MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
C24 ‘no longer relevant’ and is ‘insulting’ to describe BOT/London relations as colonial
The Decolonization Committee is no longer relevant and to describe the relation of British Overseas Territories with the UK as colonial is insulting both for the BOT and London, said a Foreign Office spokeswoman following Thursday session when the Falklands/Malvinas case was debated at the UN C24. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThere you go, less than an hour after the adoption of the C24 resolution. They have their answer, no negotiations on sovereignty without the islanders participation.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now that is what I call a rapid response.
“The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands...”
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It is not at all clear to me that we never ever held sovereignty over these islands”, Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister, 1829.
“The British occupation of 1833 was at the time an act of wanton aggression”, Memorandum of the British Foreign Office official, 1946.
“The only question was who had the best claim as we are attaching for the first time the islands. I think undoubtedly were the United Provinces of Buenos Aires”, Ronald Campbell, secretary of foreign affairs, 1911.
“Sitting down hard on the islands and avoid talking to the Argentines, because we could not sustain our arguments in court”, legal counsel for the Foreign Office, Gerald Fitzmaurice, 1936.
“If you carefully read the memorandum of December 1910, surely must have realized that Argentina's attitude is not ridiculous or childish. I had assumed that our right to the Malvinas Islands was irrefutable. This is far from being the case”, Sir Malcolm Robertson, ambassador to Argentina, 1927.
“While the Committee believes that the historical evidence is finely balanced, we are forced to conclude that the weight of evidence argues for the position of Argentine bonds to the islands, at least the eastern islands, which was, while the British occupation in 1833, more substance than it was or is accepted by government officials in the UK. In this conclusion we are supported not only by the evidence we were given during the investigation but also by doubts on this matter were repeatedly expressed by British officials during the early part of the century”, Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Commons, in 1982!
And there's plenty more liars!
No negotiations on sovereignty over the islands without the consent of the islanders.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not yours, never were, never will be. Same time, same place, same people, next year.
Same answer. No!
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Them poor small English sausages.....
The UN calling England and their English Colonies for...: “Colonial”.
Time then for England to declare the rest of the World for “Not Relevant”.
Tell you what, you Squatting Colonial Anglo Turnips.....
We'll show you how “Not Relevant” the rest of the World is.....
And we'll show you that where it hurts you most. In your wallet.....
Wishing you otherwise a nice evening
El Think.
@2 Jose
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And did all those people have the same access to Argentine records that we have today? Knowing what we know today, there is no way the ICJ would find for Argentina - you know that, I know that. That's why your government won't go there. Quoting dead people who didn't know all the facts doesn't really help.
Nothing has changed and nothing will change.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No2 you quote opinion which may or may not have been informed the Falkland delegation states historical facts and articles of international law .....their is a difference not everyone is swayed by who shouts loudest .
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Simple if you wish to as yo say reclaim the Falklands you have to gain the support of the population who live their .... No intimidation, or blockades will achieve it. I will not wast time with suggesting you go to court, no conviction of in your argument me thinks.????
We'll show you how not relevant the rest of the world is.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So now the C24 equates to the rest of the world?
Please do, feel free to show us.
Love the threats though you have us trembling in fear.
More like rolling around in fits of laughter.
Keep it up El Think
@2 1982. Uti possidetis (Latin for “as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The principle was affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the 1986 Case Burkina-Faso v Mali:
[Uti possidetis] is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of obtaining independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new states being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the changing of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power.
See, it's so simple, dummy. At the end of the 1982 Falklands War, Britain possessed the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Argieland “possessed” defeated troops. Didn't even “possess” corpses. Left those behind.
And now there's loads of argie liars. You're one of them. And loads of argie war criminals. You're one of them as well.
But here's the deal. It makes no difference to us what you say. It makes no difference to us what any latam “country” says. Or any other “state”. It makes no difference to us what the biased C24 says. Or the stupid General Assembly. What does matter to US is the expressed views and wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands. Let me assure you. You have little or more likely no chance of forcing British troops or Falkland Islands people off the Islands. And even if you manage it, we'll be back. And if we have to destroy argieland in the process? Shouldn't steal, should you? And if you think the British people give a toss about argies, think again.
No2 you quote opinion which may or may not have been informed the Falkland delegation states historical facts and articles of international law .....their is a difference not everyone is swayed by who shouts loudest .
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Simple if you wish to as yo say reclaim the Falklands you have to gain the support of the population who live their .... No intimidation, or blockades will achieve it. I will not wast time with suggesting you go to court, No real conviction in your argument me thinks.????
With the C24 meeting adjourned, I think that demonstrated pretty well that Argentina is a cancer to the world, and the commitee is a joke.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting how so many speakers saw fit to warp Ban Ki Moon's comments to try and blame the UK for the commitee's lack of action.
Did they invite Titman to adjourn it, someone posted on another link, that they did.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now if they did, that makes it very relevant to the irrelevance of the committee. Not exactly the actions of an impartial committee, hey El Think!
Timmy let his guard down at the very end of today's session. The Argentinians are scared of our Nuclear POWERED submarines, protecting the islands from aggression. It may have been the translation, but he seemed to confuse nuclear powered with nuclear armed. Rather a huge difference. I hope the Falklands delegation will insist on speaking tomorrow to counter the Argentinian lies.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12 reality check: the committee made no attempt to be impartial, or even really hide their bias. Most of them repeated parrot fashion the Argentinian position.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When the chair invited Timmerman to have the last word, he handed over to Costa Rica to have their say (or Argentina's again), and then to Brazil to say their piece, then the chair apologised to a further list of South and Central American states for not getting their chance to undoubtedly back Argentina. Timmerman was then again invited to close proceedings. The only state that I heard say anything that has anything to do with why the committee was actually there was Sierra Leone, and the only other states out of the list that didn't speak that may have had anything vaguely interesting to say were New Guinea and Angola (which used to be Portuguese, so they may well have just followed Brazil's line).
I was amazed how many of the speakers didn't seem to understand the meaning of words such as negotiation, geography, history or justice, or even why they were at the UN.
I cannot see this committee going away, but I really don't see the point in the Falklanders appearing before it. Even if the Falklanders declared independence from the UK it is clear that the grubby Latin land grabbers that did such a good job in stealing South America would never leave them in peace: just like with Patagonia, they have decided that they want Falklands and its dependencies and it would seem no amount of truth is going to put them off.
I say empty out the oil, put the money in the bank and live a quiet life. These thieving bigots from places like Bolivia and Nicaraguan are not worth the bother of even speaking to.
More comedy I see from the C24 no-hopers.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's clear this body is entirely irrelevant when no major Western countries support it and its bias and behavior is so appalling.
Who cares anyway, nobody pays attention to the committee or these countries.
I love it when “thunk” shows his true colours..LOL
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Show us then Think “in our wallets”. So far nothing...not a single thing.
Not a penny lost, the cost to defend the islands would be spent elsewhere training and the islanders are soon going to pay for that.
You lose.
The C24 isn't “the rest of the world”, mostly they are Latinos..(or the ones that speak are) or they hope dialogue would stop the annual charade...either way, it never has or will cost us a penny.
You lose again...poor “Thunk”
Scrap c24, bury c24, ignore c24,
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and age old dinosaure that should have died out years ago,
and is only kept going by greedy incompetent corupt officials.
and argentina mmm...
@13 You are right
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentines politically speaking are the equivalent of weeds in the garden. They'll always be there to molest and require a bit of effort to manage but that shouldnt stop you from enjoying the garden.
Think - we quiver in fear of your silly words - all or which have blown up in Chrissies face to date!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do tell me - How come Argentian claims UKis not abiding by UN General Assembly non binmding resolutions - when Argentina italef signed and accepted all the ones our delegates referred to where Argentina actually backs the policy of allowing the peoples of non-self governing territories to determine thier own future?
Oh and do please try and explain to that gibbering idiotic arse you have as Foreign Minister - what the difference is between Nuclear powered ENGINES and Nuclear Weaponry Power!
Next thing is he will be claiming that Argentina is a Nuclear Military Power - well it must be by his brain as you have nuclear Power generators!!
Stink you seem a little angry things not going your way?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 Xect: From the bit I saw, I was only really disappointed with Saint Vincent and the Grenadines opinion. Maybe they see their future with CELLAC and need to tow the line, but the UK should take the clarity of their statement as a good excuse to cut some overseas aid that no doubt exists.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fot those that like to cite wikipedia, apparently slavery was abolished on Saint Vincent and the Grenadines by the British and Syrians. As Thinko would say, Chuckle Chuckle.
@13 screenname
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the Falkland Islands became an independent nation, they would NOT be on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT).
Many in the UN see the C24 as a body to help the NSGT become independent nations, to achieve what they consider self-determination. A good example is the recent re-listing of French Polynesia, added in an attempt to speed up the transition to independence.
Even the current corrupt C24 members couldn't keep an independent nation on the list, whether they like it or not.
Anybody know if there is a link to the so-called debate?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I did not get to view it.
(19) Islander1
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say....:
“Think - we quiver in fear of your ***** words.......”
I say....:
I know.
You say....:
“Argentina actually backs the policy of allowing the peoples of non-self governing territories to determine thier own future?”
I say....:
Correct......, Argentina backs the policy of allowing “the Peoples” of non-self governing territories to determine their own future......
But, you Squatting English Kelpers with UK passport are not “A People”...
You are Subjects of a Foreign Colonial Kingdom that has no business down here.
You say....:
“Oh and do please try and explain to that ********* ******* **** you have as Foreign Minister - what the difference is between Nuclear powered ENGINES and Nuclear Weaponry Power”
I say....:
Nothing to explain.........
He just mentioned “Nuclear Submarines”.....
Not “Nuclear Powered Submarines”, “Nuclear Armed Submarines” nor “Nuclear Powered & Armed Submarines”
Just plain “Nuclear Submarines”.....
Anyhow........... Can you confirm or deny the presence of such English vessels in our South Atlantic waters?
I don't “Think” so....
@22 Steve-33-uk:
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In case you didn't notice, the C24 can do what it likes.
But as it happens, I was not talking about the C24, I was talking about Latin America. If I was the FIG, I would be looking to haemorage as little money as possible towards that continent and put all efforts towards European trade with their EU links. Keep the population small and live the high life off the profits for a very,very long time.
@José Malvinero ,Historians’ opinions of the Convention of Settlement
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is plenty of evidence from various historians that the Convention of Settlement ended
Argentina’s claim to the Falklands. In a book published in Madrid in 1919, the Mexican diplomat and
historian Carlos Pereyra says that the Argentine dictator General Manuel Rosas wanted to purchase the
end of Britain’s involvement in River Plate affairs by giving up the claim to the Falklands, and Pereyra
adds that the effect of the Convention was as if it had had an unwritten article stating that “Britain retained
the Falkland Islands.”1 Pereyra’s book was reprinted in Buenos Aires in 1944, with the same statements.2
The negative effect of the Convention of Settlement was also mentioned by a member of the
Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Absalón Rojas, in a major debate on 19 July 1950 on Argentina’s claim
to the Falklands. Rojas blamed General Rosas for the loss of the Falklands to Britain, and complained that
the restoration of “perfect friendship” between Britain and Argentina without any reference to the
Falklands was a serious omission and a weak point of the Argentine claim.3
Other Argentine historians also believe that the Convention of Settlement seriously affects
Argentina’s claim to the Falklands. The historian Ernesto Fitte criticised it in 1974,4 and Alfredo R.
Burnet-Merlín, in a book printed in Buenos Aires in 1974 and reprinted in 1976, quotes both Pereyra and
Rojas, and says that the omission of any mention of the Falklands in the Convention of Settlement was “a
concession to Britain or a culpable oversight”
So if your Argentine all the above is lies then???????
The question should be, “Does any navy ever confirm the presence of submarines, nuclear or otherwise, in any waters?”
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The answer in no. Not to anyone, so why should we make an exception for you?
They are not your waters, they are international waters and the RN will sail in them whenever they like.
Especially if they think you about to kick off again.
@24 Think
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From the outside I wonder why you always refer to “England”, and “English” instead of “United Kingdom” or “British”. Only in football England is a country of its own. There are no such things as “English” submarines etc. And the “Kelpers” have a multinational origin (like e.g. the Argenines), among them also Scandinavian.
THINK, you make me piss mate your all talk defending your homeland from Northern Europe explain to us all why Argentina is not a good enough place for you to live in, in fact we all know the answer but it would be oh so sweet hearing from your miserable lips.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(28) Swede
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you could “Think” outside your “Anglosphere” and if you knew the world a bit anout the world outside the aforementioned “Anglosphere” , you would not be there, “Wandering” why I always refer to the “English” as “English”..........
DYOR.
@ 24 Think
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say....:
“Argentina actually backs the policy of allowing the peoples of non-self governing territories to determine thier own future?”
Not only 'peoples' but 'populations' as well!!
Please see UNGA Resolution 67/134, paragraph 7c:
“To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;”
The full Resolution is available here:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/134
Nice useful and nonsensical reply!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought it was because to you Spaniards, all Anglos were called English.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”C24 ‘no longer relevant’
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Need we say any more both The British government and the British ambassador to The UN have finally said what we all know including Banki Moon.
Any one know of any part time cleaning jobs for these South American parasites that sit on this committee???
@28
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because he's a gormless cock who can't understand the difference?!
24 Think
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0''Can you confirm or deny the presence of such English vessels in our South Atlantic waters?''
Why on earth would anyone want to do that? The whole point of submarines is that they can go anywhere they want and they don't have to ask you. If the Falklands were not British there would still be nuclear submarines mooching around down here and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.
As for your swivel- eyed loon of a Foreign Minister blithering on about 'nuclear submarines', either he doesn't know the difference between nuclear armed and nuclear powered, or he's hoping other people will think he means 'nuclear armed' and knows what he's talking about. Whether he's incompetent or deliberately misleading is neither here nor there. He's making himself look like a complete tit, and that's good enough for me.
''you Squatting English Kelpers with UK passport are not “A People”''
Presumably this also applies in Think world to the people of St Helena, Tristan, Pitcairn etc. Are you going to tell them they have no right to self determination? That is what you mean, isn't it? They aren't native peoples, they all arrived there from somewhere else, Britain in some cases. So who, in your view, has the right to determine their future? Not them, clearly.
@Think
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0does the government of which ever Scandinavian country your squatting in know your there?
Think - cannot you do beeter than that? Still using the irrelvant description of us asquatters! Do ppease explaint to me:
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is the difference between my ancestors who came and occupied a land where there was NO native population.
And the original Spanish who settled by force and claimed the land around Buenos Aires for themselves and Sain in the 1600s that you call Argentina today- and used military force to push out the native people?
We all know what Timerman meant! He is thick - recall the photos the chump produced in the UN last year!!
Yes I can categorically state that no Nuclear Powered Submarine of the English Navy has even been around the Falklands.
Do please enlighten me as to who hear is quivering about threats from the Kirschener Govt?
Brazil laughs at you as she gets a million or two of fishing business a year from foreign states that have Falklands licences.
Uruguay quietly ignores you and gets on with increasing trade with the Islands.
Chile likewise - they gave her the thumbs down over stopping the Lan flight as well.
@26
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So are you suggesting that Argentina had a claim and then lost it through the Convention of Settlement?
As the opinion of various politicians after the fact is irrelevant……..just as this opinion was also irrelevant….
“It is not at all clear to me that we never ever held sovereignty over these islands”, Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister, 1829.”
What is relevant is the Convention of Settlement doesn't mention the Falklands…….therefore its relevance on Sovereignty would have to be decided by legal experts surely!
The treaty is not conclusive evidence.
But to consider it as relevant would be admitting that Argentina did have a claim…….not a wise legal move I would have thought!
@38
If Scotland votes for Independence do you think they will be taking the English Navy and Airforce with them?…….
They have already admitted they would be looking for England for Defence…….So is it a British Navy or is it the English Navy……..in reality?
Also can you explain to me what legal entitlement you or the British have to East Falkland. apart from squatting on it for 180 years? I do believe that's what they call someone that occupies, but has no legal entitlement!
(36) Monty96
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long time no speak……
I thought we were ”history”….
How was the fishing this season?
Are you feeding Mr. M. some decent animal proteins?
Is he still spitting in anger, every time somebody mentions Argentina?
Now, to the points….:
1) If no English denies the presence of English submarines (nuclear or otherwise) in our South Atlantic waters, my Foreign Minister has done no wrong in asking you politely to leave…..
2) I have no beef with the English Crown subjects of St Helena, Tristan, Pitcairn etc……. As far as I know, no real Country has any territorial claim over the BOT’s they inhabit.
Take it to the ICJ and sort it out once and for all. British are willing why aren't they?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They have been very quick to resort to the courts in the past, why such intransigence over this issue?
A person of reasonable mind, could possibly infer that they might not believe in the strength of their case.
@41
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree.......I would take it to the ICJ......but I am not Argentina
Think
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I understand that the implanted population in The Chabut Valley ( Patagonia if you know where that is ) ( Welsh Colony ) established in 1865 wish to remain WELSH. They also wish to retain their language.
Islander1, You are wasting your time Argentines like to forget The Spanish Colonial part of their history. May I draw your and any ARGENTINE trolls attention to a piece written by Matthew Parris-Now I mention Parris because in a British interview Alicia Castro mentioned Parris as being an Argentine supporter -unfortunately she as not read his recent views
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2013/01/29/are-falkland-islanders-the-mapuches-of-the-south-atlantic
40 Think
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, our rights are not dependent on any characteristics of our own. It isn't about where we came from, or what passport we hold, whether we are an 'implanted population' or not.
No, in Think world, the right to self determination depends solely on whether Argentina wants your country or not.
Well, that's not how it works. The reason for that is that any country could lay claim to any other country that happens to occupy the same continental shelf (yes, I heard that prat from Bolivia today). And then demand that they don't do anything, ever, without asking their bullying neighbour first.
Happily, our rights are not contingent on your views or ambitions.
Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, tried to turn the place into a republic, but was knocked back by the voters. That might explain the mischief from them.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All the same, after looking at this UK government website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/world/st-vincent-and-the-grenadines
“As a major donor and member of the EU, we support trade, help develop the economy and its ability to adapt to the challenges of climate change and natural disasters; increase security and reduce organised crime.”
I think we should let their new friends pick up the tab, and make it very clear in their media as to why the UK no longer feels the need to support their good governance.
Mr. Gonsalves currently has a house majority of one, so it will either nudge him out of office or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to a republic. I'm sure the Queen will some how carry on if she is no longer head of state of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Incidentally, it is less than 200 miles away from the coast of Venezuela, is closer to Bogota than the Falklands are to Buenos Aires, And it also used to be a French colony before the British took over… Strange how they select who they think should get self-determination, isn't it?
If only there was some sort of club, uniting nations, where more universally just set of criteria could be actually written down all these countries didn't make it up as they went along…
@42 we know
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think, Josey and all the other trolls, we just love it when non - ownership of the Falkland Islands causes you KFC and Gollum so much angst and distress. You obviously sincerely believe the load of tripe that passes for your version of history. But, it doesn't matter, and the views of the C24 don't matter either. Your pathetic attempts to colonise the Falkland Islands hasn't succeeded and won't succeed. You are too weak, your case is untrue and unjust and you dare not take it to a proper court. Gathering encouragement from failed nations doesn't matter and impresses no one.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just face it, like your Foreign Object Timerman you are abject failures and a source of constant amusement. Stick to corned beef, its something you can excell at.
It is quite simple:
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has repeatedly stated:
1) land stolen by military means in the 19th century is not legally owned
2) implanted populations on aforementioned lands have no rights
3) they wish for a negotiated settlement with the UK concerning the Falklands
There is a simple lasting and acceptable solution:
Argentina PROVES it believes in points 1 & 2, and immediately withdraws all squatters from Patagonia, it makes full reparation to the indigenous Amerindians who can then self-determine their futures. All mineral rights, historic and future pass to the new Patagonian government, as do any territorial integrity claims.
When the process is complete, to the satisfaction of Her Majesties Government, say 50 years, we will then agree to take the case of the Falklands to the International Court of Justice where the court can decide the specific case of the Falklands and determine whether removing 50 murderers and rapists who'd been on the islands for 2 months is a suitable reason to evict 3000 men women and children 180 years later (or 230 as it will be then)
Seems to meet Argentinas claims, requirements and interests (if not their wishes)!
@39 If Scotland votes for Independence do you think they will be taking the English Navy and Air force with them?…….
Jun 20th, 2013 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They have already admitted they would be looking for England for Defence…….So is it a British Navy or is it the English Navy……..in reality?
No stupid it's the British Navy, Army and Air Force and Scotland will be outside of Britain if they vote for independence so they will have to fend for themselves not rocket science is it? See you don't even understand the meaning of independence yet you are on here spouting about removing someone else's because it doesn't suit you. DICKHEAD !!!!!! Do you want me to name the regiments of the British Army and where they are based and their history, or the names of RAF bases in Scotland, or perhaps the number of ships and NUCLEAR SUBMARINES ( I highlighted that because I know it upsets you rg's) based in or being built in Scotland, tell you what look it up yourself idiot.
@49 Monkeymagic:
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't be silly, Latin Justice is not universal.
@50
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear it has to be the idiot that responds, the pissant of the group, the one that doesn't see the obviousness or subtly of the implication…….what a numbskull!!!
So who does that leave…….Wales and Northern who?
So would Wales or Northern Who? take the Navy of Airforce if they separate?
So we'll try again for the sake of the idiot……..In reality whose navy is it? THE ENGLISH……..you know the ones that Rule the UK…..The 50 odd Million that reside in England.
It has only ever been the English and their stooges. They didn't just defeat Scotland they humiliated Scotland. Destroyed their culture, the Clan, their way of life, banned weapons, Kilts, Bagpipes, language……..Independence.
Think Butcher Cumberland!!
And you wonder why the Scottish hate you and will support any team that plays England. The Welsh hate you as well.......
Please don't reply to this, you are embarrassing!!
@ A_Voice You sound a bit bitter and twister my man
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@53
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing I said there that wasn't true.......look it up
[they say knowledge is power ]
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why is it, out of all the worlds countries that operate nuclear submarines
That goes up and down the Atlantic all the time,
Tinman-
Picks on the only country that has no submarines, [nuclear or otherwise]
England,
Unless he was reefing to the nuclear English football team…lol.
[not very knowledgeable then ?? ]
.night...
@54 A_Voice or Thinko or whatever: “Nothing I said there that wasn't true.......look it up”
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0You do realise that there were more Scots fighting against Charlie at Culloden than for him?
Embarrassing Thinko...and I was so impressed by your Viz reference.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0A_Voice
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cumberland’s red coats were protestant lowland Scots fighting against the Highlanders.
@58 Condorito: Some of the soldiers were from Leicester, and given Jacobites got as far as Derby I am really not surprised that there was no quarter given in the aftermath of the battle.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0But as you have hinted, there was effectively the civil war going on in Scotland at that time, which the lowlanders seemingly won (but I think that the descendant of any Jacobite in Australasia or North America might have to reassess that verdict).
Perhaps Thinko might now like to give us the history of English clearances?
59 Screenname
Jun 21st, 2013 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes you are correct. There was also more than a little French meddling going one...a proxy war using the Catholics in the highlands.
The exodus of all British peoples during that period was of massive proportions. I have read that the slave trade moved 10 million Africans to the new world. In the same period 20 million English, Irish, Scot and Welsh moved to British donimions and beyond.
“C24 ‘no longer relevant’
Jun 21st, 2013 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bloody hell
Says who?
The English.
”Is ‘insulting’ to describe BOT/London relations as colonial”
Says who?
I hope is not the English Governor appointed by the Queen of England lol.
Is becoming harder and harder for the Brits to deny that Malvinas are a relic of English colonialism.
Hong Kong Handover Ceremony(Malvinas Handover Ceremony coming up)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVZzRY0X6_g
Even if we handed it back Hong Kong stylee, this is what you could expect -
Jun 21st, 2013 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpPv8EQObXk
@55 If Think insists on calling the British and anyone else in the Anglosphere 'English', by way of return, we can call Argentina and all other Hispanic countries 'Castilian'. The RGs already call their language that, despite it having weird verb conjugations with 'vos' instead of 'tú'.
Falkland islands never were and never will be Argentinian.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 05:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0The C24 said it themselves, they have been at it got 50 years and achieved nothing, they will be at it for another 50 years and still achieve nothing, because they are an irrelevant, ineffectual Argentine colonial tool. Comprised of mostly Latam irrelevant, ineffectual tools.
Loved the way they all kept calling for speedy resolution of the Malvinas Question, getting more and more desperate for something we can never have, aren't we? Please make them hurry up, please, please!
Still if fantasising about a Falkland Islands Hanover turns you on, in the words of El Think, “Fill your boots,” or in your case, “cream your pants”. Seems to be more appropriate!
The handover of Hong Kong was negotiated by the governments of the UK and the PRC. There was no referendum. So we do not really know the opinion in HK. That was perhaps not very democratic.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0BUT there were/are very great differences between HK and FI.
1) 86 % of the area of Hong Kong consisted of the so called New Territories which were leased from China in 1898. The lease expired in 1997. Just to keep the Kowloon and Hong Kong Island would have been impossible.
Thre are no such commitments regarding FI.
2) Most of the inhabitants in HK are Chinese. It could therefore be natural for them to beruled by China.
Very few inhabitants of the FI are Argentines.
3) HK is situated very close to China proper. The New Territories are even on the mainland.
FI are situated about 500 km from Argentina.
4) The UK had really no choice. To risk a war with a Communist one-party state with a milliard inhabitants and equipped with nuclear waepons was no option. They made the best of the situation and HK retained autonony even if sovreignity was transferred to the PRC.
Argentina was/is not such a dangerous an opponent as China.
So I do not think we will see a “handover cermony” in this case.
When is the handover of Patagonia to the rightful owners?
Jun 21st, 2013 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0When is the reparation to them for your blatant 19th century colonialism?
When are you going to pay them for all the minerals you've stolen?
Then, after 50 years when ouve proven you are not just lying thieving hypocrites, well take the Falklands case to the ICJ.
Sounds ideal.
61 Marcos Alejandro
Jun 21st, 2013 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Is becoming harder and harder for the Brits to deny that Malvinas are a relic of English colonialism”.
Not harder and harder, we are just sick of repeating the same old line to a government / country who is too thick headed to understand or too stupid to listen.
I have yet to be convinced that this “C24 Decolonization Committee” has ever done any good. No one, either on this forum or outside of it has yet to come with ANY compelling evidence to say that it has been, and continues to be, a force for good.
What it does seem to be all about is “Job's for the boys” and a collection of commie pinko lefties who are trying to impose their idea of world order on everyone without taking anyones point of view or wishes into account........ That sounds familiar doesn't it?
From where we are right now, it would be no bad thing if this C24 Committee was dissolved, never to appear again.
It becomes harder and harder to argue that Patagonia is not a relic of Argentine colonialism. Hand it back to the non-implanted population.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then, and only then, will we enter negotiations into taking the Falklands case to the ICJ in 2063.
2 José Malvinero
Jun 21st, 2013 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0You and your foreign minister still think you will win through lying. The correct statement is “It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of ALL these islands. ...” Which is a rhetorical question which is answered by the attorney general. “ the symbols of property and possession which were left upon the islands sufficiently denote the intention of the British Government to retain those rights which they previously acquired.” Cherry picking the musings of various elements of UK internal documents is meaningless, as like all legal institutions they churn out tons of these both pro and con to aid policy makers. The essential point is that regardless of the UK's claim going back to 1765. What she did in 1833 was both perfectly legal under international law and appropriate given Argentine transgressions. Liars! wasn't it your government that trotted out the myth of the expelled population, until it became unsustainable.
@24 Think,
Jun 21st, 2013 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Poor deluded Argentine Squatter,
You sound desperate & frustrated my good man?
Whats the matter, can't we get our own way, afterall?
Diddums,
Do you want Mummy to comfort you?(pats his head).
Go and fix yourself a nice piping hot cup of strong, thick, creamy coffee.
lf l were there, l would make the coffee for you.
Poltroon.
@68 Terence
Jun 21st, 2013 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Wasn't it your government that trotted out the myth of the expelled population, until it became unsustainable.”
Please excuse my 'nitpicking' but I believe 'myth' in the above quotation is far to mild a description 'down right lie' would, I believe be more appropriate. There is after-all some excuse for believing in a myth but no excuse for a lie deliberately told.
24 Think
Jun 21st, 2013 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyhow........... Can you confirm or deny the presence of such English vessels in our South Atlantic waters?
I don't “Think” so....
Our South Atlantic Waters?? So Argentina has laid claim to the South Atlantic now as well??
Anyway, you know what? We choose NOT to confirm or deny the presence of such vessels in “The” South Atlantic.... It will be up to your navy to find that out for themselves, If they have ANY vessels that can get out of port without breaking down or sinking ( or being impounded ).
That's the thing about Submarines you see, they are called “The silent service” for a reason... Are theythere? are they not there? Kind of makes you “Think” twice about doing anything.... hasty, wouldn't you say? Point to note:- To “The silent service” the world is made up of two types of ships.... there are submarines, and then there are targets!!
I don't know about you Think-me-not, my dear enemy..... But I'm glad they are on our side!!
@58 @59
Jun 21st, 2013 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Same old denial and attempt to mislead by the English…….
You said…
“Cumberland’s red coats were protestant lowland Scots fighting against the Highlanders.”
Cumberland's Army........
The regiments present at the battle were: Cobham’s (10th) and Kerr’s (11th) dragoons, Kingston’s Light Dragoons, the Royals (1st), Howard’s Old Buffs (3rd), Barrel’s King’s Own (4th) Wolfe’s (8th), Pulteney’s (13th), Price’s (14th), Bligh’s (20th), Campbell’s Royal Scots Fusiliers (21st), Sempill’s (25th), Blakeney’s (27th), Cholmondeley’s (34th), Fleming’s (36th), Munro’s (37th), Ligonier’s (48th) and Battereau’s (62nd) Foot.
Out of these battalions these were the Scottish…….
The Royal Scots (St Clair's*) (2nd Battalion); The Scots Fusiliers, the Kings Own Scottish Borderers (Semphill's) and the Argyll Militia.
THAT IS FOUR REGIMENTS THE REST ARE ENGLIH!
@ 72
Jun 21st, 2013 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting as this is what is its relevance to the subject of this thread?
@73
Jun 21st, 2013 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you read post 52 you will see, if someone attempts to alter the facts I feel the need to refute and correct the myth @58 or should I let the ridiculous statement stand?
@72 A_Voice: “ @59
Jun 21st, 2013 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Same old denial and attempt to mislead by the English…….
You said…”
There were more Scots fighting against Charlie at Culloden than for him?
Embarrassing yourself Thinko
”
@75
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This was your post 56.........are you losing the plot?
”@54 A_Voice or Thinko or whatever: “Nothing I said there that wasn't true.......look it up”
You do realise that there were more Scots fighting against Charlie at Culloden than for him?
Embarrassing Thinko...and I was so impressed by your Viz reference.
Embarrassing yourself Screename.......
There were approximately 1600 hundred Scots fighting against Charlie and his 5000 troops.......four Battalions each comprising of about 405......fairly low strength.....Doh!
@76 A_Voice,
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And just to throw a spanner in the works, Think...er, l mean A_Voice, Bonnie Prince Charlie had his admirers & supporters in England, too.
No where near as many as the Hanovers had, but supporters never the less.
When his army reached Leicester, his supporters urged him to go on to London & were disappointed that he did not.
History is not always neat & tidy.
@2
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Poor Jose, you still don't get it. There are and always have been people in the UK who would be perfectly happy to hand the islands over to you, for whatever reason. The problem (for you) is that successive Arjuntine governments have done everything in their power to ensure that such a point of view can never prevail in the UK. CFK/Timerman stand firmly in this tradition. The interesting question is whether this perpetual Arjuntine failure is down to neurosis, ineptitude, or deliberate stratagem. It's really quite hard to tell. But one thing is clear - unless and until you manage to abandon your neurotic sense of thwarted entitlement, you will never get anything. Ironic, isn't it?
I would suggest that if you wish to know the facts about Culloden, read John Prebble's book of the same name.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was a civil war. By and large, the lowland Scots despised the Highlanders as uncivilized dangerous cattle thieves.
When Charles landed he was told to go back to France.
His silver tongue won over the main highland chiefs, against their better judgement, setting the disaster in motion.
However, a few of the chiefs sent one of their sons to fight with the Govt. so that their lands could be safeguarded no matter who won.
It was thought that Jacobite support would follow from English supporters on the way South to London and that a French Army would invade to help. Neither of this happened with the inevitable result.
Apart from the barbaric cruelty shown by govt troops,and the break-up of the Highland way of life, it was the best result for Scotland. It allowed the Scottish enlightenment to flourish and improve life for all - to a certain extent !
Charles came from a lineage who believed in the divine right of Kings and would have been an autocrat.
61Marcos
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Idiot, you know better.
The UK had leased HK from China for 99 years.
The Falklands are OWNED by the UK and the Islanders.
@79
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are pretty much correct in everything you said there......but you are biased being from Argyll......a staunch Govt supporter...Campbell.......Inveraray......Dunoon look at the street names.
But the Massacre of Culloden was very much, as I stated 4 regiments of Scottish including your “home county” against 7000 Charlie's troops.
Of Cumberland's 16 Regiments only 4 were Scots.
Isolde ......it was Derby not Leicester
@14 I tend to agree. Perhaps the next step is for the Falkland Islands and British governments to discuss the situation and then make a public statement that, in future, neither will recognise any “right” of the “Decolonisation” Committee to interfere or pontificate on the Islands' affairs. Moreover, neither will attend any future “hearings” as the Committee is obviously an argie sycophant.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@22 Yeah. Except that the people of French Polynesia “voted” for a government that favours association with France. If the majority of the people WANT association with France, who are the C24 and the UN to say they can't have it?
@24 Silly Stinky. Would you like to figure out how far from your shores we can deploy our nuclear submarines and still hit you? While you're at it, have you asked the United States where all its nuclear submarines are? And please note that the entire South Atlantic does NOT belong to you. And before you witter about the Treaty of Tlatelolco, you should research its geographical limitations. http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/P-Tlatelolco-i.htm
@39 Shall we take it slowly? British sovereignty established in 1765. Only challenged once. By Spain in 1770. Failed. Therefore the Convention of Settlement simply confirmed argie acceptance of the status quo. The Falklands wasn't mentioned. Therefore they weren't an “issue”! Simple really. And Scotland can go whistle.
@52 Been reading the argie version of history, have you? http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/P-Tlatelolco-i.htm See. The Scots BEGGED to join the Union. Because they were outclassed and finally admitted it.
@61 Yep. Far more significant than Slugentina. Don't blame us if you're too thick to understand.
@72 More attempted diversion by the spanish conquistadors.
@74 Then why don't you refute and correct the myths at 2, 4, 24, 40, 61?
@81 Why didn't you mention the French and English troops in the Jacobite army?
@82
Jun 21st, 2013 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“@39 Shall we take it slowly? British sovereignty established in 1765. ”
Shall we take it even slower………Sovereignty over which Island?
You should read more about the Darien Scheme and why the Scots were forced to do this………Navigation Acts limiting Scottish Shipping…….they were forced into the Union by English dependency.
“@74 Then why don't you refute and correct the myths at 2, 4, 24, 40, 61?”
These comments were not directed to me……….ergo……….
“@81 Why didn't you mention the French and English troops in the Jacobite army?”
How is that relevant to the statement……….
“Cumberland’s red coats were protestant lowland Scots fighting against the Highlanders.”
or
“You do realise that there were more Scots fighting against Charlie at Culloden than for him?”
The numbers were marginal and mainly Scots that were fighting for the French armies…….they were not…….French!.........look at the figures.......in British History
http://www.britishbattles.com/battle_of_culloden.htm
My word that was an unedifying spectacle yesterday and I for one would like nothing more than see the overseas territories kick these rancid shysters into touch and stop validating the C24's existence by attending. Mr Summers pointed out afterwards, that it is their only opportunity to speak at the U.N. but I can't help feeling there must be a better place to get your message across.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@83
Jun 21st, 2013 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As if 1833 wasn't bad enough, we're back to 1745 now?
Scottish history is irrelevant, C24 is irrelevant, Timerman is even more irrelevant. What matters is that once again RJuntina has egg on its face after another failed attempt at diplomacy. Ban Ki Moon is not impressed. Of more significance was HM's victory in the Ascot Gold Cup
Jun 21st, 2013 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#81
Jun 21st, 2013 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not quite so. Four generations ago my lineage was Lochaber, (my surname is from here), Carnoch in Glencoe, Ballachulish ,and Mull amongst others.
My uncle married a Campbell and was finally forgiven by the MacDonald side of the family.
Now back to the headed topic PLEASE !
One thing is pretty clear....a-hole is going to look very stupid when the Scottish (who apparently all hate the English and were forced into the union) vote next year to remain part of it.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Unionist movement (for what it's worth) does have small vociferous anti-English element, but the majority of them are voting as an anti-Tory stance, which for the reverse reasons is why so many English would also like to see a break up of the Union. both countries keep getting governments they didn't vote for!
All irrelevant, next year the Union will remain, hopefully with further devolution, and an acceptable answer to the west Lothian question to make both states more democratic.
Anyway, back to the C24, how long until its disbanded...none of the territories are “colonised” nor are the people's “subjugated”. Time to close it down...yesterday must have made BKM cringe. The very opposite of what the UN was created for...
@83 Oh, dear. The archipelago, dimwit. The whole lot.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You mean the Scots were so dimwitted that they “forgot” to determine all applicable legislation.
Hasn't stopped you before. Material too difficult?
You were so intent on showing “Scottish involvement”. But not so keen on “foreign” interference? Or do you think the French got involved for the sake of altruism.
Keep going, son. We'll admit any mistakes we really made, that were our fault, in 2,000 years. Are you ready to admit every argie crime in the last 200 years? Just remember that Britain must be allowed at least 10 times as many “mistakes” as argieland. After all, argieland should have known better. Didn't stop it engaging in larceny, mendacity, piracy, treachery though, did it? Practices that it continues to this day.
What would Argyland pussies do without Wikipedia.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@90 Be serious:
Jun 21st, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well Thinko took quite a while to sort out his A_Voice character once questioned on Scottish history.
chuckle chuckle
If he was going to pretend to be some sort of bitter Scottish nationalist that is trapped in history, you would have thought he would have his back story leaned off by heart.
If we are going to be amateurish about it, I could say I was from Chubut...
posting from Chubut
screenname
Chuckle Chuckle
@81 A_Voice,
Jun 21st, 2013 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, you are correct, it was Derby.
Don't know why l posted Leicester, my mistake.
@61
Jun 21st, 2013 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Says who?”
The people living on the BOTs
2 José malvinero
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent analysis of Joseph Malvinas. British officials themselves recognize Argentina over Malvinas sovereignty.
The c24 is totally very important and growing this prestige and honor. It is the committee which highlights racism, colonialism and imperialism of the 21st century English.
The normal thing in a decolonization process is to hand over to the locals. Not to hand over to a another country. Especially not to a country detested by the inhabitants. That this country maybe controlled the area for a decade or so, some two hundred years ago is not very relevant. And what on earth has “racism” to to with this question. There were no indigenous peoples in the FI. Just remember the fate of the Selknam people under Argentine rule. It is perhaps not the subject of this discussion, but just answer to your “racist” allegations.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Selknam genocide.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The last Selknam died in 1974 in Argentina.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selknam_people
The C24 is totally very important and growing this prestige and honour.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 07:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah sure!
Especially the Syrian member
Something very prestigious and honourable about killing your own people with Sarin.
In my opinion the C24 committee became irrelevant the second time it allowed a sovereignty debate to take place in its chambers.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The first time I can allow as they could have been caught 'wrong footed' and not realized what was coming. The second time it happened there was no excuse for allowing it to proceed. Debates on sovereignty are outside its mandate, even the chairman has said that.
In essence they have adopted a non binding resolution they are not empowered to adopt. Double indemnity for the Islanders then!
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 99
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0The C24 can adopt whatever resolutions it sees fit but they have no 'force' as General Assembly Resolutions do. In fact the C24 committee have to report to the Fourth Committee what they have done and what they propose which is where this resolution will go, and very likely die. Should it not die in the Fourth Committee it may be modified before being sent to the General Assembly for consideration where all members of the UN get to discuss it and vote on it. Should it be ratified by the General Assembly it is still not a binding Resolution.
The UN Charter is supposed to be binding on all members.
Security Council Resolutions are supposed to be binding on all members, Article 25 of the Charter refers.
Rulings of the ICJ are supposed to be binding on members who have agreed to submit their claims to said court. Please note that under certain circumstances the ICJ can be asked for an 'opinion' which is none binding.
Good morning all!!
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just another typical Saturday, I'll be off to work soon, offspring N01 is STILL upstairs sleeping in his pit. Offspring n02 is over at her Nanna's bossing her around ( no doubt ). The wife is in the bath having a nice relaxing soak and I shall be off to work in a short while.....
It's a typical summers day outside i.e :- It has just stopped raining and before I join the merry throng I thought I would check in and see what sort of chaos reigns on this thread.
All the non Argentine posters have gone down the route of trying to explain TO the Argrentine posters that Laughing Boy Timerman is wasting his breath. ( quite rightly so )
Sock puppet “A_Voice” is trying his best to de-rail the thread ( No change there then )
And all the La Campora posters are holding the C24 committee up to be a beacon of light for clear thinking and striaght talking.... ( really guys??? three little words... Must Try Harder )
Anyway, just before I go, I would invite you to think again again about what I said last time about this supposed Argentine claim to the Islands.
Remember what I said about “You only ever have one chance to make a first impression”??? Yeah?? do you?? 1982 was your chance to make that “First Impession” and you blew it.... Big Time.
So it doesn't matter what the C24 or the UN say about this matter, firstly because by the way they are talking, they haven't got a clue and secondly, they don't really care..... It is the Islanders themselves that MUST decide their own future, because it's no one else's right. And they know only to well what happened last time the Argentines got their sticky little mitts on them... so I would suggest that you haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of getting them a second time.
Just a thought. Could all the supposed “support” for Argentina be a way of keeping Argentina occupied and keeping their nose out of other S.A. countries business.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0If it was resolved, then maybe Argentina would start pushing for more “land” settlements from her neighbours. Could be more than a grain of truth in this !
Bonnie Prince Charlie was a true Scot despite being born in Italy to a Polish mother. There are local stories that link the Bonnie Prince to Leicester possibly to accentuate the impression, real or imagined that Leicester is bad luck for Royal personages.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0102 Clyde15
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0We all know that the Argentines wish to be Kings of all they survey. Re-claiming the Flakland Islands would start the ball rolling and then, who knows where it would stop........
I think that every other country in S.A is rather glad that the Islanders and the U.K are saying “No!!”
@ 102 Clyde15
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is, in my view, something definitely 'going on'. The current chairman of the C24 committee has said publicly that this situation is not the the concern of said committee:
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/?s=Why+now&submit=Search
and yet he not only let yesterdays farce go on but contributed to it.
As I have said before all Argentina needs to do, in my opinion, is inform the C24 committee that there is a sovereignty dispute over the Falklands and the C24 committee to note it.
The C24 should, in my opinion, then advise the Fourth Committee what the Islanders have done (referendum), give their opinion on whether or not that satisfies the requirements for deletion from 'the list' and should it not, what else needs to be done. Then either right at the start of their submission or right at the end note that a sovereignty dispute exists and that their reports takes no account of this dispute (it is outside their jurisdiction anyway) and their conclusions should not, in any way be taken as support for either party to the dispute.
Their job would be done, should the 'requirements' have been met, the Falklands would be 'off the list' and the Secretary General would likely be very pleased.
@92
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The c24 is totally very important and growing this prestige and honor. It is the committee which highlights racism, colonialism and imperialism of the 21st century English.”
It is an organisation that does exactly the opposite of what its UN remit requests.
It highlights racism, colonialism and imperialism of the 21st century Argentinians so you nearly had it right, just the wrong nation.
@105 Trouble is that they won't. The C24 is at the point now where most colonial situations have reached a steady state of mutual accomidation with their “administative powers.” Most of ones on the list are content where they are. They don't feel ready yet for independance but want to keep that door open and want to work with their “AP” to develop structures to promote this long-game, and they don't want to be colononized by local countries who lack the same abitiy to make that long-term plan work or as with Argentina wants to impose fascist colonialism on them so much that they proudly march out trophy emmigres who gladly served as informants from their brutal occupation and Dirty War that they take so mcuh pride in that they bring their Little Eichmans to testify against their once and future victims. Then they hold their OWN referendum and they don't get the answer the C24 has, they become a colonlial power themselves, The Great Blue Father, and tell them to do it again until they the result with which the C24 agrees.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The C24 is spinning their wheels and want to keep the gig up. Otherwise leaving these last names on the list will show them to be failures and never get to play this game again. And they'll stand on any necks, break any UN principle, tell any lie to keep the gig up.
@ 107 GFace
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite agree, it was just my opinion of what they (C24) should do,not, particularly after yesterday, what I expect them to do.
@108, I expect them to continue to be a tool for Argentine and Spanish colonialist ambitions, myself vis Gibraltar and the Falklands. The chair can speak out of as many mouths as he wants depending on who is in the room, but he's ideologically bought and payed for by LatAm fascism, dictocracy and resentment of anything “Norte.” That is until C24 is disbanded and “reimagined” as they did with the “Human 'Rights'” committee. And then like the “Human 'Rights'” committee I will expect it to keep doing more of the same. I have no faith in the UN.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Faith in the UN.
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tell that to the Bosnians, Rwandans, Kosovas etc, etc, etc, etc.
Thank you fate for never placing me in a situation to depend on those Cunts.
Should it ever happen, fate please i beg you, give me warning.
So I can cut my fucking wrists!!!!!!!
109 GFace & 110 reality check
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Such faith in the UN!!! Can't say I blame you though, The track record of the UN hasn't been exactly “glowing” now has it?
as for me, I trust them about as far as I could spit them.
@ 109,110, & 111
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have to largely agree with the three of you but they have no real 'bite'.
A member ignores a Security Council Resolution what can they do? Very little in my opinion, take the case under consideration, what did they do, or even try to do with Argentina for violating SC Resolution 502?
A toothless tiger seem an apt description?
The UN Visitors Centre has just confirmed that ALL PEOPLE are entitled to self-determination.
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://tinyurl.com/15hbt2b
I think the whole of the C24 secretly knows that, but only Sierra Leone and Papua New Guinea are prepared to admit it.
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 114 trenchtoast
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Various RG trolls and other supporters, some even on this site, are still trying to deny it in spite of GA Resolution 67/134 (which you alerted me to, thanks).
Timberhead's comments at the C24 still trying to justify denying the islanders' self-determination are bordering on the imbecilic but most members of that (C24) committee do not seem to have any idea what they are supposed to be doing.
What do you think?
@115
Jun 24th, 2013 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that most of the C24 are not even following the UN 'instruction/aims on decolonisation actually goes against Argentina's sycophants.
It actually supports the situation where the islanders want to remain British rather than choosing independence (as the C24 is supposed to enable) precisely because the C24 is not doing its job.
The UK can point to the conditions of decolonisation as formulated by the UN and say that they are actually decolonising the Falkland Islands in accordance with the UN ideals while pointing out that the Argentines are supporting colonialism.
It is because the C24 are not carrying out their mandate that means that the Falklands cannot risk being independent, and gives the UK the perfect excuse to reject the C24 s resolutions and refuse to discuss the Falklands with Argentina.
Any sensible person with a neutral point of view must be amazed that the Argentines don't get a foot in the door by speaking to the islanders over the UK's heads or once the UK say that Islanders are present at talks, if I were an Argentine I would be there like a shot to discuss the Falklands.
But rather than be sensible and jam their foot in the door, the Argentines seem to prefer shooting it instead, or locking the door, and loosing the key so they can't get in the room.
What boneheads!
@ 116 Pete Bog
Jun 24th, 2013 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Totally agree with you.
The failure of the C24 this time to comply with its obligations generally and paragraph 7, which was aimed directly at it, of GA Resolution 67/134 in particular, makes me wonder if the Fourth Committee will recommend that the GA take any action with the C24 for this failure.
Thoughts?
How can it be 'insulting' to call the relationship colonial when the islanders themselves voted to remain a British colony?
Jun 24th, 2013 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 118 dash1729
Jun 24th, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try, because:
a. They are no longer a colony
b. They did not vote to remain a colony, how could they, they are no longer a colony.
Get yourself up to date on the actual situation.
@119
Jun 24th, 2013 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When exactly did they cease to be a colony? What year, precisely? And what additional independent rights did they gain that year that meant they'd broke from their colonial past?
Seems to me that “British Overseas Territory” is just a modern euphemism for a colony--but nothing has changed. If the relationship between the Malvinas and the UK isn't colonial--I don't know what is.
It is quite fitting that “British Overseas Territory” is shortened to BOT and a “bot” is computer geek-speak for a robot that takes its orders from others. This, fittingly, describes the colonial relationship perfectly.
120dash1729
Jun 24th, 2013 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Seems to me that “British Overseas Territory” is just a modern euphemism for a colony--but nothing has changed. If the relationship between the Malvinas and the UK isn't colonial--I don't know what is.”
It seems to me - you don't know what it is.
1) Significantly, the Islands are Self-Governing and control and benefit from, their own resources.
2) The FI have Self-Determination.
They are free to become fully Independent whenever they wish to, or not.
Does this fit with your definition of “Colony”?
@120 dash1729,
Jun 24th, 2013 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously you don't live here.
We do & its the type of government that WE want.
Getting very vexed with people coming on here & deciding what sort of Government we should have when its none of their Goddamned business.
lf we want to be a colony, a kingdom or a republic, whats it got to do with you or anyone else?
And its certainly nothing to do with Argentina.
@121
Jun 24th, 2013 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No they're NOT self governing. There's no separate office of Queen of the Falklands (Malvinas) in quite the same way that the offices of Queen of Canada or Australia are different from the Queen of the UK--even though occupied by the same person.
Yes they are free to declare independence anytime they choose. If and when they do so, the correct forum for this dispute will become the ICJ and Argentina will need to pursue her claims there. Until that happens the decolonization committee is the correct forum and Argentina is correct to pursue her claims there.
@123
Jun 24th, 2013 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The correct forum this dispute is already the ICJ and Arjuntina already needs to pursue its claim there.
But Arjuntina chooses instead to pursue its case in a forum which has no power of its own and which is far from having the numbers necessary to carry the General Assembly. Its only advantage is that it does provide a suitable platform for grandstanding with a stooge presiding and a (largely) tame audience of rogue states, dictatorships, and fellow implanted Italo-Iberian populations of S. America cheering the would-be colonialists on.
A rather useless body for anybody seriously seeking to resolve a “dispute”, but probably a good one for keeping an artificial grievance alive in the minds of those dumb enough to fall for it.
@ 124 HansNiesund
Jun 25th, 2013 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well put Hans.
I have just watched a replay of Timberheads speech to the C24. The guy really is 'out of touch' still claiming that the 'population of the Falklands were expelled in 1833 when his own Government website admits it was only the Argentine authorities. He also read out the Duke of Wellington's letter but missed out the 'all', he did acknowledge who it was addressed to but did not enlighten the committee with the response. The real clincher that he is 'off the wall' was when he claimed that the UK was contravening 40 UN Resolutions some of which were C24 'resolutions', the guy does not seem to know how the UN is supposed to work, and BKM stated at the end of last year that the UK was, in his opinion, not in contravention of any RELEVANT UN Resolution. Believable for a RG I suppose, but what a nutter!
Dash
Jun 25th, 2013 - 06:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are Entirely self governing, on the basis that they are governed EXACTLY how they themSELVES wish.
You may not like it..tough shit.
I don't like how Argentina, Venezuala, North Korea or Iran are governed but as long as they do it behind their own borders and dont start massacring their own people..it's really got nowt to do with me.
You have NO SAY how the Falklands should be governed, and this weeks episode in the C24 shows that they shouldn't either.
@125
Jun 25th, 2013 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently to better reflect how he spends his time, they're going to change Hector's official title to from “Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto” to “Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto de Victimismo”
125 Biguggy
Jun 25th, 2013 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can watch Laughing boy Timerman doing his stand up routine?
Can you please, please post the link or tell me where I can find it?
I am in need of a good ol' laff and this just sounds like something that I need to watch.
@ 128 toooldtodieyoung
Jun 25th, 2013 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here it is:
http://webtv.un.org/search/8th-meeting-resumed-session-of-the-special-committee-on-the-situation-with-regard-to-the-implementationof-the-declaration-on-the-granting-of-independence-to-colonialcountries-and-peoples/2498511759001?term=Falklands&sort=date
Just for the fun of it try to count how many outright lies there are in it, never mind the attempted distortions of the truth!
@129
Jun 25th, 2013 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks-most entertaining-I lost count of the lies.
Glad Mike fired some fs into the C24 even though they will be ignored
#130
Jun 25th, 2013 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the mutual masturbation society has pronounced, with one exception. What a crowed of wankers.!
@126
Jun 25th, 2013 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No one is even talking about how the Malvinas should be governed. We haven't gotten to that yet. All that was before the C24 was the issue of whether the islanders are a full-fledged people entitled to self-determination--or simply a colony subject to negotiation between Argentina and the UK. The C24 concluded that it was a colony. That's ALL they decided. They didn't make any decisions as to how the islanders should be governed nor did they endorse either country (Argentina/UK) claim.
@132
Jun 25th, 2013 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try reading the actual resolution. The C24 concluded no such thing, in particular it makes no pronouncement on “whether the islanders are a full-fledged people entitled to self-determination”, it simply calls for a negotiated settlement. As it always has. It no more advances Arjuntina's case than Arjuntina's systematic refusal to go to the ICJ does.
You really need to learn to distinguish between speeches, which are simply histrionic posturing for the benefit of the domestic audience and the group, and the actual resolutions themselves, which are the most that the assembled cronies dare to put in front of the General Assembly. And that is latgely just stuff about peaceful settlement, etc, etc, etc, that nobody could possible object to, except of course Arjuntina in 1982.
132 dang1329
Jun 25th, 2013 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the Falklands are an Independent Country, then they may do as they please and enlist the aid and friendship of whomever they like.
If they are acknowledged as a Colony of the UK by the C24, then the only parties that have any say are The Falkland Islanders, the UK as the Administering Power, and possibly the C24 who should be investigating whether the Islanders are satisfied with their freedom and Self-Determination.
I don't see where Argentina fits in.
It is not one of those three bodies, it has no existence, official or otherwise, in determining the status or administration of the Islands, and it's interference is clearly seen, and stated, by the Islanders as contrary to their Interestswishes, and well-being.
Argentina has no business here.
If the Falklands are a Colony, then they are NOT part of Argentina.
Right??
@134
Jun 25th, 2013 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice one Troy, and therefore to hand them over to Argentina cannot in any sense of the word be interpreted as de-colonisation but RE-colonisation by another colonising power. De-colonisation in the UN ideal, would result in Independence-but as other UN resolutions have shown, independence is not the only option for 'colonies'
@134
Jun 25th, 2013 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If they are found to be a colony, then that relationship is non sustainable according to the UN--C24. It's true that that doesn't immediately prove that the islands are a part of Argentina, but it proves that the status quo is non sustainable and will force negotiations for an alternative. Argentina is offering an alternative which is legal under international law and that's where Argentina comes into play here.
@135
No because the islands are already an integral part of Argentinean territory. It is not a colonial relationship.
136 dash1729
Jun 26th, 2013 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ It is not a colonial relationship.”
Really, then why does Argentina keep bringing it up at the C24 committee, indeed why is it still on the C24's 'list'?
@137
Jun 26th, 2013 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has no colonial ambitions. It is the UK that can't seem to outgrow its colonial past.
@136 dang1982
Jun 26th, 2013 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If they are found to be a colony, then that relationship is non sustainable according to the UN--C24. It's true that that doesn't immediately prove that the islands are a part of Argentina, but it proves that the status quo is non sustainable and will force negotiations for an alternative. ”
“No because the islands are already an integral part of Argentinean territory. It is not a colonial relationship.”
LOL ! Which one?
The Falkland Islsnds are NOT an 'integral' part of Argentina and never have been - ever.
@132 dash1729
“. The C24 concluded that it was a colony”
You are telling us @132 that the Fslklands have been declared a “Colony” by the UN.
So, why did you say they were an “Integral part of Argentina”?
What is your definition of “an Integral part of Argentina”?
What defines the Fslklands as a “Colony” of the UK?
One has to ask, “ how can they be a 'Colony' of the UK, and yet an 'Integrsl part of Argentina'?”
The next question, “If it is not a colony, why is the C24 involved at all?”
And yet, the C24 seems to feel that as a colony, they need to deal with the UK as the “Administering Power”, right?
They wouldn't do that if they thought the Idlands were an Argentine colony, now would they?
Of course, who can really determine or define what the true relationship is between The UK and the Falklanders, but the Britidh and the Islsnders, themselves?
If their relationship does not conform to what you define as a “Colony” or “Independent”, how does that affect you, and what business is it of yours??
If the Falklanders are happy with their situation, the Status Quo, and the Referendum tells us they are, why is it “not sustainable”?
You contradict yourself, repeatedly.
That raises many questions.
The apparent answer is always, “ it's none of Argentina's business, regardless!”
lts never been Argentina's business.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 07:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0But its fun to listen to them whine!
Reviewing the C24’s little ‘resolution’ the following ‘quote’ caught my eye:
Jun 26th, 2013 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Reaffirming the need for the parties to take due account of the interests of the population of the islands in accordance with the provisions of the General Assembly resolutions on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),”
Note that it only refers to GA Resolutions not its own little ‘resolutions’. Timberhead, Chrissy and other RG supporters please note this when you claim that the UK is in violation of 40 UN Resolutions.
I believe the twit from Bolivia who is reported, after the meeting, to have called for penalties for non-compliance with C24 resolutions should also take note.
Further said C24 ‘resolution’ also states:
“Regrets that, in spite of the widespread international support for a
negotiation between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom that includes all aspects of the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the implementation of the General Assembly resolutions on this question has not yet started;”
Now please correct me should I be in error but I believe the last GA Resolution that called for negotiations between the UK and Argentina was issued in 1988, after which the UK and Argentina did start talking. No GA Resolution has been issued on that subject since then, perhaps a wee case of ooops to have used ‘started’.
Those negotiations ceased after Nestor came to power, walked away from the negotiations and the Government of Argentina has since torn up the agreements that had been reached up to that time. Perhaps that is why, at the end of last year Ban Ki-moon stated that in his opinion no member of the Security Council (which includes the UK) was in breech of any RELEVANT UN Resolution Should Mr Ban Ki-moon be correct then the GA Resolutions calling for negotiations between the UK and the RG’s are no longer relevant or if they are still relevant then the UK is complying with them.
@138
Jun 26th, 2013 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain outgrew its colonial past about 60 years ago. The only bits of the former empire that are left are those where the inhabitants have chosen to remain with us. If colonialism consists in seizing territory without legal title and against the wishes of the inhabitants, then it is perfectly obvious that it is Arjuntina which has colonial ambitions here.
129 Biguggy
Jun 26th, 2013 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for the link.
Timerman is a t**t.
It was a great speech by the FIG. Timerman had NOTHING. NOTHING to answer them. you were right about the lies. Lies, lies and more lies
138 dash1729 (#)
“Argentina has no colonial ambitions” You don't really believe that now do you??? Nobody else does
@ 143 toooldtodieyoung
Jun 26th, 2013 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are welcome.
Timberhead's speech was not all lies, there were some 'half-truths' in there.
A couple of examples, his quote of the letter from the Duke of Wellington, was inaccurate. Now the did acknowledge who the letter was sent to, but he did not state what position that person held, nor did he quote the response. Fuller details can be found here under 1829:
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1823-1832/
The second 'half truth' is the convoluted reasoning that the Islanders do not have the right to self-determination because a proposed amendment to a Resolution was voted down. A load of codswallop as far as I am concerned but should it be taken as fact then by the same reasoning an attempt by Spain and Argentina in 2008 to deny the Islanders the right was also voted down therefore, according to the RG's reasoning the right to self-determination of the Islanders was confirmed. Fuller details are here:
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1823-1832/
Dash 1729
Jun 26th, 2013 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where are you?
Any answers to my questions @139 ???
@139
Jun 27th, 2013 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islands are an integral part of Argentinean territory on which the UK is in the process of attempting to establish an illegal colony. I say “attempting” because 3000 people in 180 years isn't a particularly impressive population.
They are an integral part of Argentina because the islanders have the right to vote for elected politicians in Argentina such as to the Congress, the President, etc. The fact that the islanders and the UK are blocking such legitimate elections from taking place is not Argentina's fault. That differs from the colonial situation where the islanders are ruled from London but have no right to elect politicians there. So the situation is both colonial and illegal.
It's not sustainable because eventually the C24 will bring enough pressure to change the situation. If the C24 lacked such power there would be no need for the islanders to waste their time turning up every year. But the islanders DO turn up every year and submit to the jurisdiction of the C24 showing that eventually the C24 will prevail if the islanders can't persuade them.
@146
Jun 27th, 2013 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A few rather curious misunderstandings there :
- the islands have never been an integral part of Argentinian territory.
- you can impose a 'right' on people who don't want it, and then claim it's not your fault if they don't exercise it? This has to be one of the most bizarre Malvinista arguments yet.
- if the situation is colonial, then by definition it is none of Argentina's business.
- the C24 has no jurisdiction. Only the ICJ has jurisdiction, if both parties agree. Thatcher said back in 1983 that the UK would respond positively if Argentina made an approach. Why don't you give it a try?
- the C24 only has the power of proposing draft resolutions. Its most recent resolution made no attempt to advance the Argentine case, other than to repeat a call for 'dialogue' and 'peaceful resolution', which nobody could possibly object to (except Argentina of course, which rejected peaceful settlement in 1982 and refuses to attend negotiations unless the people most directly concerned are excluded). Why don't you ttry, for example, to get a resolution that specifically states that the islanders have no right to self-determination, if that's what you believe? It's near;y 5 years now since your last attempt failed after all. Surely it can't be that you are sacred of the UN as you are of the ICJ?
- the islanders turn up every year, not to submit the jurisdiction of the C24, which has none, but to counter the lies of Argentine with some awkward truths.
- the C24 will never prevail, because there are not enough nutters, dictatorships, and implanted ital0-iberian populations to carry the General Assembly, far less the Security Council.
@146 dash1729,
Jun 28th, 2013 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a complete load of unmitigated garbage.
You don't seriously, really believe the foolish lies that you've spouted, do you?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
As Hans says in post # 147, these lslands have NEVER belonged to Argentina & do not belong to them, now.
One thing that you should get through your thick head,
There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on OUR Sovereignty.
@146dang1729
Jun 28th, 2013 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The islands are an integral part of Argentinean territory on which the UK is in the process of attempting to establish an illegal colony. I say “attempting” because 3000 people in 180 years isn't a particularly impressive population.”
“Attempting to establish a ... colony” ???
The British have administered a permanent settlement there (with no Argentine presence) for over 180 years - you're a little late !
Argentina is attempting to establish a colony, ruled by BA , on the islands, TODAY.
That is against all C24 directives - they wish to “de-colonise” those islands
@149
Jun 28th, 2013 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British-Falklands relationship is a colonial one because so-called “Falkland” islanders do NOT have the right to vote in UK elections. They are ruled from London with no say in their own affairs.
Essentially self determination doesn't apply here, in part because the islanders just voted away their right to self determination.
The Argentina-Malvinas relationship (if it were allowed to properly play out) is one of full democracy for the Malvinas islanders--but within the Argentine republic.
@150
Jun 29th, 2013 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have seen often enough that Malvinitstas have difficulties with basic concepts, but this is truly exceptional. Please note that :
- self-determination is the right to vote for whatever you like.
- forcible assimilation into Argentina is not the democratic solution.
150 dash1729
Jun 29th, 2013 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0In addition to what Hans has said in 151 above I was under the impression that Argentina did not recognize the referendum so how can they now claim that the Islanders voted away their right to self-determination in a referendum they do not recognize?
@152 Biguggy,
Jun 29th, 2013 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0l doubt that señor dash will answer you.
Malvinistas don't do awkward questions/answers that upset their weird view of the Falklands.
@150 dash 1729,
Of course we don't vote in UK elections & UK voters do not vote in ours.
Really, dash. Are you that thick?
We are not ruled from London, as you mistakenly state, but even if we were, we would prefer that to mis-rule from BsAs.
Self-determination ALWAYS applies, much as you would wish otherwise.
Lastly, & l'm really sorry to dis-illusion you, we will NEVER be a part of the so-called Argentine Republic.
Would ANY sane person want to be?
@ 153 lsolde
Jun 29th, 2013 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0I too have doubts I will receive an answer, much less a sensible one.
As for the self-determination 'thing' it might help to mention every time an RG brings it up that Mr Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the UN appears to be in no doubt you (the Islanders) have it:
http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says#.Uc6wNPmsiSp
If 'full freedom of choice' is not self-determination by another name I do not know what is!
@152
Jun 29th, 2013 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is actually quite a sensible answer. You are actually right about one thing: it IS true that Argentina does not, and never did, recognize the referendum. Think of it in terms of CFK's analogy: the referendum was like a bunch of illegal squatters voting on whether they are going to continue squatting. The referendum is illegal but once they vote to continue squatting it provides further, and very strong, evidence that something illegal is going on.
Argentina prefers to negotiate a fair lease (through the C24) rather than simply initiating eviction proceedings (through the ICJ). But make no mistake that the illegal activity of the referendum strengthens Argentina's hand if it ever comes to evicting the squatters.
@151
A group of illegal squatters can't simply vote out the landlord through an act of “self determination”. Even someone legitimately living there couldn't do that--much less a squatter.
@153
Yes, many sane people would prefer an elected head of state to a system where you just pick the first baby that happens to pop out of a particular womb.
@ 155 dash1729
Jun 29th, 2013 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you aware that it has been reported that the Secretary General of the United Nations holds the view that the Islanders must have complete freedom to decide their status?
It seems that they recently exercised that 'freedom'.
@156
Jun 29th, 2013 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I just followed the link from above. The quote I got was:
“Our common challenge remains the full implementation of the Declaration,”
In other words, the current situation is NOT sustainable according to the Secretary General--because the Secretary General is expecting the islanders to move in the direction of complete independence. Of course if they ever did declare complete independence, then Argentina would need to exercise its claim. But we'll deal with that situation if/when we get to it. Right now the important thing is that the Secretary General is clearly NOT supporting the referendum's result (even had the referendum been legal).
@ 157 dash1729
Jun 29th, 2013 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“full implementation of the Declaration”
Independence is not the only option there are three others don't forget.
@150
Jun 29th, 2013 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ They are ruled from London with no say in their own affairs.”
That would explain the democratic elections that FIG have to elect their politicians?
If they had no say, they would not be allowed to have elections, or a Legislative Council.
@ 150
Jun 29th, 2013 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually they do have quite a 'say' in their own affairs, just read their Constitution, available here:
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/The-Falkland-Islands-Constitution-Order-2008.pdf
Now I quite agree that they do not have 'full say' at the moment, that would be full independence. They have however complied with the requirement:
'the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people' as laid down UN Resolution 2625 for compliance with UN Resolution 1514.
l think that we can quite safely ignore this “dash” person.
Jun 29th, 2013 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just another button-pushing troll trying to muddy the waters.
He has no valid points & shows an abysmal lack of knowledge about us & how our system of government works.
However his English composition & grammar is a lot better than some of the rabid dogs that we get on here, but still...........a troll.
Isolde
Jun 29th, 2013 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“However his English composition & grammar is a lot better than some of the rabid dogs that we get on here, but still...........a troll”
He angrily spouts the mainstream Campora propaganda only, and cannot argue when confronted with contrary information.
Too bad, for him.
A waste of time, for us.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!