MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falkland Islands’ delegation received in Latam with open doors and genuine interest
Latinamerican members of government, opinion formers and academics have been genuinely interested in hearing the Falkland Islanders’ point of view and the recent referendum results, revealed Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Gavin Short. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWell done. An example for democracy Keep it up
Apr 13th, 2013 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, Governor Haywood is an example for democracy. Keep it up.
Apr 13th, 2013 - 06:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Marcos, and more particularly any open minded Argentine or other Latin American who may be reading this site, the Falklands is no different to many other Commonwealth countries, yes countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and so forth. All these countries operate as constitutional monarchies with an elected national government, with a prime minister on top, with a governor or governor-general operating above them in a mostly symbolic way , as they act as representatives of the Queen in each country performing mainly ceremeonial duties, as well as signing off any legislation passed through parliament and in a political crisis, acting like a referee to ensure political stability.
Apr 13th, 2013 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Governor Haywood is clearly a popular figure in the Falklands who performs these similar functions and he does not run or dictate to the Falklanders. Instead, he works cooperatively with elected Falkland Islands Government.
If you are seriously concerned about democratic issues, I think you should look at yourown country which has not only been poorly and corruptly governed but has often been led by dictatorial governments. As the saying goes, people who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones!
@3 Oh dear, I think you may have set the cause back with your ill-informed post. The Falklands are very different to Australia et all. They are independent states, the Islands are not. As far as international law is concerned, the Islands are a part of the UK (the UK Government says so, not me). The Islands have a largely elected Legislature and a largely appointed Government (see the FIG website if you don't believe me). Where is the Prime Minister figure if it isn't the appointed Governor I ask you? Why not try reading the 2008 Constitution, it's quite informative.
Apr 13th, 2013 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4 Oh dear, and again you stick your nose in without thinking. Let's take a look at the government of the Falkland Islands. Executive authority is vested in the Queen and is exercised by the Governor on her behalf. The governor acts on the advice of the Executive Council, composed of himself as chairman, the Chief Executive, Director of Finance and three elected Legislative Assembly Members. The Chief Executive is appointed on the advice of the Executive Council. The Director of Finance is appointed in the same way. It can therefore be seen that the Executive Council membership favours the elected Legislative Assembly Members. In the Legislative Assembly, the most important “members” are those with the right to vote. The “ex-officio” members of the Assembly, i.e. the Chief Executive and Director of Finance, have no vote. The Commander British Forces and the Attorney General can also take part in Legislative Assembly proceedings but, again, have no vote. So the preponderance of weight is with the Islanders. Incidentally, the Chief Executive and Director of Finance are most likely to be Islanders. So you give completely the wrong impression of who holds the reins of government. Besides, for the time being, the Islanders seem happy with it. And that's what's really important. Why would they want more? But when the Islanders want more, and paid, Legislative Assembly Members, they will doubtless get them. As a thought, the UK's Privy Council, the equivalent of the Executive Council, is completely “appointed”. Unsurprisingly, the pattern of the Falkland Islands Government is much the same as that of the UK government. And where is the “opposition”. It's the people. Able to approach and speak to a member of the government whenever.
Apr 13th, 2013 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 02 and 4 (sorry Dover to answer you in same as Marcos)
Apr 13th, 2013 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fact- in Executive Council ( the Cabinet if you like) the ONLY people who can VOTE - are the elected members. No official nor the Governor has a VOTE - got it?
Internally the Governor in reality would ONL:Y overrule a vote by ExCO or the Assembly if it was clearly promoting something illegal or corrupt.
(as did happen in Turks and Caicos once)
What the Constitution says in writing - and what it actually means in practice are of course open to accusations by those on the outside who do not know how British style Democracy works.
After all the Queen could in theory sack the British Government any day she chooses under the Constitution. But that is highly unlikley to ever happen.
UK also under the UN has a responsibility to the UN - as the Governing Power so to speak - to ensure fair and just Govt in the Islands for the people who live there.
Now Marcos - we know that a fair and democratic Govt of the Islands chosen by the Islands is not what you want!
@6 I'm afraid that you can protest all you like about the difference between the written Constitution and the practice. The fact is there is a coincidence of interest at present between what the UK Government says it wants and what the Islanders think they want.
Apr 13th, 2013 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At the heart of British Constitutional practice is not to have a written Constitution, by the way. In the case of the Falkland Islands HM has been pleased to give them one using powers conferred by the UK British Settlements Acts 1887 and 1945(a) on the advice of Her Privy Council, headed by the UK Prime Minister. You should try reading it without rose coloured lenses; it reserves an awful lot of powers to the UK Government including the right to ignore advice.
One question if I may? When was the last time there was a vote in Exco and what was it about?
7- Dont know but will ask is best answer I can give you for now. Yes in theory a lot of powers are “reseved” - but to my knowledge there has never been a case of them being used.
Apr 13th, 2013 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As UK has legal expertise etc - yes - common sense says our Govt sends papers to them for better legal wording etc for laws etc, sometimes the result is agreed straight away - sometimes it is not and a debate ensues, but am unaware of anything being “imposed” on us that we did not want.
FICTION
Apr 13th, 2013 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0south America will never eccept the falklands,
FACT,
yes they will, slowly at first but in the end will eccept,
FICTION
falklands are argentine,
FACT,
they are british full stop,
its that simple no arguments needed.
@9
Apr 13th, 2013 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would only modify that last Fact as follows:
FACT
They belong to the Islanders & the Islanders want to be British.
What's interesting is the Argentine ambassador's refusal to recognise the Islander's presence. It confirms that the Argentine government has stipulated to all their ambassadors & diplomats that there is to be no recognition of the Islanders at all. Not even that they exist as human beings.
The line from Buenos Aires is that the Islanders are British and implanted, therefore there is no difference between an Islander and someone born or living in the mainland UK. Argentina only wants to talk with the UK Government & refuses to talk in the presence of the Islanders. Hence the empty chair meeting.
It seems to me that this 'Emperor's New Clothes' tactic can be used against them.
Argentina has been demanding talks for decades. They unilaterally withdrew from all the discussions over oil, fisheries and trade. Maybe now is the time to turn the tables on them, so that when the oil starts to flow in a few years, the Islanders can say the Argentines refused to talk.
The Falkland Islands Government has been promoting the Referendum result throughout the Americas and I'm sure that they were accompanied by representatives of the Foreign Office at any of the meetings, talks, debates or promotional work that they attended.
Would it not be to our advantage that at any of these promotional meetings, the Falkland Islanders started to demand talks about oil/fisheries/trade and get the locals to ask why the Argentine ambassador refuses to debate these things in front of the local audience.
How long would it be before the population of the local country see that it's actually the Argentines that are being obstinate in not solving this problem once and for all.
Forcing the Argentines into a corner where they are compelled to talk or to turn tail and run (as they did in 1982) to show the other South American countries that Argentines are nothing but cowards.
Perhaps the U.K. should put the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands on our constitution. Just a thought !
Apr 13th, 2013 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islanders have to put the best face on a poor show.
Apr 13th, 2013 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#12 are you related to George Galloway? Peanut brain syndrome is quite rare!
Apr 13th, 2013 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 Oh, dear, dear. A “coincidence of interest”. Such as the Falklanders wanting to be free of the state that invaded them and the British government supporting them? Such as the Falklanders wanting to be able to develop their own resources to their own benefit without having them stolen by a bankrupt “neighbour”? Such as, being a small country, the Falklanders look around for someone to protect them, and find there's only one? Who else is going to protect them? The “world's policeman”, the United States? No. The United Nations? Back in 1982, we saw how much attention argieland pays to the UN. Anyone else ready to step up to the plate? No. The cost of defending the Falkland Islands may be as much as £75 million per year. But so what? The approximate 1,300 troops have to be paid anyway. The aircraft have to be maintained and flown anyway. The “assets” are usefully deployed and more might be spent if they had to be sent to other overseas training areas. Will Britain get anything out of Falkland Islands gas and oil exploration and exploitation? Not unless the Falkland Islanders so choose. A look back shows that the UK has spent an average of £70 million per annum over the last 5 years. Chickenfeed. Small change. What would the UK have spent if it had spent those 5 years regularly transporting troops, equipment, aircraft to overseas locations for “training”? There's the “coincidence of interest”. Coincidentally, the British government wants to protect the Islanders and it can do so at minimal cost. Besides, we can smack argies round the chops on a daily basis. They tried to steal the Islands, we took them back. And now we make sure they can't do it again. Something that must stick in their collective throat every day. It's all good!
Apr 14th, 2013 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0@12 What a pity CFK can't do the same thing!
Conqueror is quite correct. The assets deployed to the Falklands would have to be paid for regardless of where they are. More importantly though, they are fulfilling one of Britain's primary obligations, to protect British citizens on British soil from aggression by other nations.
Apr 14th, 2013 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the coming decades, it maybe possible for the Falkland Islands to purchase or lease equipment to be used by the British armed forces in the protection of the Islands, thereby reducing the expenditure in the UK, whilst maintaining a sufficient defensive force.
For instance, the Islanders may be able to recruit a regiment of Gurkhas to supplement the FIDF. Although the Argies morale had collapsed after repeatedly losing battles on the mountains, when the Gurkhas appeared on Mount William, the Argie conscripts ran away as fast as they could to avoid being on the fighting end of a khukuri.
As for the sea defences, the FIG could purchase a number of small diesel submarines (with air-independent propulsion/Fuel Cell) to supplement the SSNs. They are extremely quiet boats, very difficult to detect & relatively cheaper than their nuclear counterparts.
As for the Falkland Islands Air Force, I'm sure that the oil royalties would enable them to purchase or lease so very capable aircraft, not to mention AEW & even patrol blimps for fishery protection.
The most important thing is for the Islanders to improve the Islands first. That means tarmac roads throughout the Islands, ferry boats & better aircraft for FIGAS. Possibly even transport aircraft capable of flying to Ascension and the UK.
Most important of all, the Islanders could afford to publicise the falsity of the Argentine claim, prove to the world with documentaries that the Islands belong to the Islanders (as the 51 Degrees South videos did) to counter any attempt by the Argentines to isolate the Islanders.
@15 You obviously didn't work in OR during your service or you'd know you were spouting rubbish. Let's just look at the business case for buying and keeping HMS Clyde on station until 2018 for one thing. For another, MPA is maintained at MOD expense as opposed to being deployed where exactly? Let's also think about the inventory of FIJLU and whose capital is being depleted there, not to mention the opportunity cost.
Apr 14th, 2013 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your logic is pretty faulty too. If we are defending British Citizens on British Territory (who declared them to be exempt from paying UK taxes, I wonder?) why should they ever need to buy their own kit and hire mercenaries to operate it?
You obviously missed the course on “Making Friends & Influencing People”.
Apr 15th, 2013 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Does the British government receive taxes from the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Gibraltar or any of the islands in the Caribbean? No of course not. They are taxed locally for the benefit of the locals.
The Channel Islands are a very special case, because although they are technically owned by the Crown, as the last vestige of the original territory of the Duke of Normandy, technically, the Channel Islands own Britain & n0t the other way around.
MPA was a necessary one-time expense, along with the radar installations on the Islands, to enable transport aircraft to reach the islands without in-flight refuelling, as well as a permanent CAP. Do you have any idea of the amount (and cost) of jet fuel wasted because transport aircraft did not have the range to reach the islands or because Stanley airport runway wasn't long enough? It's a huge figure.
I was not in Supply & Secretariat, but I know that leasing equipment can be a successful way of reducing costs. The River class ships were leased & HMS Protector is 'chartered'. As for air planes, the vast majority of airliners are lease purchased to reduce the costs of servicing & the risk of equipment being unserviceable when needed. The same is true for military aircraft. In fact, most governments would willingly consider lease agreements because of the contract value.
As a supposed former member of the Andrew, you should know that SSNs although very capable, cannot be in all places at once. They cannot be kept on station permanently, but SSIs could. Moreover, although the SSI has a limited range, dependent on it's fuel supply, it's far quieter than its SSN counterpart, yet still capable of tracking targets & matching their speed for short periods.
As for permanently stationing troops in the Falklands, this has distinct advantages, but could not be imposed on troops with family in the UK. The Gurkhas could be a useful alternative.
@16
Apr 15th, 2013 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If we are defending British Citizens on British Territory (who declared them to be exempt from paying UK taxes,”
Ok, the Islanders do now import a lot of goods and produce from South America.
They also import from the UK, therefore providing the UK with monetary return that will increase if substantial amounts of hydrocarbons are found.
The FIG pay for their people to attend UK universities and other centres of education-so even with this, money does flow into the UK economy from the Falkland Islands and there will be increasing amounts in the years to come.
How much did it cost to liberate Sierra Leone? They don't pay UK taxes.
Afghanistan don't pay UK taxes to pay for UK forces to be there.
The Iraqi Government did not pay UK taxes for UK forces to be there.
Etc. etc. etc. etc.
The kit at MPA is hardly excessive, for example 4 Typhoons compared to the squadron of Phantoms and Harrier flight that defended the islands pre-MPA.
This expenditure is cheaper than a war.
Let's get this straight.
40 RMs defended the Islands pre-1982. The defence cost was minimal.
The subsequent war expenditure between April-June 1982 was far more than the current three month expenditure to run MPA, and even more than the upkeep of 40 RMs.
4 Eurofighters, a few ships, a few troops (to defend a land mass the size of Northern Ireland).
Cheaper than the option to lace Argentina with Cruise missiles / to splash what is left of their navy/ to blockade the FIs to retaliate against the inevitable invasion that would take place if MPA was closed.
@18
Apr 15th, 2013 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite right.
@16
The cost of maintaining MPA and the personnel on the islands is far less than the UK spends on other defence missions worldwide. Less even than the amount gifted in aid to developing countries.
The expenditure in the Falklands is an investment in peace, because the alternative is too costly to contemplate.
If you consider this a wasted expense, then do you consider the billions invested in defeating Hitler or the Kaiser a waste too?
If Great Britain did not stand up to bullies (like Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Galtieri or CFK for that matter), then the world would fall into the abyss.
This is one of the reasons the Argentines continue to bang their heads against the wall. They simply do not understand the British.
They do not understand that there is no expense, no difficulty that we cannot overcome, in order to preserve the liberty of British citizens on British soil. Every country that has a go, comes a cropper. The only country that managed a score draw was the United States in 1812-15. Even so, it cost them a great deal.
Every Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher has recognised that the one responsibility they cannot shirk is the defence of the realm. Especially the Falkland Islands, as it is the one British territory under threat of invasion by a hostile neighbour.
We've spent billions bringing freedom to Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Sierra Leone. It is a small price to prevent terrorism & free people from tyranny, but we would pay any price to ensure that the Falkland Islanders remain free, because if we don't, then Great Britain is no longer Great and every person that died in 1939-45 or 1914-18 died in vain.
We honour their memory by maintaining freedom with our blood if necessary.
“ Falkland Islands’ delegation received in Latam with open doors and genuine interest ”
Apr 16th, 2013 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Trying to amortize your trip Gavin ? what a complete nosense.....only you can fool is your countrymen who pay your bills.....pathetic and sad
i believe many influential people in South America are now asking themselves why British country cannot be part of South America. Having seen or met Gavin, Stacy and others from the Falklands they will consider that we have many similar interests, not least of which is seeking a peaceful life and good relations with our neighbours ... but not at the expense of our heritage and national identity.
Apr 16th, 2013 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Doverover, perhaps you should mind your own business. We have clearly stated our position and if you support democracy you should have no issue with this. Yes we currently have a coincidence of opinion with the UK govt but if that changes and we don't like it, then it's up to us to do something about it.
#21
Apr 16th, 2013 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wake up....you are a simple bunch of people squatting argentinean soil. Complete south america say that all the time. If you expect other thing, you are just dreaming. Time will fix this madness and abnormal situation and thats a fact.
@22 Wake up .... you are an idiot if you think you have any advantage over us. Don't fool yourself that all of South America are going to believe the lies you have been told. There are plenty of intelligent people out there who are more interested in developing friendly and commercial relations than wasting time chasing an Rg myth.
Apr 17th, 2013 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0#23
Apr 17th, 2013 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0its all right, dont take my word...
ask OAS
ask UN
ask C-24 Des-Colonization Comitee
ask UNASUR
ask MERCOSUR
ask CELAC
ask AFRICA
ask CHINA
ask RUSIA
even ask your friend USA
...in the eyes of civilized international comunity you are only ilegal people living in disputed territories aka SQUATTERS. Wake up dreamer
@24
Apr 17th, 2013 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Incorrect again.
The United Nations does not take any position regarding the Islands, except to say that there is a dispute over sovereignty. They do not recognise the Argentine claim as having any superiority to the Islander's claim. Indeed, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 502, which Argentina ignored, demanded that Argentina leave the Falklands immediately.
The United States does not support the Argentine claim either. Their position is to make no statement on the matter, except to urge diplomatic discussion, which the British Government has frequently offered (in the presence of the Islanders) which Argentina refuses, as demonstrated in the recent empty chair meeting which Timerman refused to attend.
In fact, the Islanders can count on the support of not just Great Britain, but also the Commonwealth countries (2.5 billion people), 12 of whom are members of the OAS. They also have the backing of the EU (500 million people) several of which also have associated territories in the Americas, such as France and the Netherlands.
Argentina spends a lot of time spreading their lies about their historic claim to the islands, but the truth is that eventually, when Argentina is no longer able to provide bribes or the lies are exposed by the Islanders, then Argentina will lose support.
If Argentina was so sure of their 'worldwide' backing over this issue, then it is puzzling that they've never taken the matter to the International Court of Justice. Could that be because the Argentine claim is so full of holes that they would be laughed out of court? Yes.
#25
Apr 17th, 2013 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0You live in a complete fantasy, read again #24 thats the truth as the United Nations see Malvinas issue. Dont fool yourselves.
@ 26 yet there you are, 31 years after pointlessly causing the deaths of over 1000 people, no further ahead, rapidly losing any credibility and getting a slap from Ban Ki Moon for your trouble.
Apr 17th, 2013 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And here we are, doing very nicely and really not bothered about you.
Whatever.....
Apr 17th, 2013 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only 100% truth is you lot are ilegal people living in territories that nobody recognise as yours, only outlaw people in the eyes of civilized world that take advantage of this unfair and crazy situation for south america.Thats all, everybody knows this, even yourselves
@ 28 you have no respect for the young Argentines who laid down their lives for your country. Shame on you. You are a crass and ignorant individual.
Apr 17th, 2013 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only ignorant are you that mix topics, just focus to fix your ilegal existence in the eyes of civilized comunity
Apr 17th, 2013 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@28 so_far
Apr 17th, 2013 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only 100% truth is that Argentina was stolen from the natives and the Falklands had no natives.
You also tried to steal the Falklands off Britain but Britain said no.
#28
Apr 17th, 2013 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Civilized world - Argentina ? An oxymoron !
Meanwhile, in the real world, not delusional Argentina, the Islanders go quietly about their business.
Enjoy your rants, there is nothing you can do about it.
Truth hurts huh?
Apr 17th, 2013 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0thats the way United Nations see your status 100% ilegal people living in disputed territories and only occupying it by use of force, a bunch of outlaw people, thats a fact, sorry
The truth must hurt Argentines, that they committed genocide to steal the land belonging to the natives, the Amerindians.
Apr 17th, 2013 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There were no natives in the Falkland Islanders and the British were the first to land on them in 1690. The Islanders are the true owners of the Falkland Islands.
Either challenge it in the International Court of Justice or shut up. The Islands will belong to the Islanders forever. Argentina does not and never will own them.
@33 so_far
Apr 18th, 2013 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please provide definitive proof that the UN see us as 100% illegal. Of course they recognize there is a dispute but absolutely nowhere do they say they support Argentina's side of the dispute.
Your fact is just fiction, sorry.
#33
Apr 18th, 2013 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was unaware of any word in Argentina that corresponds to “the Truth ”
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!