MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, May 9th 2024 - 09:16 UTC

 

 

UK Deputy PM Clegg reaffirms Falklands’ British sovereignty

Sunday, June 13th 2010 - 01:31 UTC
Full article 18 comments

Britain’s Deputy Primer Minister Liberal-Democrat Nick Clegg said in Spain there will be no change in the stance of the Falkland Islands sovereignty and the Islanders wish to remain British. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Hoytred

    Same old, same old ....... but then again, is it?

    “We believe that the rights, sovereignty and preferences of the Falkland Islanders have a primordial importance”, said Nick Clegg

    A subtle shift from, “The UK has no doubt about IT”S sovereignty, etc ... “ to ”... sovereignty .... of the Falkland Islanders..”

    Interesting!

    Jun 13th, 2010 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • agent0060

    On the whole I'd call it a difference that makes little difference.
    Whilst Spanish opposition parties sometimes get a little het up, note how Spain approaches the matter of Gibraltar in a calm, dignified manner with appropriate regard for the wishes of the inhabitants. I suppose Spain could run around screaming blue murder to every organisation that would listen, but it doesn't. This is maturity. And Gibraltar isn't even an island!
    Contrast this with Argentines and other South Americans. I reckon Spain, Italy and so forth are sitting back saying to themselves, “Thank goodness we got rid of all those fools and fanatics back in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.”
    It's worth noting that Spain does not support Argentina's position.

    Jun 13th, 2010 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marco

    British newspaper quote
    “People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away”

    Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    Wouldn't be the Guardian would it Marco .. they're the only friend you've got and that's because their journalists are rather left wing.

    And why does the author have to say that “Argentina's claim is perfectly valid”? Does he/she doubt it? Of course, on here, we all know that Argentina's claim is spurious, facile and unlikely to carry the argument.

    Agent0060 - I sadly do not have your respect for the Spanish authorities, there are regular incursions by the Guardia Civil into Gib territorial waters which, I suspect, will shortly lead to an 'incident'.

    Hey ho - nothing changes!

    Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marco

    Another interesting quote for A British
    ”I am not going to be popular saying this, but the Falklands surely belong to Argentina. Has anybody looked at a globe lately? They are almost at the other side of it! The same goes for Gibralta and all the other bits of the world that Britain plundered and raped by force but hasn't given back yet.

    That's the way the rest of the world sees it at least, and that's certainly the way the Americans see it. Britain is dreaming if it thinks it has any support from any other country in the world on this one, except for perhaps Malta, who also gave us 12 points in the Eurovision

    Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Domingo

    No. The world sees that Argentina has not fulfilled its UN obligations under resolution 1514(XV) & 2065(XX) to assist the islanders to full independence from the UK & AR.

    AR is dreaming if it thinks it can circumvent resolution 1514(XV) which is established international law. The Islanders own the Malvinas, it is their territory & they have the right to independence and full economic rights to their resources & that is the international position.

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    The “rest of the world” Marco? Self delusion is no way to get through life you know :-)

    In reality the rest of the world, including the USA and most of the America's don't give a damn. The Falklands issue is hardly on their radar. It's hardly on the British one!

    And take a good look at that map. Gibraltar is not on the other side of the world, not that it would make an ounce of difference if it did. As I've said before, geography is not important and to use it as an argument is facile.

    But then of course the Falkland Islands are only 2000 miles away from Britain .... if you look very closely at that map ?? No ??

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    if kelpers owns falklands/malvinas; why is uk there claiming sovereignity in falklands, georgias, sandwich and antartica?

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 04:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    The UK only claims sovereignty until the islanders are ready for independence.......... and they're 90% there!

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • agent0060

    @4 Hoytred.
    Can I refer you to http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/18/spanish-maritime-guidelines-acknowledge-british-gibraltar-territorial-waters

    it is my opinion that it is unlikely that the Islanders will seek independence in the foreseeable future. They recognise that, as an independent country, their ability to resist aggressive and belligerent neighbours would be non-existent. This, together with their heritage, is why they prefer to remain a British Self-Governing Overseas Territory. And there is no country, or group of countries, in the world influential or powerful enough to interfere with Britain's commitment to the freedom and defence of the Islands.

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    Thanks for that about the Rock ... there's an ongoing situation which is headed to the European Court. Good to see that the Spanish right hand has no idea what its left hand is doing :-)

    And I know that you are probably right about independence, but the idea seems to annoy some people lol

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    About my earlier question:
    “If, for example a Pakistani citizen wrote a post on the biggest paper in his country volunteering to travel to Great Britain and kill anybody that doesn’t accept the official Pakistani position about Kashmir:
    Would the British authorities consider keeping an eye on him?”
    After five minutes goggling seems to be that such an individual would be in contravention of the following British legislation:
    The Terrorism Act 2000; the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005; the Terrorism Act 2006; and the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.

    Nice job agent0060!

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Think, sorry I dont follow your thread - anyone saying that about any country would probabnly find himslef arrested and deported on arrival wherever it was - even Arg does not support murder of its people in their streets? Billy- Antarctica,s sovereignty claims are all very sensibly frozen by the Treaty- Arg also claims big chunks as well. South Georgia is simple - British by well recorded discovery in the 1770s - not even the most warped mind in Argentina can produce evidence(not theories) to dispute that one.
    Marco, its not world maps - its democraticic principles that matter - that is what Arg, found out to its cost(and lives sadly) in 1982 - in the 20th and 21st centuries you do not invade and steal peoples homeland and force them by the gun to accept your rule. And dont please bore me with the rubbish of 1833 - there were no resident people here then from any side.

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    their are many things wrong in this world, [poverty] famine] [death]
    [starvation] ect ect. And in the 21st century here we have another outdated country [Argentina] acting like a 20th, century dictatorship,
    when in this day and age, she should be more mature ,responsible, and truthful to her own people, her concern should be to sort her own mess out, end poverty, and claw herself to the 21st century with the rest of us[?] instead of wanting other people blood, she should read the history books and look to her neighbours as friends, not enemies, if she started to look and act like a civilised country then perhaps the islanders would be more receptive to them, treating them as friends, then over time encourage exchanges of people-trade-tourism ect ect. then who knows,
    peace in our time, we all share the oil, then every body is happy?
    but the alternative is to condemn everything British hate the British, refuse to talk properly , aggressive , and war again if she had the chance.
    the future is in your hands, abuse this and you will suffer with famine and war, except peacefully and you can enjoy the wonders of the modern world, from the British and Falklands point of view its a win-win-situation. but from argentines point of view its a win-or lose,
    choose wisely or be foolish, the Americas will only support you in peace, as soon as violence looks like coming, your south American friends will disappear like the mist,, so you must now grow up and be mature, or stay in the past .[just a friend]

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Briton...
    Sweet talk...
    Reminds me of Lawrence discourse to the Arabs.

    We all share the oil, then everybody is happy? Where do we sign! Deal?

    “Peace in our time” Are you being sarcastic or just ironic or maybe you really ignore the fatal content of those words?.
    I wonder!
    Please enlighten us

    Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Rhaurie-Craughwell

    Ah dear old Marco, using that tired old self-loathing windbag Richard Gott from the Guardian, you do realise Mr Gott lost any academic credibility and resigned from his post as editor of the Guardian when he was rumbled for selling state secrets to the Soviets?

    Your second equally self-loathing source hasn't done his/her homework either, to my knowledge Gibraltar didn't have anything worth plundering/raping in fact most of Britain's other remaining overseas territories where inhabited at the time of British sovereignty being established? The source also forfeited it's intellectual right to be taken seriously when it used the geographic proximity argument, how anybody uses that as a serious argument anymore should get a reality check, it's a redundant and failed argument in this day and age except maybe for those who want to grab land no less?

    Billy Haze (I would presume the Haze in question being sweet smelling blue stuff?) the agreement between the Falklands and the UK is that they take control of all domestic and some foreign agendas within their islands, we are just caretakers acting as a deterrent against Argentine aggression and fighting their corner on the world stage because quite simply we have more political clout and are alot less easier to bully than a tiny nation such as the Falklands.

    As for South Georgia and South Sandwhich islands, separate issues and they are our islands full and through, the Argentine explanation for ownership of these islands is even more laughable than the one for the Falklands.

    regards

    ps I also have a new blog up and running, I wouldn't look at it just yet, I haven't started the meat, maybe some lucky fellows arguments may make it to the front page from here?

    Jun 15th, 2010 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    Islander1, the only thing I have to take issue with is the reference to 1833 when there were a small group of Vernet's workers 'resident' on the Falkland Islands with British permission. Please check Charles darwin's diary which he completed when he passed through in March 1833.

    Rhaurie-Craughwell - please let me know where I can find your blog!

    “Peace in our time” is sadly, a poor phrase if only because of its history.

    Think - I suspect that 'death threats' are an illegal act in most countries, where they can be believed, or cause the potential victim to believe. As for your legislation, well a little too recent for me ..... does that answer your question ? :-)

    Jun 15th, 2010 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    17 Hoyt
    I suspect “death threats to be illegal” myself.
    Mi objective was to reveal the “Mr. Hydeish” side of agentoo60
    Speaking so nicely about human rights and stuff!
    But now he is gone, never to be heard from again!
    He has, indubitably, already changed identity.
    Agent006.1 or something.
    Spooky.

    A little comment about “recent British legislation” (on “terror”).
    It reminded me of our own rules in the seventies.
    They were called “decrees” though.
    Spooky

    Jun 15th, 2010 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0

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