MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, July 6th 2022 - 12:49 UTC



Faklands’ referendum planned for March; South American observers to be invited

Friday, August 31st 2012 - 05:18 UTC
Full article 94 comments

The Falkland Islands Executive Council has officially approved that a referendum be held on the question of the political status of the Falkland Islands and announced that the Electoral Commission has agreed to assist with developing the form of the question and the wording and give a bespoke advisory service including providing guidance. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Boovis

    I can't help but think this should be restricted to people actually born on the islands as Argentina and it's cronies will just claim it's a UK imported voting element pushing their own agenda and is therefore void.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 06:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    If South America doesn't send observers it will show what they really support, oppression over freedom.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 06:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    They'll probably refuse to send observers and then claim the vote is null and void because there were no South American observers there.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britworker

    I get your point but what about all the lawful citizens of any other country that were never born there, why the hell should different rules apply to the Falklands?
    I think what is more important is the wording of the questions on the ballot paper. The result needs to be utterly unequivocal.

    You can bet this event will be made to be a worldwide spectacle, with the maximum possible exposure, the plan will be to demonstrate to the world their rite to choose their own future. This result is going to make things very difficult for South America.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    “Would you like to remain a prosperous self governing territory in the community of nations or would you like to become a backwater of a failing state that will demand you change your language and culture while it rattles from one domestic crisis to the next like a ping pong ball?”

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Boovis

    “Keeping in mind recent projects of the FIG, would you rather cash in your lottery ticket with a 4/5 odds of winning or would you rather bow down to a colonist hispanic type who will take your winnings and not even buy you an ice cream. and take your house. and drop you out a plane dressed as a nun?”

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britworker

    Lol, yes I think those questions would work, I personally don't think this vote is for the consumption of SA, more for the wider world.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CJvR

    I wonder if that is a particularly good idea since many South Americans wouldn't recognize a fair election anyway and will probably have orders from home to sequel “Foul” no matter what.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Benson

    @ 1 I agree with Britworker, I do see your point but it needs to be open to everyone that has commited to a life in the Falklands. People have moved to the Falklands from all over the world so this way there will be Russians, Spaniads, Chilians, Brazilians and even Argentinians able to vote.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    I hope that observers from South America will come to see the referendum.
    I also hope that the Argentines or a delegation from the OAS will be allowed to hold meetings to petition the islanders to their way of thinking.Even if the only people there are likely to be the press!
    If the Argentines or representatives from South America refuse to attend if invited. then as much publicity as possible must be splashed across the world's media to show that Argentina had a chance to democratically petition for their position, and tell the Islanders the benefits of being Argentines, and refused it.

    If they do not attend,It would show that Argentina don't really have an argument other than to promote their own colonialist fantasies. (in opposition to the United Nations Charter).

    I have noticed on resolution 2065 and every other UN res asking for dialogue between UK and Argentina,(excuse me if this is osd news) that it always states that colonies should be encouraged toward Independence. This is never mentioned by the Malvanistas-and it does not state on any of them that self-determination is not relevant in this case.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islas Malvinas

    Oh! I´m so anxious! The result is to much unpredictable!

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI

    @11 Islas M******s

    Yes, god for bid the Falkland Islands exercise their democratic wish. Oh, that's right, according to Argentines and the region, the Falkland Islanders are not allowed to exercise basic human rights, and why is that? Because it doesn't suit Argentina's demands. I keep forgetting Argentina picks and chooses international law when it suits them the most.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Benson

    Argentina has made it predictable (at least more so than it would have been), would you volantarily move in with someone that tries to bully you every chance they get.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    The Argentine approach has always baffled me. It makes no sense at all if it is intended to gain sovereignty of the Falklands. It only makes sense when considered in the context of stirring up nationalist sentiment within the domestic population. Those suckers are being treated like idiots - and they must be if they can't see it.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • British_Kirchnerist

    “Would you like Cameron and the oil companies to keep drilling in disputed territory and enraging the entire continent of which your 3,000 strong community is part or would you like to talk to the lovely Cristina about a solution as she has offered without preconditions to do?”

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tipstonga

    There are only 2 options for Falklands future compatible with UN principles : the full independence of the islands (falklanders government without any british participation) or the internationalisation (UN government of the islands) .
    That is the only way in which self-determination AND decolonisation can be accomplished . Any referendum without this and only this options is only a distraction made by colonialists (whatever they are british or argentine) . Colonialism is a permanent menace to peace and should be banned urgently.
    Just a referendum is not the way to close the matter. The falklanders had to be recognized as “legal part” in the conflict and a solution dialog of the 3 parts should start to determine the ways the new status would be reached.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI

    So tipstonga, you are saying that the Falkland Islanders only have two choices? You are a wonderful advocate for freedom and democracy then. Surely, the Islanders can choose whatever they want? As it is their future they are deciding on.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    They could equally chose to become a constituency of the UK in a similar way that French Guyana is part of France and the EU.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Benson

    What are you on BK, we have tried to talk to Argentina over an over but the Argentine Government refuses to acknowledge us

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • PirateLove

    @11 why is it predictable? :) what result do you predict “mystic meg”? :)
    are you scared of democracy, or just scared of the democracy of others???

    The FI governtment needs to play argentina by their own game by inviting representatives of The UN, OAS, G20, G8, OSCE, IFES, and the Decolonization Committee :) basically any organisation who “alledgedly” champions democracy and freedom with basic human rights and wish to support/monitor this democratic free election.
    Invite Argentina along with other south american countries they will have a very hard decision indeed:
    Stay away - to the democratic world it would show South americans true lack of democracy and help legitimise The Falklands as a democratic nation , or
    Turn up - which would mean having to recognize The Falklands government and its Fair and free Election,once and for all, witnessing democratic history in the worlds presence, then we will see “south american solidarity” or the lack of :)

    A WIN - WIN situation!
    March 2013 will be a monumentus period for The Falklands and as a Brit “Im damn proud of The Falklands people and their dogged spirit and positive outlook” who will undoubtly see this out VICTORIOUS!! as you did in 1982 :)



    Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tipstonga

    M_of_FI to choose “whatever” they want is neither freedom nor democracy , their rights has the other people rights as limits . UN had ruled out colonialism more than 50 years ago, so self-determination does not contain a colonial option.
    In the same way nobody can choose, in all Europe and America, to work beyond the work laws and engage as slave. Freedom is a right and a responsibility.
    Moreover if a colony option were included in the referendum ALL the people of the world should be allowed to vote because colonialism affects ALL people of the world.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    He's talking about talking with the UK government not the FIG. CFKs “no preconditions” offer is just a ploy to get the situation back to as it was prior to 1982 - ie negotiating with the UK over the sovereignty of the islands. That is not going to happen without the consent of the FIG which Argentina refuses to acknowledge.

    Ergo the purpose of the “offer without preconditions” is actually to create a situation unacceptable to both Falklanders and the UK. It is a condition in itself.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI

    tipstonga, please could you inform me of your definition of a colony.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    “M_of_FI to choose “whatever” they want is neither freedom nor democracy ”,
    Yes it is freedom to choose what you want -to say otherwise is clearly stupid.

    Of course it is democracy! The people that were born or moved to the Islands to be Falkland Nationals vote and the politicians with the majority are elected-that is democracy and saying it isn't shows you don't understand the meaning of the word.

    Please look up the meanings of the words if you don't understand 'freedom' and 'democracy.'

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Benson

    Yeah “no preconditions” except we will not acknowledge you exist as a people with right to govern yourselves.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tipstonga

    Pete Bog will you deny that the FI “Constitution” was made and imposed but UK , that it imposes monarchy (a very freedom thing of course, lol) , the supreme judge (resident in England) , the governor and the Chief Officer being british diplomatics and functionaries with a long career in other colonies or UK cities (like Swansea)?
    If you deny those you are denying what is clearly stated in the FIG web.
    (Btw M_of_FI that is a colonial status, you'd better answer for what decolonisation and independent country mean)
    Every freedom have limits and responsibilities that is what YOU dont understand of “freedom” and “democracy”
    The same as people is not allowed to kill or to have slaves, countries can not decide to continue being colonies (not even from Argentina).

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    After this Argentina will no doubt continue to argue the Islanders don’t have the right to say what they want, but they will not be able to argue what it is that the Islanders want.

    No liberal democracy will be willing to ignore the result of this.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @1 Unless it was an intentional misspelling, the word is “right” not “rite”!
    @6 What's wrong with “Would you like to be a belligerent, brain-dead, cheating, cowardly, ignorant, lying, stupid, thieving moron, or would you prefer to remain British?”
    @11 And here we have a belligerent, brain-dead, cheating, cowardly, ignorant, lying, stupid, thieving moron!
    @15 Please note that, if you choose the second option, you will have to spend the rest of your short life flat on your belly, eating sh*te and being bummed!
    @16 There is a third way! Let the Islanders choose what THEY want. THEIR land, THEIR homes, THEIR lives!
    @20 You forgot to mention waiting until all the votes have been counted and then, after tarring and feathering, riding every argie off the Islands on a steel rail!
    @21 You seem too have lost sight of some basic principles. Let me explain. The UN is an organisation. Nothing more. If it starts to try to dictate what freedoms etc people or a people should have, it becomes....a dictatorship. I haven't yet seen a “Declaration of United Nations rights”, so the UN has no right to dictate what the Islanders “must” accept. Falkland Islanders are self-sufficient. They buy. They sell. Nowhere do they seek to impose their views or requirements on others. They just want to be left alone. No-one has the right to dictate anything to them. Britain, with a mandate from the UN to administer the Islands, does no more than advise, guide and ensure good governance for the benefit of the people. There is only one bunch of morons who see things differently. Fortunately, Britain will see that the morons do not get their way! But how about this as an option? The Falklanders choose to become independent on condition that their foreign affairs and defence are conducted by Britain and no argie ever leaves the Islands alive!

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Simon68

    26 tipstonga (#)
    Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:09 pm

    Self Determination is exactly that; the right to determine for yourself how you want to be governed, if a people decide that they want to be a colony, that is their God given right, that is DEMOCRACY!!!!!!

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos Alejandro

    29 Simon68 “Self Determination is exactly that”
    Like the Chagossians?

    “In the process which followed, which was that of the forced expulsion of the population of the Chagos from the islands, the islanders were offered no recourse to self-determination. Dispossesed of their homes and their means of livelihood, the democratic choice offered to the Chagossians was to become slum-dwellers on the Mauritius mainland. For the inconvenience of having to accommodate these refugees, the government of Maurituis was compensated with the princely sum of three million pounds”

    This referendum reminds me to one of President Saddam Hussein elections, 100% in favor all the time.

    The British people can only have a referendum when the government are guaranteed the result they want.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faulconbridge

    “Would you like Cameron and the oil companies to keep drilling in disputed territory and enraging the entire continent of which your 3,000 strong community is part or would you like to talk to the lovely Cristina about a solution as she has offered without preconditions to do?”

    Has CFK offerred to talk to the Falkland Islands' government, BK@15?
    A remarkable move on her part which will undoubtedly enrage the ultra Argentinians.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    30 Marcos Alejandro

    What livelihood is that exactly, in a place no longer capable of sustaining human habitation?

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tipstonga

    #28 Conqueror (lovely name, sure you are in full favour of peace, lol)
    you can not choose the UN principles you like and forget those you dislike, together with self-determination you pick decolonisation that came in the same package (the process of putting end to colonialism started after WWII).
    There is not such “third way” , what you pretend is that the colonial status be validated well take into account the rest of the world is not stupid , the referendum will mean nothing.
    Moreover the referendum means nothing even with the right options I mentioned above if those options have not be completely described by a path of evolution. That path requieres falklanders , british and argentines in a table in order of the last 2 -resigning their pretensions in reasonable agreements- to help the first ones.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI

    @26 - tipstonga

    There is so much factually incorrect with your statement.

    The FI Constitution was not imposed by the UK, it was carried out by FIG and then as we are a UK overseas territory it was ratified by HMG. Self-determination was enshrined in the Constitution, thus ensuring the Islanderds will always choose their polticial status.

    As for FIG. The Governor is a British diplomat, but the Constitution has diminished his powers. FIG is the local administrating Government and its CE is appointed by FIG and the locally elected Councillors. The locally elected councillors were installed through a democratic process, whereby only those who has Falkland Status could vote.

    And I see you have avoided answering my question of what you believe a colony is. The Falklands isnt a colony. We have our own government and elected politicians who set the policies, set taxes, create laws, etc. all without any external interference or influence. The Governor attends these meetings, but has no vote.

    Until, you actually fully understand all the facts, please reframe from your misinformed, misunderstood and factually incorrect statements about the Falklands.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CJvR

    One thing is certain, no Falklanders are crazy enough to “de-colonize” themselves while independence will mean immediate invasion from the Argie Empire. Also there is little incentive to make a formal break with the UK, even without the external threat of war. Since the Falklanders basically manage themselves anyway and can have independence whenever they ask for it why bother? The ones arguing the loudest for Falklands independence seem to be Argentine Imperialists hoping to be more fortunate in the second invasion that the Argie minister of “Defense” have scheduled for as soon as the British military leaves the islands.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tipstonga

    Argentine invasion is a myth that costs too high to falklanders. Colonialism is not free of charge also. UK take resources from them and make decisions for them (an FIRepublic would make own agreements which whatever investors that soon will be attracked to the region if no conflict). Independence under dialog and UN guarantee will be better defence against any agression while UK will be useless if any if they dont have world support/tolerance to act, even in 1982 it was neither easy nor autonomous for UK to move the army and make a shot.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI

    UK does not take any resources from the Falkland Islands or makes decisions on the behalf of FIG and the elected member tipstonga. Once again you have shown you have very little knowledge regarding the Falklands. You are only embarrassing yourself.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-32-uk

    Like it or not, I think much of the world agree with Tipstonga views.

    So for me, the best way forward for the referendum, is to include the voting option for independence, even though I think the FI will vote to remain a BOT. To explain my thinking I will give you 2 scenarios, based on 3 criteria…

    Scenario 1 - Independence voting option included
    • Credibility (High, independence referendums are the most important)
    • Publicity (High, the world’s media will be hoping for a shock Independence win story)
    • Impact (High, The FI would show the world they would rather be an independent nation than part of Argentina. Argentina would lose support)

    Scenario 2 - Independence voting option NOT included
    • Credibility (Medium, UNSAUR would just label the referendum as a stunt)
    • Publicity (Medium, It will make the most world newspapers)
    • Impact (Medium, Good world publicity, but result obvious)

    Feel free to comment on this…

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    If you accept the islanders' right to self-determination, what difference does the nature of the relationship with the metropolitan UK make?

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI

    Steve, if most of the world thinks that, then most of the world is incorrect, bordering on ignorant by not finding out what the true relationship is.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tipstonga

    Be serious , the decisions are taken by 2 english men the Gov (the man in the clown suit ex governor elsewhere) and the CEO (ex major of Swansea) , the Asssembly is consultive and had been “elected” without political parties(?!) . If you were a falklander you should know that but you are a war lover british colonialist . Note that few british are of that kind most of these few are deeply stacked in XIXth cent. and monarchy.

    #38 BOT is an euphemism for colony, that “kind of relation” is precluded by UN declarations and resolutions(“non self governing territories”).
    The option for good will men, seekers of peace and development of the region, is whether the islanders accept to take care of themselves (undoubtedly benefiting from it) or they let that in the hands of UN somehow in better defined way that in the Antartic case

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Steve- the question has to be stragit and simple to have any real clarity- no -if you vot a then do you also want b or c etc.
    I suspect the word british will not even appear anyway and it will be something along the lines of;
    Continue as a self Governing overseas territory
    open negotiations to become under the control of a foreign state.

    Tsonga- please explain WHAT decisions does UK make for us?
    als WHAT resources does UK take from us?

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    Sorry 38,

    I have to challenge your global publicity metrics for either scenario. I s'pect that most people in the world probably can't be bothered to find the FI on a map. The FI were on a pop geography quiz I once tossed to students who afterward *continued* to rate their global awareness as high. By their results, Norway, Japan, and Michigan(!) should send observers to the referendum! (Even a the always fashionably hip student who wore a Malvinas Tshirt the week before landed them in Tierra del Fuego.) The people who will eye this vote will be UKers, FIers, and people with an interest in SA (e.g., Merco Press readers :-). People who get a rise out of dissing the UK will pay attention for a few minutes but will be distracted by the next shiny thing to cross their path.

    As for the Independence lending credibility, that would only boost slightly the credibility of the referendum with people who would accept, even grudgingly, a pro-UK win, which you yourself project. UNSAUR won't recognize any result of the referendum, since they don't really recognize that the FIers have the right to an opinion other than that of “Argentina's.”

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-32-uk

    @39 HansNiesund
    For people that respect the islanders right to self-determination like me and you it makes no difference whether the FI are a BOT or an independent nation. But I fear as long as the FI are linked to Britain in some formal capacity i.e BOT. Colonial Argentina with their ALBA allies will have an excuse and will continue to escalate this to the point of invasion, to steal the islanders oil.
    I like many others believe independence is the solution to end the debate.

    @40 M_of_FI
    I think the problem is most people don't know the full history of the FI. Even the people at work I have spoke to, both British and Foreign don't know much about the FI history, but almost all say, what matters most are the people who live there.

    @42 Islander1
    Well we will agree to disagree on that. I explained my reasoning @38

    @ tipstonga
    Thanks for your honest views, can I ask where you are from??

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ProRG_American

    Referendum or no referendum, the world knows that these are the practices of colonialism. It knows no limits or boundaries in order to perpetuate itself. The day after the “referendum”, the world will continue, history will not change, the Islanders will be no more entitled to “self determination” as they were the day before. Argentina will not drop its claim, it will continue to hold all of the cards, and time will continue to be on her side. Meanwhile the UK treasury can just go on feedeing the propaganda machine and the spending piggy on Mount pleasant. I hope that it bleeds itself dry sooner rather than later.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • cLOHO

    45.... Hahaha what a pile of rubbish you posted, what cards does Argentina hold?????
    MPA and defence costs peanuts, it's a very small percentage of the defence budget, we still gave Argentina £400 million in aid, we are minted. aid for a third world country. Still shock that Germany didn't give you any money for you begging bowl.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-32-uk

    @43 GFace
    re @38
    Maybe I over rated the 'publicity' criteria scoring, but the point is the same, that 'scenario A' would gain more positive publicity then 'B', which is what the FI referendum needs.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tipstonga

    #45 you are right , the ref is meaningless if not sustained after an agreement of the UK, RA, falklanders and UN representatives . It is absolute void propaganda. Just the recognition in such table of the falklanders as “legal subjects” (sujetos de derecho) would be an advance for them, the world and peace.
    Without a clear transition way even “independence” mean very little.
    The important thing is that the conflict ends and colonialism is buried at least in South Atlantic Sea.

    #42 Decisions: economy, foreign affairs, defense, justice just to begin with the more obvious. Resources: FI taxes, revenues from exploration, idem

    #44 I am from Buenos Aires , just before rushing to comment about it take into account , I have always expressed that UK and RA intentions are both colonialist and the solution is independence. I have said that in many forums, published it in my blog in 2009, wrote it in La Nacion of BA with my signature and document this february (not accepted before by LN) and thought so well before 1982 opposing war on the walls of UBA that year (anonimously of course but seen by my students).

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-32-uk

    @48 tipstonga

    No needs to defend yourself, we all come from somewhere.
    Interesting though, that although we are from different sides of the argument and different countries we have both agree the solution.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • malicious bloke

    @48 Independance for the islands, should they wish it, is the eventual aim.

    However, the political realists know that an independant Falkland Islands, shorn of the protection of the Royal Navy would be invaded, occupied and subjugated by Argentina before the ink was dry on the treaty.

    Unless, of course, the Islands agreed to remain under the military protection of Great Britain, at which point Argentina's constant whining about the garrison on the islands would continue.

    The trend towards self-government and autonomy while retaining ties with a parent country/coalition has many historical precents though. Personally I would like to see the Islands transition from being a British Overseas Territory to an independant realm within the commonwealth. But we'll see...

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ProRG_American

    46 cLOHO I disn't plan on any Kraut money. I don't live in Argentina. No Kraut money needed by Argies anyway. Reality is, Krauts need it for the huge Europen bailout that's coming their way.
    48 tipstonga Any Argentine thinking of “Independence” in thiscase ought to be detoxed for massive overdossages of an Argentine drink called Boludiol!

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Bongo


    You didn't respond to the question regarding “all the cards” Argentina allegedly holds.

    Also what is the rationale behind your statement that time is on Argentina's side? As time passes the Falklands have the opportunity to become more successful, more prosperous and infinitely richer.

    Aug 31st, 2012 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    It is good to see an Argentinian contributor putting forward a point of view of Independence for the Islands and recognising that the Argentine claim is colonialist.
    The Governor does not seem to have as much power over the Islands as you think, as a succession of constitution changes since 1982 have given the Islands more, not less autonomy.
    There was what you would call a more colonial system before 1982, with little respect given to Falkland Islands autonomy by Britain. Then, the Governor had a far more powerful role than now.

    I am not sure where you get the idea that the UK takes resources from the Islands and would like to see proof, as the FIG is in fact in control of its resources.

    I have to say this, the reason for the Islanders wishing ties with the UK (which gives the appearance of colonialism) is that Argentina is so belligerent and ignorant of the Islanders (calling them a transplanted population after 180 years is simply absurd).

    You will find (visit the islands if you don't believe this), that it is Argentina's belligerence towards the Islanders that forces them to want to stay British, and the fact that Argentina invaded the Islands in 1982 when they were poorly defended, means the Islanders simply do not trust Argentina.
    Argentina would feel the same way if the UK had extended the Falklands War to attack the mainland, or sent troops to invade Ushaia for example.

    If Argentina refuse to recognise the Islanders, then the current situation will have to remain.

    I have time for Steve-32-uk's views that Independence would shut Argentina up, but if the islanders don't want to risk that option for fears the Argentines would ignore what decolonisation is meant to result in (ie Independence not a transfer to another would-be colonial power), the blame lies with Argentina not Britain.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 16 tipstonga
    @ 33 tipstonga

    “There are only 2 options for Falklands future compatible with UN principles”

    “you can not choose the UN principles you like and forget those you dislike”

    Exactly, you cannot choose the UN principles you like, so Why only two options, when UN's C-24 principles lists three?

    C-24 Decolonisation Decolonization Principles - NR015315

    Principle VI

    A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-gornment by:

    (a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
    (b) Free association wiith an independent State;
    (c) Integration with an independent State.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tipstonga

    #54 it is pretty obvious, and you can not ignore, that they are not open options but they need to be pertinent to the case . Items b) and c) does not apply due to geography for RA and less for UK. So be serious please.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lord Ton

    Actually - there are 4

    UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) states;
    ” ... By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter....
    Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, (through the)
    1. establishment of a sovereign and independent State,
    2. free association, or
    3. integration with an independent State, or
    4. the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people...

    As geography is irrelevant, why should any of the choices be eliminated ?

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 55 tipstonga writes:

    ”Items b) and c) does not apply due to geography for RA and less for UK.”

    The two items are:

    (b) Free association with an independent State;
    (c) Integration with an independent State.

    How do they not apply due to geography (show in the UN resolution where it says so)?

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    ”Items b) and c) does not apply due to geography for RA ”
    Where does it state in the UN Charter what you have stated?
    If you can't show this then you're talking rubbish.

    UN policy is not what Argentina interprets it as, it is there written down for all to read in documents.
    So those of us who can quote what the UN charter actually states are being serious whereas you are inventing UN policy.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think


    Article says:
    ”The Falkland Islands Executive Council has officially approved that a referendum be held on the question of the political status of the Falkland Islands and announced that the Electoral Commission has agreed to assist with developing the form of the question and the wording and give a bespoke advisory service including providing guidance.”

    I ask:
    Who/what is this….: ”Electoral Commission that has “agreed” to assist with developing the form of the question and the wording and give a bespoke advisory service including providing guidance”….???

    I see……………..:
    They are an ”independent” body set up by the UK Parliament…….

    Better to let the Mommyland assist them simple Kelpers with ”developing the form and the wording of the question and give them bespoke advisory service including guidance”

    That way we’ll all be sure that the ”Little People” from them Islands don’t make any ”undesirable mistakes”…….

    Chuckle chuckle©

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tipstonga

    the same they did with the Constitution It is explicitly said (see FIG web) in its proclamation by the queen that falklanders has nothing to do in writing or ammending it .
    It is apparent that the Foreign Office or somebody thinks the world can be cheated with some “mise en scene” .

    Pete Bog, the governor HAS the power and so the CEO It is clear in their const attribs, the consultive atribbs of the Asembly, the lack of a Supreme Court of the Islands etc ... It is just obvious from the fact they are not islanders and that there are not political parties which are also part of democratic own government.

    I have already made a call for a serious debate but it seems that some people dont want. I have already corrected the same huge error to Lor Ton elsewhere a pair of weeks ago. It has not to be defined that integration demands contiguity and association demands a relation that can neither be hold with 10000 km in between (UK) nor with 500 km but different language(RA) . For example , like Hong Kong, integration is pertinent to Gibraltar return to Spain while association just covers the pre existence case of Puerto Rico.
    To completely destroy the whole argument the 4th point is a nonsense wildcard unless you get the true sense of the article looked in diplomatic terms.

    People if you insist supporting this kind of tricks nothing good will arise just more conflict, difficulties for development and lost of profits for falklanders. Take note that whatever the wording, colonialism is over. I dont think internationalisation will be the best for Falklands (yes for inhabited like Georgias), so , independence is the only way to peace and progress.

    Have a nice weekend, till any other opportunity, thank you MercoPress people.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    There was peace and progress before 82.
    You lived your way, they lived their way too.
    You lived amongst them, they lived amongst you.
    Then came that day, nothing ever the same.
    Memories are long, not short as some claim.
    There once was a chance, its been thrown away.
    Leave it alone, stand back, take a breath.
    Come back, when you can listen.
    Then seek peace again.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Musky

    1@ bovis

    Restrict it to those whose can trace their heritage back 9 generations perhaps? Pointless if you think about it, it'll still be 100% for britain, just a smaller electorate. Great money saving idea though!

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Why do so many people who live in a democracy! object to other people using their democratic rights?????

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tobers

    @Think, Islas Malvinas etc who dont believe the referendum will be valid.

    Scotland is going to hold a referendum in the near future on whether to go independent or remain as the status quo.

    Westminister absolutely doesnt want this but should Scotland decide to be independent do you think England will ignore the vote for independence? Send in the tanks?

    Can you imagine Patagonia for example (and why not?) deciding to separate from Argentina? And what would Argentina's response be?

    Take the Hong Kong handover for example Britain officially handed back Hong Kong to China in 1997 without too much bother when you consider the history involved and what was at stake.

    Its worth noting how many aspects of British cultural have remained in Hong Kong. I guess the oppressed HK chinese didnt hate us so much after all...

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    quite an interesting subject:

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    How is that comparable with the Falkalnd Islands?

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steveu

    @59 Nothing wrong with that

    Apart from defence and foreign policy, the UK is also responsible for good governance. Put another way, it advises the population of 3000 people on day to day matters as health, fire & building regulations and, in this case holding an election.

    There is nothing sinister in this. The UK would similarly advise other BOTs and Crown Dependencies on matters where they didn't possess the necessary expertise in-house. Also no-one internationally has seriously complained that UK electoral procedure is flawed or biased.

    The only time that the UK would intervene seriously in the running of a self determining BOT government would be in the case of alleged corruption - as in the recent case of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Again, not a bad thing (unless you like corrupt government, that is)

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @65 pgerman

    So how would you feel if the Falklanders get the same deal as the Chagossians? Will you be happy then?

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Musky

    @63 RC
    I was making a joke of the idea of voting restrictions.
    I can't wait for the event, it'll thoroughly disprove argentine lies about an incarcerated populace.It will reveal those latam countries true to democracy and those who are not. A win win situation.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Whoops sorry mate.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 60 tipstonga

    - a typical 'Malvinista en fuga'; fleeing when facts are presented.

    Free association is about a free and voluntary choice + respect for the individuality and cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples + freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means.

    Integration is about complete equality between the peoples + advanced state of self-government with free political institutions + the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory's peoples.

    Principle VII

    (a) Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. ...

    Principle VIII
    Integration with an independent State should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile Non-Self-Governing Territory and those of the independent country with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamenental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government.

    Principle IX
    Integration should have come about in the following circumstances:

    (a) The integrating territory should have attained an advanced state of self-government with free political institutions, so that its peoples would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes;
    (b) The integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory's peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. ...

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @60 Tipsonga I've been reading your posts and I think that you need to realise a few things. Britain would love to hand the Falklands their independence, and the Falklands would likely be a proud nation. However, there are a few problems. The first is population. The Falklands have only 3,000 people. They would not be able to survive without economic support from the UK. They would gain profits from oil but I doubt that oil revenues alone would be enough to keep such a small and fragile economy afloat. The second reason is the Falklanders themselves. They might be proud of their Falkland heritage, but the people are fiercely patriotic towards Britain, and more or less see themselves as British. Stanley is indistinguishable from any other British seaside town. The third is Argentina. So long as Argentina continues to claim the Falklands as their own, the Falklanders will never be or feel safe from Argentina. The UN could not provide better defence for the Falklands than the UK, as it would be extremely complicated and time consuming to assemble an international force to protect the islands while a British force could be assembled quite easily. The British Armed forces have adequate defences in place to hold off any current Argentine attack over the next few years, and from 2016 any such Argentine move would be suicidal with the advent of the new Aircraft carriers. Besides, the Falklanders would never accept the prescence of a foreign army on their soil. It has happened once before, and it will never happen again. The Falklanders are no different from the British people that you say they should claim independence from. In my opinion, they should have representation in the Parliament at Westminster, but retain their own Assembly, much like Scotland does. I feel that, given the Falkland's situation, such a thing would be the best solution for the islanders and their future. Learn about the Falklands before making comments on a subject you clearly know little about.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    Dear HansNiesund

    I believe that we have discussed enough to make it clear that I have nothing against the Islanders, just the contrary, I realy have good feelings towards them. From my point of view, they are honest people who, for generations, made their living on the islands.

    Just like the Chagossians.

    The unhappy fate of the Chagossians as people with identity and rightful inhabitants of their islands should lead all of us to meditate about the true reasons for the unconditional British support to the self-determination of the islanders. And the about the obstinacy in the Argentine claim.

    HansNiesund you seem to be a well informed, educated and enough intelligent person so as to reach your own conclusions. You don't have to share them with me in this forum.

    Sep 01st, 2012 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee


    A few very incorrect things here:

    “ They would not be able to survive without economic support from the UK.”

    The islands receive no economic support from the UK. Apart from defence they do not ask for anything.

    “ I doubt that oil revenues alone would be enough to keep such a small and fragile economy afloat”#

    As i have already said they need to money from us, The oil industry is likely to make a vast majority of the population millionaires.

    “The unhappy fate of the Chagossians as people with identity and rightful inhabitants of their islands should lead all of us to meditate about the true reasons for the unconditional British support to the self-determination of the islanders. ”

    Personally i completely agree that the way they were treated was totally and utterly unacceptable. As do 99% of the British people here.

    However it's a common mistake to think that there Self determination was taken away from them. Self determination is in essence the right to vote or participate in your government. This was not taken away from them by the British. They have there own government.

    It's a different(illegal) matter entirely. The Chagossians is a case of ethnic cleansing. It is in essence comparing murder to rape.

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 04:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Dear pgerman,

    Sorry, I hadn't realized this forum is a platform for you to pontificate unchallenged.

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @74 Sorry, my mistake, though I didn't mention the Chagossians in my comment, I think that may have been Pgerman. Still, can I assume that you agree with everything else I said?

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Still, can I assume that you agree with everything else I said?”


    The other quote was from pgerman.

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinero1

    As i have already said they need to money from us, The oil industry is likely to make a vast majority of the population millionaires.

    What oil????
    It is only making millionary the corrupt tory,cameron,hague,etc..

    Proof that Cameron lied over oil find in the Falkland Islands

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @78 You really are a plonker, but then again so are all Malvinistas. The Article you linked is utterly incomprehensible, with no real evidence cited and is nothing more than conspiracy drivel. They've got a confirmed finding of oil and huge reserves of natural gas in the Falklands now. I'll put my opinion of your comment in terms you can understand: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    “Proof” seems to be another of these worlds that has a completely different meaning in Malvinista-speak.

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussie sunshine

    THis is what the Gibraltans voted for a few years back!! and there has been no change from Gibraltar/UK/Spain.

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    78 Malvinero1:

    You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream all day long if you wish to ignore the truth.

    Won't change the fact that they've found oil :)

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 80 HansNiesund writes:

    '“Proof” seems to be another of these worlds that has a completely different meaning in Malvinista-speak'

    The Spanish language has naturally evolved over time to be somewhat different in Latin America from that spoken in Spain.

    A couple of examples: a pair of glasses is called 'gafas' in Spain, 'lentes' in Chileno-Spanish and 'anteojos' in Argentino-Spanish, and 'a chicken leg' is 'pierna de pollo', 'trutro' and 'muslos', respectively.

    Similarly, in Malvinero-Spanish 'Proof' and 'conjecture' have over time become identical :-D

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Englander

    Well done Falkland Islanders - true democracy in action.
    Argentina dare not hold a similar type referendum cos most RG's would vote to join Brazil. Not that they they would have them of course.

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-32-uk

    Something that annoys me, every TV debate I have watched about the FI sovereignty, will always focus on Britain and Argentina, talk about the history of the islands, oil and the sovereignty talks in the 70s, then will end asking the panel whether they think the FI should be British or Argentine. Something the panel always misses is, without Britain in the sovereignty debate, Argentina don’t have one.

    This leads me nicely to the obvious solution. It seems most people posting in here believe the FI will become an independent nation at some point in the next 100 years. So for me this becomes a question of ‘When’ and ‘How’?
    Well the FI have an elected Govt. are self-sufficient in all areas except defence, so are 95% there already. With future oil revenues the FI could pay friendly nations i.e. UK, Canada, Australia, to aid in that area. I really don’t think independence would change anything for the islanders, same flag, head of state etc. The only change is Argentina would leave them alone, eventually.

    I fear Argentina, encouraged by tyrants and morons like Chavez and Correa, will continue to escalate their sovereignty claim each year at UNSAUR / OAS (we all know how bias and deluded these organisations are). I wouldn’t be surprised if they issued a resolution ordering British authorities to leave the islands. Any declaration of independence at this point would be ignored as an invasion would already be in the planning.

    But I think if the FI were to somehow make their aim of independence clear to the world it would help. The referendum is a great opportunity to make that statement, by including a voting option for independence.

    Sep 02nd, 2012 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    The last paragraph is pertinent.

    If an Independence option is not included, this will be used as propaganda against the Falkland Islands by their would-be colonialist oppressor.

    As it is a referendum the Islanders can always elect not to vote for a future (within next half-century?) aim of Independence.

    However, the Malvanistas will not tell you that on every UN resolution calling upon the UK and Argentina to talk,it states quite clearly (as it does in the UN's de-colonialisation doctrine) that Independence of former colonies is the preferred option, ie
    ”1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation

    with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

    with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);”
    Basically according to this if the Falkland Islands declare independence from the UK, looks like the Argentine's case is dust as nowhere on this resolution does it state that de-colonised countries should be handed over to another colonist.

    Sep 03rd, 2012 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • gustbury

    oh man please can be Chinese o Papunian who cares,but the land is part of Argentina and you know it perfectly!!!

    Sep 03rd, 2012 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 86 Pete Bog

    yes the option of independence MUST be on the referendum, but - and that is a big BUT!

    If the Falkland Islands were to become an independent state, we can expect Argentina to - within a short space of time - attack them as in 1982 and also to disregard any binding UN Security Council resolution, which ”demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)” as they did with the BINDING Security Council resolution no. 502 of 3rd April 1982.

    Sep 04th, 2012 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Don Alberto

    Let gustbury have it!

    Sep 04th, 2012 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    With pleasure.

    @ 87 gustbury writes: “the land is part of Argentina and you know it perfectly!!!”

    As in: Argentina took the Formosa and Misiones provinces from Paraguay and all of Patagonia from the indigenous people, so they are ours. Britain took the Falkland Islands from us, so they are ours.

    No amount of 'They are ours (because they are ours)' has any validity in the dispute over the British Falkland Islands.


    More in - I suggest you start reading that debate at

    The debate was unfortunately cut off by Mercopres before I had time to show the errors in Hermes1967's last posts.

    If you want to repeat his arguments, please do, and I shall show where they fail.

    Sep 04th, 2012 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    Hermes1967 gave the best argued opppostion to the UK's claim I have seen on these posts, but it still collapsed, as it was based on Spain, who eventually gave up their claim to the Falkland Islands.

    The rest of the Malvanista's have no chance, ie:
    ”the land is part of Argentina and you know it perfectly!!!”
    The point is that land has never been conclusively part of Argentina , and an economic settlement sanctioned by the UK government,is not the same as a 'governmental occupation' as has been shown in Pepper and Pascoe, much to the Argentine's chagrin.

    Sep 04th, 2012 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Falkland Islands

    Just so you all know, the falkland islands are British We are living here and the argies are over there, and that's the way it will always remain. Argentina can keep it's greedy little mitts if FI South Georgia, South Sandwich and you will always have to share antarctica with the whole world, no matter if you have births, pretend you were there longest, or keeping your military there which is another rule Argentina directly ignoring the Antarctic treaty. Nothing ever changes but it means arg will not ever get what it is trying to steal.

    Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • row82

    Please support this page - Falkland Islands Desire The Right - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs, keeping the islands free and poking fun at the lunacy of the Argentine government and their various claims and winding up their Internet trolls -

    Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lost1

    Please support this page aimed at promoting Britain's Overseas Territories...

    Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:53 pm - 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!