the other hand Argentina has made it clear over and over that they will only talk about a transfer of sovereignty”<br />
Feb 28th, 2010 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not at all... we are ready to talk about whatever UK wants to talk about, AFTER sovereignty topic has been solved.<br />
And besides all, why is UK so eager to negotiate such a secondary topics as “ to share resources ” and those things? I do not see them offering “ to share resources ” extracted in the North Sea, Argentine would not refuse to talk about that without putting the UK sovereignty over England under discussion... Such an hypocrite team!<br />
When are you going to find out that resources, administration, islanders, etc., are by far completely secondary?<br />
That one is our land, we want it back ... We want what is ours, we want our flag waving there. It cannot be negotiated... and get used to it, we are here, those islands belong to us, and we are not going to fade away.
The problem is Ilen that the Argentines are in the wrong. They claim there are UN resolutions in their favour but those resolutions call for Colonies to become self governing - Which the Falkland are.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They claim that Britain has issued permits to drill for oil in the Falklands - they haven't the Falkland Islannds government has issued the permits.
They claim this is a unilateral attempt to drill in disputed waters but Argentina signed a treaty in the 1990s granting that right to the Falklands Govt. They had no objection when exploration rigs were used in the 1990s.
They claim that the Falkland Islanders are Argentians but they refuse to talk to them. They actively campaign for them to be expelled from international conferences so that they don't have to speak to them.
The ruling parties supporters marched through BA in the last few weeks with placards saying English go home. They effectively want ethnic cleansing as they have already managed this in their own country. Large numbers of the Islanders are 7th or 8th generation kelpers, you might as well demand that Argentinians be deported to Spain.
Argentinians are not welcome in the Islands it is they who should stay at home. The rest of South America should be grateful, if Argentina got FI they would then need to turn their attention to their other neighbours next time the President of Argentina gets in political difficulty.
Dear Paul2:<br />
Mar 01st, 2010 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...Argentines are in the wrong. They claim there are UN resolutions in their favour but those resolutions call for Colonies to become self governing - Which the Falkland are.”<br />
There are UN resolutions in our favor. There is not a single resolution calling for self-determination of “falklenders”, as there is not, and never will be, a resolution calling for “self-determination” of jewish people within Palestina´s lands, no matter how long remains those lands under Israeli military ocuppation, and no matter how many israeli citizens go to live there. British citizens living in Malvinas are merely so: foreign citizens who live in a stolen land.<br />
<br />
“They claim that Britain has issued permits to drill for oil in the Falklands - they haven't the Falkland Islannds government has issued the permits.”<br />
<br />
Irrelevant. Neither the UK, nor the self called “ Falkland Islands government”, have the right to do it. <br />
<br />
“They claim that the Falkland Islanders are Argentians but they refuse to talk to them. They actively campaign for them to be expelled from international conferences so that they don't have to speak to them.”<br />
We do not claim anybody to be Argentinian, Paul. We claim our land, “falklenders” can remain as british as they want... We do not refuse to talk to them as persons or british citizens; we can talk about many things with them... but they will not to be in the negotiation table between Argentina and UK because... oh, yes, they are british! And, as the whole international comunity accept (including UK closest ally USA) this is a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE between Argentina and UK. <br />
And yes, we actively campaign for them to be expelled from international conferences; we always did and always will. We do it also when they appear in business congresses around the world as if they were an “independent state”. Sorry if that causes problems to them... but that´s how things are just now; and will be until our land is given back to us.<br />
<br />
“The ruling parties supporters marched through BA in the last few weeks with placards saying English go home. They effectively want ethnic cleansing as they have already managed this in their own country. Large numbers of the Islanders are 7th or 8th generation kelpers, you might as well demand that Argentinians be deported to Spain.”<br />
Oh, God... you know nothing about Argentina. We definitively want UK out of South Atlantic and America. Even american “commonwealth” countries support us on this.That does not say anything to you? As for the foreign citizens who live here in Argentina, there are many of many countries, including british ones, and nobody has thrown them not prevented to prosper...<br />
“Argentinians are not welcome in the Islands it is they who should stay at home. The rest of South America should be grateful, if Argentina got FI they would then need to turn their attention to their other neighbours next time the President of Argentina gets in political difficulty.”<br />
We know we are not welcome, we know that islanders british citizens do not want us... but those are our islands. We know that the majority of the “falklenders” are there because of a draft of history for which they are not to blame, that they are not responsible of what the previous generations did... but still our lands.<br />
And honey... don´t give so much credit to our president; let a bit for UK Prime Minister too...
Surely the desicion belongs to the people of the Falkland Island,they have been living there for nearly the past two hundred years.<br />
Mar 01st, 2010 - 05:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Fair” claims to land,when applied historically,would result in pretty unimaginable redistribution.<br />
When does it stop,how far back in history do we go until we find a cut off point for handing back land,200 years? 500years?<br />
Let the islanders vote they have been there lond enough to make a their own desicion
I think there is a little confusion here from the Islanders.
Mar 01st, 2010 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse 01- The Argentinians don’t want the UK government down here, I mean 10 Downing street (the monarch, the British crown, Its Army, etc.)
2- British Islanders have nothing to do with it.
So a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina will have little impact to the day to day living of the Islanders.
They will can remain British if they want or became voluntary Argentinian so they will be Bristh/Argentinians as Argentina does not require that you have to denied or lose your previous nationality (I have 2)
They surely will hold its private properties (now illegally) legally with certificates issued by the Argentina’s Government.
They can continue speaking English if they want. They will be able to choose their own local govt. from one of their community. In fact Argentina by law requires that the elected local authorities have to be residents on the jurisdiction at least for 2 years. So any Argentinian from the continent can participate in any election in the Islands if he/her don’t have more that 2 years living in the Islands.
They will be able to explore for oil, fishery, etc. legally according with the Argentina’s law as province like Santa Cruz, Neúquen, etc, in Argentina.
What will change?
The official flag will be Argentina’s flag, but nothing will ban you to put your British flag in the roof of your house if you want. Like Argentinian Germans, Italians, Spanish, etc. do in Argentina.
The Official language will be Spanish, what that means for a normal islander?
Nothing, because this only will be used in governments communications with the rest of the Argentina’s govt.
Some provinces in Argentina like Misiones they have as official language Spanish but more of them speak Guarany (indigenous language).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posadas,_Misiones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posadas,_Misiones
For those whom may think in Argentina as monolithic Spanish culture, let me tell you that they are dead wrong.
Argentinians speak Spanish widely that much is true and are 97% European descendents, but not all from Spain.
Large populations of Germans, Italians, French, Ukrainian, Polish, Dutch, Welsh, Scottish, English, Irish, etc are part of the background of the Argentina’s population.
The most languages spoken after Spanish are English (5.000.000), German (about 1.800.000 people) Italian (1.500.000), Middle East languages including Hebrew and Arab (800.000), etc.
So according with my opinion if Britain fails economically and has to setup the dispute with Argentina in the UN a lot of European countries will back Argentina’s side.
And let be honest here, I am European/Argentinian and for that I know that many countries as mine (in Europe no name here) hates Britain, and the list starts with Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc.
So the position of the Islanders would be even weak in such circumstances so as my dad use to say. It is better 50% of something than 100% of nothing.
Think about it.
Best regards,
LLen, <br />
Mar 01st, 2010 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0<br />
Resolution 1514/60 is applicable to the Falkland Islanders. I can find 7 UN Resolutions (there may be more) specifically mentioning the Falkland Islands, which refer back to Resolution 1514/60. So that's 1 UN resolution recognising self determination for the peoples of non-self governing territories (which the Falkland Islanders are) and a further 7 resolutions which specifically recognise that right for the Falkland Islanders. I'm not sure how you can think that there is “not a single resolution calling for self-determination of “falklenders””.<br />
<br />
I also cannot find a single UN resolution which specifies the dispute as a “territorial” dispute. In fact Resolution 2065/65 refers to it as a “dispute... concerning sovereignty”. There is no evidence that the whole international community consider it a territorial dispute, least of all the US.
“It is better 50% of something than 100% of nothing.”
Mar 01st, 2010 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mmm, does anyone not spot a certain amount of hubris and hypocrisy in that statement, given that it was Argentina that threw its rattle out of the pram tearing up all the agreements achieved since the war on the Falkland Islands.
And Anton, the Falkland Islanders have nothing to do with it. 8 or 9 generations count for nothing. Apart from the utterly fascist attitude, lets apply that to Argentina. Most Eurpean Argentines migrated in the 1880s, they have at most 3-4 generations in Argentina. Guess they count for NOTHING in your eyes? No? Then don't preach utter crap then.
What will change?
You say private property will be respected, even though in your eyes it is “illegal”. I call bullshit on that one. In your eyes it is “illegal”, which is just one step away from justifying its expropriation by the state.
Given the hostile attitude frequently displayed by Argentines, it would be a populist move in Argentina.
“They will be able to explore for oil etc”
They can do that now, without interference from the British Government. What would change is that instead of revenues benefitting the islands and the islanders, revenues will find their way into the corrupt pockets of your politicians.
“The official language will be Spanish”.
They speak English, so like the Welsh and other groups in Patagona, they will be disenfranchised unless they forgo their heritage.
So what would actually change? It would be the imposition of an alien culture, the population would be subject to domination and subjugation by a hostile nation. There is a word for that isn't there....its called colonialism.
So to clear up the confusion with the Argentines here, the Falkland Islands govern themselves right now, it isn't imposed from London like you would do with Buenos Aires, they make the decisions for themselves. Because there is a large and hostile nation, that asserts they have no rights in their own homes, the British Government maintains a garrison and guarantees their freedom but that is all. Same as the British Government did in Belize or any one of a number of places, where a hostile neighbour, usually a military dictatorship, decided that some stupid irredentist claim justified their annexation.
So in the 21st Century, isn't it about time that a supposedly democratic Argentina started to have a more mature attitude instead of claiming “territory” it has never held, simply because it has constructed a stupid argument to convince itself that it is justified in denying a foreign people the right to live in their own land and homes. Lets be honest about this, its easy to whip up hatred against a foreign peoples to unite the people against a common enemy, frighteningly easy. Its usually done in hard economic times to blame malign foreign influences rather than your own reckless economic policies. Too damn easy.
And while you fall for it every time, the economic development of Argentina will continue to fail. But no doubt someone will bang the Falklands War Drums again and the people will cheer.
@JustinKuntz
Mar 01st, 2010 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you never get tired by telling lies all the time?
You said 8 or 9 of British Islanders then what? You are telling me that you were in the Island before the roman invaded what is now England?
Argentinians ancestors are older here that the creation of UK (1801), before you were the Kingdom of England, Scotland and Ireland, etc.
2 February 1536 by a Spanish expedition led by Pedro de Mendoza was founded Buenos Aires.
Later become the Viceroy of River Plate including Malvinas and all Islands.
Spanish are European, do you know That? And Spanish, French, Germans, Italians are from that era.
Before 1833 when British took the Island by force Argentina had already Irish, English and Scots as inhabitants of Buenos Aires. From the attempt to take Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807.
Argentina has several
Argentina become legally recognized as an independent nation in 1816 And UK was formed in 1801.
Again before you were English Scottish, Welch and Irish.
And before in any case what is England today was known as Britannia or Magna Bretagna, Caledonia (Scottland). London was Londinium. Etc, etc.
If you use this argument like the Islanders are British so Argentinians are new balbla return to Spain and all this rubbish.
You will have to give back Great Britain to the Italians now and to the Gaelicos (the land of Gaels or Gaelic) from the European continent.
Britons are as result of Spanish troops (Hibericos/Hispania) conquering what was later Bretannia under the orders of the Roman Empire year 54 BC.
http://www.unrv.com/roman-empire-map.php
So mate you have to return I don’t know perhaps half to Spain and the rest to Rome, make your choice.
And by the way you don't have any right as self-determination as you never were a nation recognized by anyone in the world.
Mar 01st, 2010 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0To become a nation the rest of the world has to recognize you. Do you know that? So doesn't matter if you were there 1000 years and none is going to recognize you as a nation for that else will open the door to futures claims that none want to here, especially in USA, Russia, China, etc. The Mexican descendents in Texas, California, Miami, etc can claim the same thing. Can you imagine who will recognize you?
So your problem is: While you are under the umbrella of UK the Islands will be in a territorial dispute with Argentina. And if you are not under the UK's umbrella none is going to recognize you and less with a population of 2000 people is a joke. Any rave in Argentina has more people than that. You are fooling yourself.
Alingus are you capable of logical independent and original thought?
Mar 01st, 2010 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 01536 and who was there before the Conquistadores? The original inhabitants thats who, whose rights you abrogated. 1885 and the Conquest of the Desert, where you robbed the indigenous people of their land and virtually exterminated them. What gives you the right to keep Patagonia if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion.
And in 1833, the British did not take the islands by force, unlike you did in Patagonia, the British requested the Argentine garrison who'd been there less than 3 months to leave. Not one single shot was fired, anyone who wished to stay could and were encouraged to do so.
Your logic is correct in debunking all irredentist claims, what you fail to realise is that all irredentist claims are bunk including Argentina's.
And all people have the right to self-determination, its a fundamental human right guaranteed by the UN Charter. I suggest you look it up, then perhaps you look less like a fool.
Someone can tell me how many people born in the island live in it now?
Mar 01st, 2010 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklands.gov.fk//documents/Census%20Report%202006.pdf
Mar 01st, 2010 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Last census was in 2006, see page 6.
Ilen - any negotiation will only be bilateral between Uk and Arg? - sorry mate - all previous talks have included members of the Islands Govt - and they always will as and when they restart in future when your side calms down a bit- its a little thing called deomocracy - of which your Govt practices a pretty warped form at times.
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0P
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, yes Islander... any negotiation will be bilateral. Obviously, Uk can invite you -as british citizens- to seat at his side of the table, but that´s will be all. Two sides in here: Argentina and UK, no third part at all.
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 04:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0The incoherence of the Islanders:
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 05:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0They claim to be British the concept of being British is relatively new as has pointed well Alingus (1801).
Then if you are British you are originally from UK, so its clear that you are a colony here.
So to claim for self-determination first you have to become independent from UK as Argentineans did from Spain, else where it is your self-determination?
Then you have to become an independent nation, have a citizenship, etc. to do that you will have to be recognized by the rest of the world.
After all this process you can say that Islander has self-determination, now the only ones with self-determination in this dispute are Argentina and UK.
So you cannot integrate any table of discussion over sovereignty, because UK already represents you in this dispute.
Remember you are British this is your argument, else the table of negotiation would be joined by the Argentina’s Govt., UK’s govt. Argentineans people and Islanders people.
By the way today Hilary Clinton backed Cristina Kirchner and call UK to sit with Argentina to talk about sovereignty rights in UN.
Case close, I think you know what that means.
GalonDrunk - a fitting title perhaps.
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 06:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0You need to check up on your history. The English gradually joined with the Welsh, the Irish and the Scottish to form the present UK. A long process going back to time immemorial. The current UK claims rest on a history that predates Argentina's existence as a seperate country. Argentina's historical claim requires them to be the inheritors of Spanish claims. Legally that is dubious at best as it would also give Argentina a claim to its other neighbours. Or indeed give a country like Chile a similar claim to the Falkland Islands.
Argentina gave up its claim in the late 19th century (see the Mapa de Latzina 1882) and only resuurects the issue when it's got political problems at home.
The islands have always been British, the Argentinian military garrisons have been ejected twice (1883 and 1982), and the rights of the islanders are paramount.
@Hoytred
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The English gradually joined with the Welsh, the Irish and the Scottish to form the present UK... A long process going back to time immemorial”
I hope you are not British else you don’t know your own history. The process started as a result of the Act of Union 1800, and came to effect in 1801. This is the birth of UK that we know now and why people from the Island Britannia are British.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formally created and recognized in 1801.
For that reason some I don’t know how to called it now but for example Scotland, Wales and England are not considered any more nations. May be estates, provinces, regions??? I don’t know is confuse.
As you can read here http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm
Look for “Bermuda, Greenland, Palestine, Western Sahara, and even the components of the United Kingdom (such as Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England - they're not fully independent countries, states, or nation-states).”
About maps CIA us govt. map http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm see please how their consider Malvinas (administered by UK claimed by Argentina).
Argentina’s Official map http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm
UK’s official map, tell me please where do you see Malvinas in the official map of UK?
http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm
So if you take the year of birth of Argentina 1816 when it was legally and officially recognized in the world, so you have to take the same logic for UK.
If you take early proto-formations (what is wrong at least for legal issues) so you have to go back to 1536 for Argentina and so you can go for 1701 for UK. Because before they were The Kingdom of England, Scotland, etc.
So legally to don’t go back forever and end in The Euphrates River (Iraq) and the Babylon (Mesopotamia) BC. We have to take the last formation and name given to a nation.
So to resume Argentina was legally international recognized and formed in 1816 and UK in 1801 and the British took possession of the Island by force in 1833, when the islands were part and a clear possession of Argentina even though there were not any persons living there.
And empty land, Island or property doesn’t give any legal right to others to take possession.
Else is colonialism and is not accepted in the world any more. And UK was after the WWII pointed to get rid of its colonies.
Thing that UK legally accepted on that time. So UK cannot claim anything, they only hold the Island under the claim that the Islanders want to remain British and the “self-determination” stuff.
So UK cannot hold the Island eternally by force and you are not an independent nation that can joy to be part of Britain for self-determination. Like in the case of Puerto Rico they were a nation first and later voluntarily wanted to be part of USA.
And read this please:
http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm
“The holes in the British case shocked many officials in Whitehall. The head of the Foreign Office's American department, Gerald Spicer, wrote: “From a perusal of this memo it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine government's attitude is not altogether unjustified and that our action has been somewhat high-handed....
An assistant secretary in the same department wrote: ”The only question is who did have the best claim at the time when we finally annexed the islands. I think undoubtedly the United Province of Buenos Aires.“ And the British ambassador in Argentina, Sir Malcolm Robertson, wrote in 1927: ”I must confess that, until I received that memorandum myself a few weeks ago, I had no idea of the strength of the Argentine case nor of the weakness of ours.”
The study was regarded as so explosive that the British government withdrew it from public view during the Falklands war, but it's now available in the National Archives.
Pro-Argentine academics suggest Italian-born explorer Amerigo Vespucci, discovered the islands as early as 1501; pro-British historians make the case for the English explorers John Davis (1592) and Sir Richard Hawkins (1594), while many scholars say the only conclusively documented discovery was by the Dutchman Sebald de Weert in 1600. All agree that what is now known as East Falkland was first settled by the French in 1764. The French ceded control of the island to Spain in 1767.”
Mattum,
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm afraid you are incorrect. Argentina was not internationally recognised in 1816. Britain did not recognize Argentine independence until 1826 and Spain did not formally recognise Argentine until 1859.
The Falklands are not part of the United Kingdom. That's why you don't see them on the map of the UK. The Falklands are a legally separate self-governing territory, with their defence and foreign relations taken care of by the UK at their request, just like other British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies...
jaja, another brit joke“ the falklands are not part of the UK” of course,, they are part of Argentina!!! (UK militaries are there, like Cyprus state) and we cant see them in the UK MAP because they dont have anything to do with UK.... it is simple Roberts---
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@J.A. Roberts
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The Falklands are not part of the United Kingdom. That's why you don't see them on the map of the UK”
You are right Malvinas is not part of UK what means that doesn’t belong to UK, so Malvinas is not a nation because is part of Argentina under the govt. of Tierra del Fuego. But UK retains it by force arguing that is protecting British citizens.
Let put in another words, Argentina invades Manchester with the excuse that is protecting the self-determination of 10 Argentineans football players that want to remain Argentineans. And Argentina holds Manchester for 150 years. UK makes claims but Argentina refuses to talk about the sovereignty issue and Argentina keeps saying that is protecting the self-determination of the 10 Arg. FPs. Then UK invades Manchester holds Manchester for one month and Argentina sends troops to UK and UK loses the battle.
Question:
UK lost its territory according with you?
Or Argentina is illegally holding UK’s territory by force?
Is the same situation here, you cannot holds a territory with that argument.
The fact that UK didn’t recognize Argentina until 1926 or Spain until 1859 as you’ve said, doesn’t means that Argentina was not recognized by the rest or the world.
In fact UK was not widely recognized in 1801, so you declare your independence or your change of status and the rest of the countries take its time to formally agree with your independence or new Status.
For that reason everyone take lets say the day you of your independence or when you change your status.
For example Hawaii recognized Argentina in 1807 when an Argentinean warship commanded by Captain Bouchard was going to free California from the Spanish domination. California was in possession of Argentina by 6 days and part of Mexico (Monterrey, Acapulco, etc) also Guatemala, Perú and Chile.
http://topofobia.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/hawai-reconoce-la-independencia-de-argentina-la-cual-se-dispone-a-invadir-california/
http://topofobia.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/hawai-reconoce-la-independencia-de-argentina-la-cual-se-dispone-a-invadir-california/
http://topofobia.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/hawai-reconoce-la-independencia-de-argentina-la-cual-se-dispone-a-invadir-california/ English reference
“In November 1818 the capital of Alta California fell into the hands of rebels from Buenos Aires, the principal city of the newly independent Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata, today's Argentina”
And by the way UK recognized Argentina in 1824 and not 1926.
And US independence was in 1776 but was recognized after the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
So to don’t end up in a competition about independence days, Argentina 1816 and UK 1801 everyone in the world agree with that.
Jorge, perhaps you should read more carefully before you launch into one of your ill-thought-out ripostes. I wrote Britain did not recognise Argentina until 1826, not 1926 and neither was it 1824.
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Having British sovereignty and being part of the UK are two different things. There are 13 British Overseas territories, two sovereign bases and three Crown dependencies which are NOT part of the UK but DO have British sovereignty.
If Argentina took Manchester (or any other part of the world) 150 years ago and if the people in Manchester had been born there for 10 generations and wanted to remain under Argentine sovereignty then most fair and thinking men would say that say that Manchester (or that other part of the world) should remain Argentine.
Oh, and how could Hawaii have recognised Argentina in 1807 when Buenos Aires did not declare its independence until 1810?
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mattum
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try rubbing your two brain cells together a bit harder! The embers of intelligence are yet to be seen!
“The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formally created and recognized in 1801”
Utter Flying Bollocks with funny hats on!
Correction, the first act of union (Wales and England) 1535-1542, 2nd act of Union (The “tender Union” (Scotland England) 1657 (dissolved when the Comonwealth republic ended in 1660), now here is the crusher, the act of Union 1707 (Scotland England again!) forms to produce the United Kingdom of Great Britain…..Now call me stupid but that’s not exactly 1801 is it?..........Now we have the Final act of Union 1801, UK with Ireland, to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, The Irish then left the Union (after an act of self determination I might add!!) in 1922 to form the Irish free state, but the 6 Northern counties opted to Stay with the UK and thus we have now the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
….As you see a long tedious and lengthy process, but not bad for a bunch of smelly pirates eh?
“For that reason some I don’t know how to called it now but for example Scotland, Wales and England are not considered any more nations. May be estates, provinces, regions??? I don’t know is confuse.”
Define Nation, I implore you! Nation in my terminologdy is a group of liguisticaly/ethnically/culturally distinct peoples who inhabit a certain geographic region.- In this case all 4 constituent nations of the UK are nations, even the Falklands is a nation under this definition. The closest definition to your Constitution would be they are provinces, but much more distinct.
http://geography.about.com/od/findmaps/ig/Country-Maps/Argentina-Map.htm see please how their consider Malvinas (administered by UK claimed by Argentina)
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out there is a sovereignty dispute, given the US have stated their neutrality on the issue, is it any wonder they don’t wish to be seen brown nosing either party?
Argentina’s Official map http://geography.about.com/od/findmaps/ig/Country-Maps/Argentina-Map.htm
That’s a nice map of Argentina, but somebody seems to have made a spelling mistake on the bottom right hand corner above the Falkland islands.
UK’s official map, tell me please where do you see Malvinas in the official map of UK?
http://geography.about.com/od/findmaps/ig/Country-Maps/Argentina-Map.htm
That’s a very nice picture of the UK, but what the hell are you on about? Alaska and Hawaii are not exactly in the US mainland, yet they are a part of the US, so you need to be geographically connected to a place now to own it?
“1816 and UK in 1801 and the British took possession of the Island by force in 1833, when the islands were part and a clear possession of Argentina even though there were not any persons living there”
The nation state of Argentina today wasn’t properly formulated until 1860 with the Colonialisation of the desert.
“And empty land, Island or property doesn’t give any legal right to others to take possession”
Obviously you didn’t apply this logic to Patagonia, which was terra Nullis, up until 1860? Nor certain regions of chile and Paraguay?
“UK cannot claim anything, they only hold the Island under the claim that the Islanders want to remain British and the “self-determination” stuff”
self determination is a legally recognized principle which has been the corner stone for ending colonialism, the right decide without being steam rollered into a situation you don’t want….”It’s not stuff” it’s fact and Human rights, and we will obey their wishes if they said “we want to be Argentinian” we would be off in a flash.
So UK cannot hold the Island eternally by force and you are not an independent nation that can joy to be part of Britain for self-determination. Like in the case of Puerto Rico they were a nation first and later voluntarily wanted to be part of USA.
We are not holding the island by force, fool! The only reason we are there is so you lot don’t get overly excited again whip your cock out and get it stomped on again.
If they wish to be a part of the UK they can but I am sure they are more content the way they are, I think you lot would kick up a fuss if they did opt for Union, which they probably will do, then they will no longer be on the C-24’s highly irrelevant, contradictory and pointless list.
“And read this please:
http://geography.about.com/od/findmaps/ig/Country-Maps/Argentina-Map.htm
Ah yes the same pro Grace Livingstone who exonerated the FARC from any kind of crime in Colomobia, and whose first novel was about condemning
Love her stance bugger anyone living there they don’t matter, as I speak from my plush $500,000 a year penthouse in New York.
One cannot but help think that she is coming from a slightly biased slant here! As for the “explosive memo”, I think you will find it is less “explosive” then she implies in her somewhat flexible interpretation of 20th century civil service speak.If it was so explosive why aren’t the islands in Argie hands then?
Answer the memo stated both sides based on the information available at the time, and new docuements recovered later have shed a much more different light.
It’s really interesting that Argentina can only claim prescription based on supposed inheritance, cries foul when she loses something, but stays remarkably silent about the imperialist pacification of Patagonia.
Jorge Jorge, JORGE oh there you are your back down to earth again!
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Manchester is a city of 500,000 on mainland UK, slight difference to some islands in the South Atlantic with a population of 4,000.
try Orkney and Shetland of any of the Hebrides, you won't look as thick.
But on that note, we haven't seen fit to moan about the Republic of Ireland to our west, they've been independent for 80 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No comment!
Well what can I say.
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina before was the United Provinces of South America as you were The United Kingdom of Great Britain, then you become in 1800 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (as you can see even that the nation has the United Kingdom the name has changed).
In legal matters there is something called persona jurídica (legal entity).
The legal Entity is not the same for “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” than “United Kingdom of Great Britain”, like the United Estates of America than The United Estates of Brazil (this is the real name of Brazil for example).
This little changes can signify a complete change in rights, obligation, meanings, etc. on legal issues.
So the last change in the name of the nation kwon today as United Kingdom of Great Britain was in 1801, but then you turn into “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” so you are still in formation.
So the formation of Argentina started in 1536 and emerged as the Republic of Argentina in 1816.
The formation of UK started in 1535 with the first union acts and emerged today as “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” this is your legal name until now and was adopted in 1927.
The thing my friends is that you British have a big confuse about everything, for example you call your self a democracy, when you are a monarchy. Can you understand than that? This has not any logic.
You cannot elect the head of the estate so how can you be a democracy if the power legally remains in the hands of the monarch?
Malvinas is not part of UK someone has well stated, but you say that people born there are British?
How can that be possible?
About the maps:
You are wrong as always see the official map of US please http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/H/3/1/USMap.gif
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc are well marked as legal possession of US.
So according with you, Argentina is wrong, US is wrong, 32 other nations are wrong. 12 nation from your own Commonwealth are wrong. China is wrong, Russia is Wrong, etc.
UK is the only right against the world, come on please none recognize any right of UK over Malvinas and there is not way that UK cans continue in the XXI century with a behavior from the middle age.
And last you say:
“Obviously you didn’t apply this logic to Patagonia, which was terra Nullis, up until 1860? Nor certain regions of chile and Paraguay?”
Have you ever heard of The Nootka Conventions? Conventions were a series of three agreements between the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Great Britain, signed in the 1790s”
http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/H/3/1/USMap.gif
Britain recognized on this acts all these territories including Malvinas, south Islands and Patagonia to Spain.
People living in the Viceroy of River Plate Spanish’s colony become independents and all Spain possession become Argentina. So you are on Argentina’s land.
Chau
Roberts and the other guy with weird name,
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 049 Jorge (#) Mar 03rd, 2010 - 07:21 am was not my comment.
1. “This little changes can signify a complete change in rights, obligation, meanings, etc. on legal issues.
Mar 04th, 2010 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hate to break it to you old chap but it doesn’t, the overall standing and obligations of the UK did not change one bit post 1922, just they had 20 instead of 50 Irish MPs sitting at west minister”, the constitutional set up doesn’t change because one bit leaves!
Legistaltion governs Rights, legal issues etc, NOT seccesion!
2. “So the last change in the name of the nation kwon today as United Kingdom of Great Britain was in 1801”
No it wasn’t, 1922 was with the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The entity known as the UK was founded in 1706 with the union between Scotland and England, 1801 is irrelevant, if 1706 hadn’t happened we wouldn’t be talking.
The UK could have existed quite happily in it’s 1706 state without Eire latched on, hence 1922 with it’s seccesion.
3. So the formation of Argentina started in 1536 and emerged as the Republic of Argentina in 1816.
Are you a class A gimboid?
Haven’t you ever heard of Patagonia? you know that large mass of mineral rich land that makes up 80% of your landmass? Or did you forget that it wasn’t part of Argentina until 1860, you haven’t even settled some border disputes with Chile yet, Hence your still in formation and thus the Islands cannot violate your territorial integrity!
3. “you call your self a democracy, when you are a monarchy. Can you understand than that? This has not any logic”
“You cannot elect the head of the estate so how can you be a democracy if the power legally remains in the hands of the monarch?”
Power doesn’t remain in the hands of the monarch you utter mongoloid! Power and ultimate Sovereignty lies in the hand of Parliament, they are the ones who make laws in my country, that and the EU, Local Councils, Scottish, welsh, Stormont Parliaments, Don’t recall the Monarch making any effective law by themselves since the Civil war in 1650!
Monarchy is a figure head, she doesn’t have any political power, merley a ceromonial role,
But the now the coup d’grace:, democracy means people power right? The right for people to decide no? If the queen has no power, then what is the probelem? And where under any defintion of democracy does it say you don’t need a monarchy?
Personnaly I prefer a polite well spoken gentle old queen as head of state. To a convicted Rapist (Israel), a polygamist (south Africa), A baboon (Venezuela) or a corrupt botox hysterical drama queen (Argentina), (whose husband also heads the legislature?) As head of state.
Call me suspiscious, but having a husband and wife team heading both the executive and Legislative branches of Government stinks of corruption of the highest order and seems to contradict the whole seperation of powers thing?
And you call us Illogical, how on earth do you keep the two branches of Govt in Check, cancel their joint bank account?
And they sleep together as well? I always thought Our seperation of powers was dubious to say the least, Argentina takes it to a new level, coupling-of-and exchange of bodily fluids power, got to be a first eh?
We have had MPs loose the seats in this country because their offspring or significant other has had too many finger in the pie
4. Malvinas is not part of UK someone has well stated, but you say that people born there are British? How can that be possible?
Why can’t they be? What law says they can’t be? Various acts of citizenship in the UK says they can be it’s legal by our laws. “A wise man once said, just because a cat is born in a stable doesn’t mean it’s a Horse”….democracy Carlos Democracy, choose who you want to be! Nobody has the right to dictate your nationality!
We have Irish Passports holders living here-one of my best mates has never had a British Passport or citizenship in this country even though he was born here! Irish citizen through and through….Shock horror!
Due to my birth I can live in Hong Kong with merly a British Passport! Shock Horror x2
My Uncle and his two sons can come and live here in the UK from Austrlia despite not having a British Passport Shock horror times X3!!!
5. Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc are well marked as legal possession of US.
I think you misread my points, Alaska and Hawaii and Puerto Rico are not attached to the continental land mass of the Untied States in any manner, yet they form integral parts of the US.
My point being it is perfectly normal for political entities to pledge allegiance to the same state be it 20 miles or 200,000 miles away.
6.UK is the only right against the world
Never stated we were perfect, but we are right about this dispute…
7. none recognize any right of UK over Malvinas
Really? Name them, with the exception of a smattering of mental unstable brown nosing excuses of corrupt heads of state in South America, who supports your claim?
8. and there is not way that UK cans continue in the XXI century with a behavior from the middle age.
The only behaviour that is middle agesc is Argentinas continued denial of self determination, blockade and nationalistic rhetoric.
We are just defending the weak from the powerful bully, so in that sense in terms of middle Ages behaviour quite Chivalryes if you ask me ☺
9. Britain recognized on this acts all these territories including Malvinas, south Islands and Patagonia to Spain.
NO it did not, the Nootka sound conventions dealt with North west America, not South America. Britain along with a good % of Europe did not recognize decrees from a religious figurehead who did not represent them. If the Papal Bull of 1494 was valid, please explain, Dutch Suriname, Most of the very Un-Spanish Carribbean, French Guyana, British Guyana, British Honduras….Bugger you cant ☺
But anyhow, did the fine folk of Patagonia have a say in this matter, didn’t think so, just steam rollered them in 1850 didn’t ya?
10. People living in the Viceroy of River Plate Spanish’s colony become independents and all Spain possession become Argentina. So you are on Argentina’s land.
So is Uruguay Argentinian then? Are they on Argentinain land, as for the Falklands they were administered from Montevido until 1810! “Falkands son Uruguyans!”
As for the crushing Irony of Patagonian indigenous, I’ve made my point.
Democracy means a government of the people.
Mar 04th, 2010 - 04:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0And can be direct democracy or indirect democracy.
The Sovereign in a democracy is “The People”
And in a Monarchy the Sovereign is “The Royal Crown”
If you have a monarch as a head of the Estate, this is not a democracy else if a Monarchy. Is so simple, even though he/she doesn't directly rule the country he/she can appoint a Primer Minister, representative of the crown, etc.
Everything is made in the name of the Sovereign Crown, like justice, appointments, etc.
What defines a democracy?
1- Freedom secured by legitimized rights and liberties and a written constitution that protects the rights of all citizen of the nation.
2- Equal access to power. Any citizen has equal opportunity to be the “head of the Estate”. Head of a Parliament doesn’t qualify for this.
3- Separation of powers, normally divided in 3 branches: Executive power, Judiciary power and legislative power.
Let’s see UK:
1-Has a written constitution? NO
2-All citizens have equal access to power? NO The head of the Estate is always the Monarch none can be elected as a Monarch.
4- Has separation of powers? NO Justice is carryout in the name of the Monarch.
Examples of democracy USA, Argentina, Brazil, etc.
Examples of Parliamentary Monarchy:
UK, Spain, Norway, Netherlands, etc.
Spain is a Parliamentary Monarchy but with Written constitution.
http://www.sispain.org/english/history/monarchy.html
So UK is not a democracy is a Parliamentary Monarchy without a written constitution that allows the election of representatives in the parliament.
But the Monarch has especial prerogatives, in the case of UK the Monarch can remove the parliament and rule the kingdom as her/he wishes.
Argentina constitution http://www.sispain.org/english/history/monarchy.html
USA constitution http://www.sispain.org/english/history/monarchy.html
Can you show me the UK constitution?
Certainly not because UK is ruled by a set of common laws.
Safobenck,
Mar 04th, 2010 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who ever said a constitution has to be written down for it to be valid? We have a common law system in the UK and our constitution is in that tradition. Our unwritten constitution functions very well, which is why we have not changed it. Just because other countries codify their laws and write down their constitutions does not make them any more democratic. Argentina has a written constitution and that did not stop dictatorship. If the UK needed a written constitution in a single document, we would have written one down by now.
Why are constitutional monarchy and democracy incompatible? The British monarchy is only there because of popular support, we choose to keep the monarchy. Is that not democracy? It is perfectly legal to oppose the monarchy in the UK. http://www.republic.org.uk/
If enough people supported the republican campaign then there is nothing to stop us abolishing the monarchy. We did it once before, and we can do it again.
Justice might be carried out “in the name of the monarch”, parliamentary bills are given “royal assent” and the government is “HM Government”. So what? We are a country with a history of monarchy, the coat of arms over the door does not change and we continue to refer to it as “Her Majesty's Government”, but we all know it is our government, kept to account by our parliament, which we elect. The fact is we do have effective separation of powers in the UK, no serious, thinking person would disagree with that.
As for the British monarch's reserve powers you massively overstate them, and no the monarch cannot remove parliament and rule. What a load of bollocks! I'm not sure what you mean by the “head of parliament”, who are you referring to? The Speaker?
1. “Democracy means a government of the people.
Mar 04th, 2010 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0And can be direct democracy or indirect democracy.
The Sovereign in a democracy is “The People”
Your not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
Democracy means people power, it does not mean governement of the people, you just lifted that phrase from AB Lincolns Gettysburg address, your confusing the Sovereign with Sovereignty.
In this country Parliament has ultimate Sovereignty and Ultimate legislative power, as the Parliament is approved by the people, the Monarch, cannot make people you do things, because it cannot make laws, hence no power, in terms of Sovereignty it is the people who have invested power in the parliamnent, hence Parliament is Sovereign, if we all gave approval to the monarch to make powers on our behalf, then it would wield Ultimate Sovereignty. But because we don’t elect it, it therefore has no power and no sovereignty.
2. Is so simple, even though he/she doesn't directly rule the country he/she can appoint a Primer Minister, representative of the crown, etc.
Everything is made in the name of the Sovereign Crown, like justice, appointments, etc.
No it isn’t simple, if you bother to read the constitutional set up of the UK you would no it is anything but simple. The Monarch cannot appoint a PM, as the PM is elected by the people, nothing is made in the name of the Queen nil everything is approved and invested in the name of the People and Parliament she is a ceremonial figure head, that is all.
3. What defines a democracy?
1- Freedom secured by legitimized rights and liberties and a written constitution that protects the rights of all citizen of the nation.
2- Equal access to power. Any citizen has equal opportunity to be the “head of the Estate”. Head of a Parliament doesn’t qualify for this.
3- Separation of powers, normally divided in 3 branches: Executive power, Judiciary power and legislative power.
A pretty Crap definition, since there is no legally defined internationally recognized definition of Democracy other than “people power”
Let’s see UK:
1-Has a written constitution? NO
2-All citizens have equal access to power? NO The head of the Estate is always the Monarch none can be elected as a Monarch.
4- Has separation of powers? NO Justice is carryout in the name of the Monarch.
You’ve contradicted yourself here. You don’t need a written constitution to have a democracy, and you don’t need to have a constitution to protect citizens rights, we have extensive human rights legislation in this country and common law, have you heard of the Magan Carta? Didn’t think so the oldest bill of Human rights in existence nearly 900 years old.
In theory you can become the monarch, marry them you fool, but anyway the monarch has no power, so Citizens don’t need access to that Strata.
Justice is carried out and interpreted by Individual magistrtates, on a county and regional level. People can appeal to the high court in London, a seperate body. Justice IS NOT carried out in the name of the monarch, it is carried out in the name of JUSTICE…..FACT.
4. So UK is not a democracy is a Parliamentary Monarchy without a written constitution that allows the election of representatives in the parliament.
It is a democracy you class A gimboid, stop contradicting yourself, you just answered the whole thing in this sentence, the key phrase being “representatives” elected to “Parliament” which is the ultimate sovereign power in this country.
5. But the Monarch has especial prerogatives, in the case of UK the Monarch can remove the parliament and rule the kingdom as her/he wishes.
No she can’t the last time the monarch tried that, the Monarch was executed, Parliament if the people wished tomorrow could vote to abolish the monarchy, hence where does ultimate power lie then? In the power invested by the people in Parliament who is sovereign
6. Can you show me the UK constitution?
Certainly not because UK is ruled by a set of common laws.
I can actually, but I don’t know if the Bandwith would take it, that’s 900 years of legislation, stark contrast to Argentinas century flimsy piece of paper which in the past hasn’t done a good job at protecting peoples rights, Junta anyone the “Dissapeared?”
And whats bad about that we’ve been over this we can add more and more laws easily to protect peoples rights, thus under your definition we are a democracy.
Well done thanks for proving absolutely nothing, other then we are a democracy!
J.A. ROBERT AND JUSTIN.
Mar 04th, 2010 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have an answer to each comments of both, but you must search them in the archive news, the date is february 25, and the articule is falklands dispute reachs the un.
Here's the story Axel:
Mar 04th, 2010 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/25/falklands-dispute-reaches-the-un-ban-ki-moon-s-praises-peaceful-attitude
Messers Craughwell and Roberts, you leave me speechless - well done. All that I can think to add is that I'd rather have an effective unwritten constitution than a corrupt written one, a monarch as Head of State than a politician and the Falkland Islands as British ! Which they are, have been since before 1833 and which they are likely to remain while the islanders so wish it.
Mar 05th, 2010 - 03:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Reviewing some of the debate above, it would seem that the Argentinians feel themselves perfectly entitled to inherit Spains claims to the Falkland Islands but unwilling to accept the UK's inheritence of the English claims.
Mar 05th, 2010 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JA. ROBERT, i answer you again in that same articule, i writte this message to you, because maybe you dont reed that old articule again.
Mar 05th, 2010 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ha... ha...
Mar 05th, 2010 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A Monarchy is now a democracy such a joke.
Independent media now means BBC (an estate owned company).
A no existing social contract (constitution) is much better than one legally written.
May be you guys would ask the Irish what they think about your Tyrannic system.
You have tortured them, oppressed them, make them starving to death, killed them, etc.
A democracy that kills 1 million people in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
You just sound like a bunch of fools like the Nazis justifying the III Reich.
the british speakers here are ripping the opposition in half lol! gj and keep it up!<br /><br /><br />
Mar 05th, 2010 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0<br /><br /><br />
henry from france
Jorddy,
Mar 05th, 2010 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, so our choice as a nation to keep the monarchy is not democratic then? Like I said before, we have abolished the monarchy before, and there is nothing to stop us doing it again - if it suits us as a nation.
We gave the parts of Ireland which wanted it independence nearly 90 years ago. I don't know what your point is?
“You have tortured them, oppressed them, make them starving to death, killed them, etc” could just as easily be applied to the way Argentina treated indigenous people during the Conquest of the Desert under Roca, and even more recently than that: The Napalpi Massacre and throwing people alive out of aircraft into the sea. Before you go lecturing us just remember that people don't “disappear” in the UK.
I love it the way Iraq always come up and yet you forget that we were part of an international coalition. Whatever the rights or wrongs, Iraq is a much better place today than it was under Saddam Hussein - who killed far more people than ever died in the invasion. There are no more British troops in Iraq now anyway and no, Iraqi oil is not controlled by the UK or the US. It is controlled by the Iraqis. As for Afghanistan, I presume you think the Taliban were democratic?
J.A. ROBERT, i answer you again in the same old articule.
Mar 06th, 2010 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorddy Not very clever are you?
Mar 08th, 2010 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Read my answers, no more said, there is no official definition of democracy therefor there is no rule saying that a country needs a monarch or not to be classed as democratic, so long as the people who make all the rules are elected that is pretty much a democracy.
2. Hello? Have you heard of ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky News, plus anyway the govt has very littlle input in BBC programming, have you ever seen question time, the Adam Marr show, Jeremy Paxman? Yes all BBC employees who have revealed government scandals? Is this the product of the state controlled media?
3. A no existing social contract (constitution) is much better than one legally written.
You really are not trying here are you! But I shall do the thinking for you :) All MP's are bound by a social contract to serve their electorate, the Social contract in this country is pretty much invoked when you elect an MP do your bidding.
4. “ May be you guys would ask the Irish what they think about your Tyrannic system.
You have tortured them, oppressed them, make them starving to death, killed them, etc”
I have done, I live with a couple and am part Irish myself, they 1. Don't care, 2. Alot of what is said about Irelands History with Great Britain is bullshit peddled by ignorants like yourself, 3. Is romanticsed history.
5. “A democracy that kills 1 million people in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc”
It is always astounds me that every idiot who hates the UK seems to think we all universally supported the World, and on top of that, they all have a pychological need to beleive the death toll is 1 Million when the real number is close to 100,000, and that overall 98% of all deaths in Iraq and 70% in Afghanistan have been caused not by foreign armies, but by fellow Iraqis and Afghanis settling old grugdes.
6. Didn't bother answering your intellectualy limited statement about the turd reich.
For the record Jorddy, the Constitutional monarchy has a longer better history at protecting the civil rights of it's inhabitants than some countries with un-written constitutions like lets say Argentina? Did your social contract prevent the Junta in the 60's? No because that points to a very weak democratic process in the first place, the fact that both the head of the executive and the Legislature are also Husband and wife in Argentina. Now that seems wholly undemocratic and a very weak system, and open for abuse, Kirchener has been dogged by Corruption scandals since day 1. Now I read from the BA times that she's being investigated by the serious Fraud office after her Perssonal (non-government salary) jumped 7 times in the last year!
Thats democracy eh?
Yes that is freedom and democracy, like in US and in any civilized country.
Mar 08th, 2010 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The press can publish whatever they want including political scandal that never arrive to anywhere because politician cannot ban them like happen in UK.
And the justice can investigate whatever they want and if Kirchner is found guilty he will go to jail.
Should I remember you about Margaret Thatcher and her persecution of the Observer and Lonrho multimedia group because the newspaper criticized her government?
Or when the Observer investigated his son for arms dealing?
When corrupted politicians as your country have can hide everything and lie to the uninformed people pressing the press or controlling the press, sorry this is not a democracy.
This is what we call dictatorship.
Show me what newspaper criticizes your Queen or the role of the Queen?
The media in UK is tied controlled by the govt.
Is just everything you know and you are so lazy and narrow mind that learning other languages is just not and option for you. That is the reason your world is so little.
Our country is collapsing and you even note it.
I should be very concern if I would be you.
Gogobrothers, it's fairly obvious that you've never been to the UK!
Mar 08th, 2010 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 01. “Politician cannot ban them like happen in UK”
Mar 08th, 2010 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0You really should now who your dealing with before you make far fetched statements like that!
For starters I cannot remember a single politician banning any Newspaper story, we’ve just had a massive expense’s scandal in this country, released by (lo and behold) the media, and reported extensively by the (surprise, surprise) BBC!
2, “Margaret Thatcher and her persecution of the Observer and Lonrho multimedia group because the newspaper criticized her government?”
And Politicians have every right to crticise the media, her attacks were Verbal above anything else, no court cases, no abuse of powers, she voiced her opposition to dubious claims made by a left wing newspaper (many proved to be false), as any good politician would, leave it to the people to decide who is right and who is wrong…..Now that’s democracy
3. “when the Observer investigated his son for arms dealing?”
“Her” son, I think you will find it’s a very natural thing for a mother to defend her son, the arms dealing story anyway, was needless to say very weak, left wing newspapers (and vice versa right wing) tend to jump on any story they can find when their idealogdy is in opposition.
4. “When corrupted politicians as your country have can hide everything and lie to the uninformed people pressing the press or controlling the press, sorry this is not a democracy”
That’s why we have the media, eejit, stop blabbling shite! Nobody presses the press, because the press can print one article and it would destroy any politician in this country! It has happened before and will happen again, the Telegraph has caused 54 Mps to resign, the spiderweb of control is truly monstrous!
“This is what we call dictatorship”
You really don’t have a clue, a dictatorship is something you lot should be familiar with so a dictatorship usually has:
A centralized powerbase
Heavy handed control of state information
Rules largely through the security services and army
Is un-democratic, in that nobody in power is elected.
Power is held by a dozen individuals.
No accountability in the decision making process
Characterised by horrendous abuses of human rights.
Now tick which category criticizing a later to be proved false story in an opposition newspaper this fits into?
4. “Show me what newspaper criticizes your Queen or the role of the Queen?”
Guardian, Observer, daily Mail, Socialist Weekly, workers Weekly, Morning star, Irish Independent, The independent, Independent on Sunday, daily Mirror, the Scotsmen, the herald, the courier, the hartlepool mail.
A complet list would be to long, we have 100,000 registred media groups in this country, I hardly thing all of them are “pro Queen”
5. “The media in UK is tied controlled by the govt”
Oh right so first the Queen controls everything, now the Govt is so powerful that it controls all the media…..Massive contradiction, if the govt is so powerful enough to control all 100,000 newsagencys in this country then why hasn’t it deposed the queen? But is the queen is the govt, then why hasn’t she shut down the newspapers idealogically opposed to the monarchy…I can answer this in 2 sentences, 1. The govt does not control any media, 2. The queen isn’t the govt.
6. “Is just everything you know and you are so lazy and narrow mind that learning other languages is just not and option for you. That is the reason your world is so little”
god your tedious, I speak French and Afrikaans fluently, a bit of Canton, born in Hong Kong, have presently been to over 30 countries worldwide, hardly narrow minded? And when did learning a language have to be a qualification for gaining an opinion about the world?
7. “Our country is collapsing and you even note it.
I should be very concern if I would be you”
Why should I be concerned about your country collapsing? Your hardly an important country, even in Latin America, if weren't for the Falklands and Football I doubt the vast majority of the world would take any notice.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!