MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
![“It is not that [Gallo's] mission has been aborted. We have given him a hard blow thanks to the State security agencies,” Cabello underlined](/data/cache/noticias/102697/130x80/diosdado.jpg)
Falklands Islands, CELAC and the right to self-determination
By Tim Cole - This week the CELAC Summit will be held in Havana and the Cuban government will be in charge of finalizing the language in the Summit declarations. Inevitably there will be one on the Falkland Islands and I suspect it will ignore the referendum held on the Islands last year when 99.8% voted in favor of the Islands remaining an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesInteresting to see which Commonwealth countries will vote for any resolution over the Falklands.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our man in Havana; nicely put, and thank you.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@1
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree, it's an untenable position of a fellow Commonwealth nation to state that the Falklands have no right to self-determination and we should be questioning their membership of the Commonwealth if that is what they believe.
Kirchner has been buttering up Castro for days now, so I expect that they will get what they went there for.
Still, when they make these stupid and pointless declarations, it justifies our continued militarisation of the South Atlantic.
“British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands dates back to 1765”
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JAJAJAJAJAJAJA
@4
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And we still have sovereignty, what's your point?
Jajajaja.... ?
The Commonwealth supposedly holds various core beliefs in common. Democracy, human rights, international peace and security, tolerance, respect and understanding, freedom of expression, separation of powers, rule of law, good governance, sustainable development, protecting the environment, access to health, education, food and shelter, gender equality, importance of young people in the Commonwealth, recognition of the needs of the small states, recognition of the needs of the vulnerable states, and lastly, the role of civil society.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Therefore, any “member” of the Commonwealth that supports an imperialist, colonialist resolution by CELAC should be expelled. And subsequently considered to be enemies. Our intentions should be made quite plain. And Her Majesty should decline to have anything to do with such states. The Commonwealth doesn't need traitors!
its not just cuba you dumb f****, its the whole of the americas but canada; and africa and some countries in asia. if the brits weren't that useful to the US them too would support argentina's claim as has been suggested time and again.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the rest we heard it all before: oh the poor defenseless families being bullied by their powerful neighbours... tell that to the families of chagos before spewing all your humanitarian nonsense to the world.
and stop excusing british interest and militarisation on 1500 farmers and fishermen you know little about - the american nations support the argentinian claim because there is no more room for british colonies in the americas today. the uk and its hypocrisy and arrogance ought to disband their military facilities in the south atlantic, and quit putting together policies in that region. argentina does not declare the north sea a “sanctuary” or what have you.
if they truly cherish self determination let them hold a referendum like scotland will - which london is not one bit happy about. i'd like to see you supporting that dumb ***; and if they can't its because they are - like everyone knows - dependent on the uk, and as such, a colony tied to the ambitions of london in the area.
A large number of the islands in the west indies and carribean were at one time or another administered by the French or the Spanish, until Britain beat them in various wars and took the islands into the empire. As the inhabitants of those islands were brought from either Europe or Africa, does this mean that Argentina et all deny their right to exist, too, and if so will they claim the islands were usurped bla bla bla as well and claim them back?
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well go to the ICJ or fight us for them? Oh and I think you may have over inflated the worlds position on the Falklands, the worlds position on Argentina is that it is a lawless and rogue state.
#4 Adding a lot to the discussion there. However, I've come to expect nothing better from a bunch of thieving nationalists.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if them oil companies spill oil in the south atlantic like BP did in the gulf of mexico, the illigal malvinas government will not be held accountible - the uk will. and then we will see how much they care about what goes on 20000 km from their shores.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 011: uhm, no, the companies will be held accountable, not any countries. It was nothing to do with the UK, it was to do with BP. And stop mentioning chagos, you know it isn't relevant whatsoever and it gets BORING.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11
Jan 27th, 2014 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, it's British sovereign territory, we are operating off our own shores and if it's our mess we will clean it up.
13
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the thing, britworker, is that oil is very difficult to clean
Hence shampoo has no effect on South American footballers.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cuba, North Korea, Venezuala, Argentina... All failed states..... Nuf sed!
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes and it drifts, are you having the same concerns about Brazilian offshore oil activity or are your concerns just concentrated on the Falkland Island?
We all know that based on the bullcrap recently from “elias” on which you naughty brits are not allowed to comment (but as a non-brit, I CAN): In order to apply for self-determination you have to effectively exterminate the first nation population by invasion, brute force colonialism and genocide (and it helps to have your presiding witchdoctor say that your imaginary friend that always rationalizes the nasty things you do if you say you do it in his name says it's ok and it also helps to send the witch doctor some torn from the homes and bodies of the first nation folk too).
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From what I can tell from their “brilliant” arguments and “careful and comprehensive” research, that is why ex Spanish colonies like Cuba and Argentina have their own self-determination: through a proud, effective, successful, and to this day, remorseless and self-forgiving, campaigns of genocidal spanish colonialism and ethnic cleansing. While the falklands only have almost a century of peace, no genocide on the island and a couple UN resolutions and votes that say they have the right. If only the Falklanders had mass graves of dead indigenous people (or dead illegal spanish garrisons) to dance on like Troneus, Elias, Axel and the rest do with a clean conscience, then they'd have the same rights as the fascists cheering on the Junta did in 1982.
That IS after all the only way in which the Islands are “different” than south america aside from winning the same 6-year-old 1700-1800 futball/swarmball game in which ALL europeans and their heirs gladly participated and always accepted when they won (and sometimes when they lost). And that's why they know they have no chance in hell at the ICJ and the rest of the adult world in 2014.
Troneas - ICJ. How many times do you lot need telling? Stop stamping your feet, burning tyres, polluting the air, crying, begging, lying, pretending, dreaming up non jobs and statements - go write to / tell the powers that be to take it to the ICJ.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I mean, if you guys are prepared to go to the ICJ over a pulp mill.. why ever not over such an important, national cause such as the Falklands? It's really quite bizarre.
I also find it amusing how it's you guys always out on the street burning flags, tyres, anything you can lay your mitts on really. Intimidate & attack holidaying visitors to your shores. Go around town painting pictures of the Falklands on your run down buildings. Sneaking on to Islands which do not belong to you so you can kiss the ground and 'train' for London 2012 - which let's be honest made not one bit of difference because you did shit.. You're the ones trying to colonise land but yet we're the nationalists.. You are a funny one.
FYI - Politicians support Argentina's call for dialogue which is completely different to supporting Argentina's claim over the Falklands. But again, everybody else is the dumb f***. How amusing!
GFace,
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Josef Stalin didn't have an “imaginary friend” or “witch doctor”.
He slaughtered millions all by his atheist self.
But that's ok because you “freethinkers” can invent whatever rules you like as you go along, right?
Uhm, Bongo, they were his own people. Murdering other people to steal their land is still a crime, but a completely different subject. I also believe his point was that the conquistadors used the blessing of the pope as an excuse for their crimes, and papal bulls are still mentioned in arguments on these pages by malvinistas so that's reason enough to think that some morons still believe the bulls were a reasonable thing to proclaim. Also, Stalin murdered and was atheist, not BECAUSE he was atheist.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20 Oh pulzeeze.. Actually he did. It was called “The People,” some mysterious capital P thing that lowercase p people were fed to when they disagreed with his high priests. There were also this apparently intangible funny thing called “The Workers” who also had an uppercase vs lower case thing going with them if you see how well the workers here on earth fared.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But in the long run I don't care if it's Stalin, various Popes with backdoor deals between two vassal states to shut out the protestants (who indeed, got plenty of booty from the new world, do try to deny THAT), the Archbishop of Canterbury or L Ron Hubbard (I;m sure if he was there back then he'd be sending his SeaOrg to put the natives in his Rehabilitation Project Force and auditing those nasty free will “Thetans” out of them or just doing what the rest for the Europeans and freeing them by killing them outright. Citing “God” (you know, the one that agrees with you and is always on your side, not the one that agrees with the other guy, or nice but occasionally cranky grandfatherly fellow that just might want people too just be nice to each other) or “The People” (capital P people, of course not the lowly bourgeois or counter-revolutionary lowercase-p people) or “Der [Aryan] Volk” (same deal) to clear the way for your team just isn't a legally justifiable claim. Try any of them at the ICJ. Please do. It will be funny. None of them play in 2014.
Oh but DO keep trying to deflect from the sheer hypocrisy of self-determination through winning by genocidal conquest of a frigging continent means you have rights while denying that coming up on top between two evenly matched european powers and running things peaceably and amicably for almost 200 years gives the people living there the same rights as the heirs of a continental-scale mass grave...
“
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Josef Stalin didn't have an “imaginary friend” or “witch doctor”.
He slaughtered millions all by his atheist self.”
Stalin's imaginary friend was Historical Inevitability, Bongo. He also had a lot of help from other people in his slaughter. Vile and murderous he was, superhuman he was not.
Tim Cole points out that “Several Island families are now proud to trace back eight or nine generations on the Islands. That’s more than many Cubans in Cuba!” He politely doesn't point out it's also more than most Argentinians in Argentina.
ICJ Argentina, what are you waiting for?
Jan 27th, 2014 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://es.mercopress.com/2014/01/27/fallo-salomonico-de-corte-de-justicia-en-litigio-fronterizo-pero-peru-mas-satisfecho-que-chile
@ 24 a civilised way of settling disputes Condorito.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What do the Bolivians think of the judgement?
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE MISSING MR COLE.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have always thought that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations. In my opinion, i think that th u. k. had right to occupy the islands because of a secret article included in the nootka sound convention in 1790. Discovery and papal bulls don't have much relevancy for public international right, respecting discovery, it just gives a precarious title which must be improved with a permanent occupation, but the u. k. just occcupied por egmont since 1766 untill 1774, and since it left and untill 1833 there were sporadic settlements of british and american sailors which aren't relevant either for public international right, due to they weren't permanent, and because they weren't made in the name of the state, as it is exacted by law.
In the case of the u. p. (actual arg.), it's rights were derived from the sucession of states, due to spain had submited the soledad island to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, were it had exercised a permanent occupatiopn for 45 years.
Th u. k. should have negotiated a peaceful solution with the u. p. , or maye share the administration of the islands, instead of using it's superiority in order to force our authorities to leave the archipelago.
On the other hand, while it is true that our claim had long interruptions, it's also true that arg. wasn't in conditions for claiming britain for our rights, due to our country had a huge economic dependece with the u. k. since XIX century.
In relation to the offers of arbitration, arg. suggested taking the case to an arbitration, in 1884 and 1888 but the u. k. rejected it, and in 1948, britain manifested it would discuss the cases of the dependencies from the islands.
Respecting self determination, it's necesary to say that this cause has always been considered like a special case by the d. c. from the u. n., in fact, it has never applied that principle for this case, as it did for other colonial situations, not even after the referendum.
@25 Yes, the civilized way. Not always the sure fire way. It's always easier to be the nasty angry neighbor complaining about a “misplaced” fence to everyone else on the block who needs to at least “yes yes whatever you say” with him otherwise he'll “accidentally” side-swipe parked cars, send his dog to poop on the lawn, spread nasty rumors, not shovel snow from his sidewalk (which he won't do anyway but darn it, it's because of that fence!), play with the garage door controller or other remote device on the non-agreeing neighbors stuff, and other passive aggressive crap rather than just own up, take it to court or let it go. But it DOES give him purpose and validation on the block since everyone knows him now and what happens when you cross or don't wave to him...
Jan 27th, 2014 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@26. only britain and the islanders think self-determination applies to their case. if it were as obvious as they think it is, they wouldn't need go parading around with their propaganda and holding silly referendums no one but themselves and london take seriously
Jan 27th, 2014 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@25 redpoll
Jan 27th, 2014 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I imagine the Bolivians will be thinking it is not as easy as they thought.
There were 3 main contentions:
1) the point at which the maritime border starts
2) the extent out to sea
3) the trajectory it takes from the start point
The court up help Chile's claim on (1), and compromised on both (2) and (3). The result is the border starts where we have always maintained and continues along the parallel (as Chile maintained), but rather than continue for 200 miles, it continues for 80, at which point it heads south west to the 200 mile limit.
Peru can claim a victory because they got some sea they didn't have. But Chile maintains the start of the border where it is and its parallel trajectory out well beyond the most economically important 20 miles.
What denied a total Chilean victory (i.e. maintaining the status quo) was that the historic agreements were ambiguous as to their definition of fishing rights vs sovereignty. There is no such ambiguity in the 1904 treaty signed with Bolivia.
@26 Once again, how is the civilized world going to give 3000-some people to a country that is required by UN resolutions to deal to them like adults when they not only won't, but run scared from TWO elected representatives when THEY arrange the meeting? You can cherrypick day and night but your government has repeatedly vacated the very stale arguments you constantly regurgitate. They won't meet with the islanders or take their interests into account. They invaded illegally in 1982 and STILL celebrate it on a coin! The unilaterally “constitutionally” annexed the territory on paper. And they rely only on a stale musty corner of the UN that validates them so they can stay on the gravy train by blowing smoke and treating it “like” a special case, but can't make the UK and Falklands, or the UNGA or UNSC for that matter do *anything* because the UN Secretary General says that the UK is not in breach of anything and an embarrassing GA vote that says that self-determiaotn applies to ALL including the “special” case of a “territorial despite” (a vote YOU held, and LOST). On an org where there is a committee for EVERYTHING, there is no “Special Committee to Resolve the Falklands/Malvinas” Territorial Dispute,“ no ”Special Committee to Dehumanize the Falklanders for the Benefit of Argentine Colonial Ambitions that Violate the UN Charter and C24 Mission.“ There isn't even an ”Ad-Hoc Committee to Drag Timerman's Cowardly Butt into a Room with TWO or even ONE Elected Representative of the Islands as the Resolutions Require Since You Can't Respect The Islanders Without Meeting With Them”.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nope. There is just a status quo that leaves the Falklanders free and at peace and YOU eternally frustrated. Sorry, Axel. You aren't going to get any traction with your CELAC meeting anymore than you can at the C24.
The adult civilized world of 2014 won't allow another Munich or Yalta accord that leaves people like the Falklanders at the nonexistent mercy of people like you.
UN ICJ Advisory Opinion of 21st June 1971, repeated 16th October 1975 states:
Jan 27th, 2014 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Furthermore, the subsequent development if International Law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-development applicable to ALL of them.'
Paragraph 52 www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/53/5595.pdf
From the Namibia Advisory Opinion onwards, the Court has affirmed that the right to self-determination is a right of ALL peoples, and one of erga omnes character.
The importance of the ICJ's role is that the Court has consistently treated the right to self-determination as a universal right NOT a right confined to certain people.
Of Course, Argentine politicians will tell you otherwise, but then INDEC, the Argentine government statistics office says that inflation is only 10.5%.
Axel
Jan 27th, 2014 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How did Argentina receive sovereignty by succession of States?
The Spanish on the islands left in 1811, therefore were never a “perminant occupation” under the Up.
The Spanish that left the islands went to Montevideo to fight the uprising in BA.
The Spanish that left the islands either returned to Spain...or remained in Uruguay, which was an independent state from the Up, having declared Independence in 1828.
It seems the precarious sense of “succession”, which has absolutely no precident (in fact many cases where island groups went completely opposite directions), would either be Uruguay or stay with Spain...NOT ARGENTINA.
So the UPs claim is based on succession of a population that had already left to a completely different country....odd sort of succession.
Britain may well have negotiated shared soverEignty in 1832, but the UP clearly had no interest in this when they declared sovereignty of all the islands in 1832...more hypocrisy from you axel.
The UN applies Self determination in the case of ALL NSGTs as recently as 2012 as you well know axel.
Sadly your lectures are too partial and you only look for highly dubious bullshit with half truth and plain lies to support a non-case.
Sadly you assume anything in the history of the islands that wasn't Britain was Argentina...in fact there is almost no “Argentina” in the history of the islands...just 6 weeks in 1832 and 6 weeks in 1982.
Both should be a source of extreme shame, but are dressed up to indoctrinated morons like you as times of national pride.
20 Bongo
Jan 27th, 2014 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, and let me get this right.... Stalin murdered and tortured his own people BECAUSE he was an atheist.
And if he had murdered and tortured his own people and was a Christian / Buddhist / Muslim that would have been ok would it?
Go and bash your bible ( or your bishop ) somewhere else would you?
All that “It's the will of God” or “Tis the work of the Devil” crap, is something that free thinking peoples do not believe in anymore.
Troneas
Jan 27th, 2014 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Far from it I am afraid me old cocker...the UNGC in 2008 and 2012 clearly show that the majority of the world supports self determination in ALL NSGTs.
In fact the last vote where Argentina tried to introduce “where no sovereignty dispute exists” was resoundingly defeated by most of the world.
Certainly not all of the Americas voted with Argentina, some did, as did some of the more colourful African and Asian countries...however the vast majority backed the British position.
Sorry me old cocker....you are talking shit.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 05 Britworker (#) Not for long, remember these words
Jan 27th, 2014 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Considering most of these argie bloggers have no interest in the Falkland’s,
Jan 27th, 2014 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have no intention of going there and settling down, or investing there,
Their interest then, is purely political with imperialist overtones,
And of course anti British,
It seems perhaps, that these naughty Argies will be going down, when they drop dead, rather than up to their beliefs,
The devil will be awaiting you,
But don’t expect CFK to greet you ..lol
.
Troneas, Except for the two richest most powerful nations in the Americas USA and Canada you think everyone else agrees with Argentina?
Jan 27th, 2014 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bahahaha
Let restate that, except for the 2 nations that matter everyone else is with us.
Gads what a moron.
MONKEY.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Asi said in another opportunity, i don't like wasting my time with such reactionary individuall like you, who needs to insut somebody who doesn' agree on your opinion, but some of your points are interesting, and i think it's necesary to discuss about them.
According to public international right, sucession of states is applied to all emancipated colonial territories, i had already given the bibliographies i use for my investigations, then if the soledad island had been submited to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, our country had right to occupy it after it declared it's independece.
Accept ir ot not, what the u. k. did in 1833, was to take advantages of the vulnerable situation of a country like our's, which was in the middle of civil wars. If the u. p. commited a mistake, when they claimed over all the islands, instead of claiming only for soledad island, it didn't justify the abuse of power commited by the u. k.
If i was a moron, or somebody indoctrinated as you accuse me in your comment, i would invalid the rights of the u. k., as you often do with arg.'s, then, perhaps you should start wondering who is the one who has been indoctrinated.
Respecting self determination, read what i''ll writte for gface.
GFACE: If your country didn't have right to veto, i don't think it would be able to keep on rejecting to resume the negotiations. Respecting ban ki mon's words, while it is true that he said that he doesn't believe that the u. k. is violating relevant laws, however when he was asked about this question, he said that he hoped both countries dialogue in order to find a solution for this conflict, but he didn't include the islanders in that dialogue, beside, he didn't say a word about the application of self dtermination for this case.
On the other hand, the president from the d. c. explained the reasons why self dtermination is not applicable for this cause, a few days before the referendum, if you don't agree on his opinion, it's your problem.
Dear Mercopress Editor...
Jan 27th, 2014 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Might I remind you, it does say comments must be in English, I am assuming you mean the English language. If this is the case..as the Editor it is also your responsibility to apply this rule to the articles.
Paragraphs please, this site is viewed Internationally and standards are expected.
Please take note....
“Writing of any length requires subdivision into a number of points or stages, and these stages are expressed in a paragraph. Paragraphs, whether denoted by a new line and an indentation or a line break, provide a structure for your writing. The end of a paragraph represents a significant pause in the flow of the writing. This pause is a signpost to the reader, indicating that the writing is about to move on to a different stage. Each paragraph should deal with one idea or aspect of an idea, and it should be clear to the reader what this main idea is.”
A concerned and somewhat annoyed Voice....
38 axel arg
Jan 27th, 2014 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh axel, axel, axel!!!
We don't need the U.N to sort this “conflict” out... I can sort it for you right now, here, on this forum.
argentina never owned the Islands and does not have any right what so ever to own them, it only thinks it does.
The Islands have never been yours, are not yours now and WILL never be yours ok?
The people who inhabit the Falkland Islands are not argentine, they do not wish to be argentine and they do not want to be ruled over by argentina ok?
Now, ban ki moon can keep saying and saying and saying that “he hoped both countries dialogue in order to find a solution for this conflict” but as far as the U.K AAAAANNNNDDDDD the Falkland Islanders themselves are concerned, ( oh, and by the way, they are the ONLY people that count in this ok? World opinion / the wishes of the U.N? they can all go and f**k themselves right? I will start taking the U.N a little more seriously when they force China to give Tibet back to it's own people and stop it from trying to bully its neighbours ) there is nothing to discuss. That is the end, there is no more.
Goodbye, see you later. End of story
I don't get the logic here...
Jan 27th, 2014 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Islanders have this right of self-determination they seem to not make use of in their desire to be a colony of the UK.
At the same time, Argentina is a bully for taking the actions it seems appropiate against what they seem is an injustice.
Lets say self-determination is a fact, why are you lot complaining about Argentina?
They surely have every right to determine themselves how to deal with the Islanders, no?
Status quo until you'll realize “my way or the highway” doesn't work.
That means we need to arm ourselves, because I surely don't trust that invasive lot...
@38. No Moon didn't say a word about self-determination any more than a biologist has to say a word about evolution through natural selection, because it's “just THERE!” One again, you can't get the adults in the world to dehumanize the Islanders for your cynical benefit, and for that matter it's going to be a uphill walk against water to get the adults to even acknowledge your need to dehumanize the islanders.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you still play the broken record of how your the decolonization committee that you insist is there to enable the involuntary colonization of the islanders says they are “special” despite the larger guidance form the GA and Charter. And yes they do it, they are increasingly irrelevant because of it. This is no different from an “gender equity committee” loaded with sexist misogynists saying that it's ok to coerce “favors” from female employees even though management and the board says no. Once again, they cannot push that recommendation upstairs, not because the “bra-burning feminist” on the board will veto it (and btw, I'm not the lone feminist on the board nor I am not from the UK. you obviously haven't been paying ANY attention), but because you will be extremely disappointed to find that everyone on the board with veto power are not going to stand for it or will gladly stand and left ANYONE, including the “feminist,” to veto it without objection and the “He-Man Woman Haters Club” know their gig will be up. If right is on their side then they would send it to the SC and let the world see the hypocrisy. They know better. Why don't you?
If you can't handle that, then stop dehumanizing the humans who have lived on the islands longer than many Argentines not only in Argentina but even before you took control of the area from which you claim to rule the Islands. Your inability to handle the fact that the world will not hand people over to you when you treat them like criminals for only EXISTING is YOUR problem. Get. Help.
Axel
Jan 27th, 2014 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your bibliographies are nonsense, they are part of the same myth and legendarium fantasy book as the rest of the Malvinas myth.
Argentina simply did not inherit the islands from Spain.
1) Spain had vacated the islands, thereby failing the perminant occupation rule
2) it is unclear whether Spain actually considered the islands part of the Viceroyalty or a separate entity 1000 miles away governed by BA for expedience.
3) those Spaniards who left the islands went to FIGHT the BA uprising
4) those Spaniards who left the islands either returned to Spain or settled in Uruguay
5) Uruguay was part of the Viceroyalty and is not Part of Argentina
6) Patagonia was not part of the Viceroyalty and is part of Argentina
So...as always, we come down to six weeks in 1832.
I think the UP had a right to try and gain sovereignty....as nobody at that time had perminant occupation...no inheritance, no Jewitt, no Vernet....just simply because they were empty.
I also believe that 50 militia for 6 weeks, who had murdered and raped and mutineed does not constitute perminant occupation either. So Britain was equally within its rights to evict them.
I am sorry for you Axel...just about every inch of the Americas has been stolen at sometime...and 99.99% with greater force than evicting 50 people peacefully who'd been there 6 weeks.
It is a pathetically week case, and after 180 years wholly irrelevant.....
The islands belong to the islanders. You know it and I know it. You talk of the decolonisation comittee axel...that is an irrelevant UN body with regards sovereignty.
However, I posted a 2012 UN resolution passed by the UNGA and a 2008 Ammendment which talk about self determination for ALL NSGTs. They make no reference to special cases or exemptions.
You are indoctrinated Axel...either that or terribly terribly poorly educated.
You look for evidence you like....and expand it to way beyond its limits, then you ignore evidence you don't like...and pretend it doesn't exist.
43 Monkeymagic
Jan 27th, 2014 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You are indoctrinated Axel...either that or terribly terribly poorly educated.”
As we are speaking about Axel, those two things that you just wrote? They are the one and the same thing
Stevie
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I appreciate you don't understand logic...that is your problem.
The islands are not a colony of the UK, if they we a colony the UK would asset strip them, and all the taxes and revenue from the fisheries and potential oil industry would belong to the UK treasury. They don't, they belong to the islanders. Sorry you don't understand that logic.
The islanders fully utilise their self determination in choosing the above relationship, versus being a colony of Argentina, a colony of Britain or an independent state.
Argentina can indeed choose not to deal with the islanders if it wishes to. I dont think anyone would have no issue with that...countries can deal with who they choose.
However, it is clear Argentina is trying to strangle the islands economy and make it as difficult for the islanders to do business as they can. Be it cruise ships, fisheries, air travel, oil production...whatever they can, and encouraging their Latam partners to do the same.
As I pointed out to you before, this is purely against the islanders, not Britian (or your hated English)....direct flights from London to BA daily, loads of UK businesses all over Argentina...just against the islanders.
Yes, Argentina can self-determine to act like a cowardly bully, just as they did in 1982...and we can self-determine to criticise them for it.
Argentina can act as she wishes, Monkey.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's called self-determination...
And why would you criticise self-determination?
You mean the self-determinator can actually get it wrong?
Axel Arg
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You flatly refuse to answer the same questions again and again and again.
You keep repeating the same “facts” even when refuted. You try to make out that you are some sort of scholar on this subject and yet you can't partake in any debate without name calling or trying to steam roller over ideas that don't match the “facts” that you have supposedly so painstakingly researched.
So I will ask extremely simple questions:
1/ Where is this “public international right, sucession of states is applied to all emancipated colonial territories” sourced from?
2/ Why is Argentina the successor state to the Vice Royalty of the Rio Plate and not any of the other states that were also part of the VRRP? And if Argentina has a claim to all the territory of the VRRP, then does that not negate the supposed sovereignty of Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia? Where does their sovereignty come from?
3/ How do you explain that the UN General Assembly has not mentioned the Falkland Islands (or Malvinas if that suits you) in 25 years in their annual resolution on non-self governening territories?
4/ The aforementioned resolution has included this phrase every year for 25 years “take all steps necessary to enable the peoples of the Non-Self- Governing Territories concerned to exercise fully as soon as possible their right to self-determination, including independence”. How does that fit in with this claim that the UN does not support self determination for the Falkland Islands? (UN GA Resolutions: 67/134, 66/91, 65/117, 64/106, 63/110, 62/120, 61/130, 60/119, 59/136, 58/111, 57/140, 56/74, 55/147, 54/91, 53/68, 52/78, 51/146, 50/39, 49/89, 48/52, 47/23, 46/71, 45/34, 44/101).
I keep asking you these questions, but you flatly refuse to respond or reply.
I have been polite and please do not accuse me of being incapable of understanding or discussing due to indoctrination.
Simple question.... so answer them please.
@43, And Monk, and let's not forget the 2008 vote was precipitated explicitly at the request of *Argentina* with Spain for an agenda that not only did not have the Falklands or Gibraltar on the agenda but had NO NGSTs on the agenda with territorial claims, so delegations started looking at it not only suspicioisly but from a perspective free of any given regional block (i.e., the LatAm block) that keep this problem going. Like Axel, Spain and Argentina had so much narcissistic tunnel vision that they could not contemplate that the rest of the world would not only see through the cynical nature of the motion but also not see the broader and disastrous implications for more critical and knife-edge conflicts elsewhere. For the rest of the world, and certainly the adults in the room, it's not always about Argentina or LatAm or “nonaligned” grievances against the west/NATO/Norte, and their dishonest move was an epic fail. Their powerless enablers in the C24 have blown it off repeatedly, rather like a “contained” committee of company dysfucntionals who are kept “isolated” that says that it's ok to use the organization retirement funds build an additional to your house BUT has no access to the company's accounts. They can blow off the board and comptroller's policies all they want, do no concrete damage as long as an auditor doesn't make the mistake of seeing them as relevant or until someone learns how to forge a signature. But they DO do a very nice “circle jerk” for one another.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@46, They DO get it right. The UK gives them a far better deal than your trainwreck of a next-door neighbor could offer even if Timerman got the nerve to actually sit in a room with them and offer it and not run like a coward like he did in February. If self-determination means anything it means saying “hell no!” to people to whom you really REALLY want NOTHING to do with and “yes” to people you like.
Anglolatino!
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's Monday...
You couldn't stay away from talking about us, could you?
Here you are again, spending your time and life on.... us.
;)
Gface
Seems Argentina is getting it right too, in their self-determination...
@49 No more than Germany had the right to “self-determine” things for Poland or Denmark.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, the right of self-determination only applies to those you agree with...
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How very convenient...
Stevie, my lil half wit,
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0self–de·ter·mi·na·tion noun -di-ˌtər-mə-ˈnā-shən
: the right of the people of a particular place to choose the form of government they will have
: the freedom to make your own choices
You are deliberately misusing the term.
@52, how “convenient” of him.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You lot should know by now that Argentina is above the law. Anything they say is correct, straight from the horses mouth ( she who must be obeyed ) Argentina is a dictatorship anyone on the outside can see that. Not so many years ago nuns and opposition were given a one way flight. Not a lot has changed since then, democracy, they don't know the meaning of it. ElaineB said the other day and she is right, they want everything they can lay there hands on as long as it is free, they do not want to pay for anything. You will be going round and round with the arguement with ref the FALKLANDS but let's face it you will not change their minds as they are all indoctinated. LONG LIVE FREE SPEECH something that at least we can do in the UK
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually Stevie, it's Tuesday! 9.55am Tuesday to be precise.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I am back as I said I would be last Friday. I see that you spend the time ignoring your family to spend it on here. Oh well each to their own.
it is doubtful you could answer the questions that I posed to Axel anyway, so continue as you were!
Steveie @41 - The islanders have determined that they wish to remain a BOT. Part of their logic in doing so rather then opting for full independence, probably has something to do with 1982? How does the islanders determining that they wish to remain a BOT constitute not exercising the right to self determination?
Jan 27th, 2014 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actions? There is only one action Argentina needs to take and that is to go to the ICJ. Anything else is a simple case of bullying because it comes across as Argentina knowing it hasn't a hope in hell so deploys the bully boy tactics.
The idea that deploying bully boy tactics is some self determination, well that's an absolute joke of a comparison. It's as bad as comparing it to the self determination of one wanting to murder another... come on now..
Argentina determines who she want to trade with.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina determines which vessels are to have access to Argentine territory.
Or are those issues yours to self-determine as well?
Still fighting a losing battle Axel? Your research based on nothing but opinions? I've read it remember.
Jan 27th, 2014 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unike yours, my work has grown to a undeniable conclusion - http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1-sumario/
(http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1-sumario/
Argentina has no claim. Argentina never had any claim.
58
Jan 28th, 2014 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0In Summary....
Concerning East Falkland...
Britain has no claim. Britain never had any claim.
True or False...?
BTW....where exactly is Stanley is it on the British claimed West Falkland...?
What are the Brits doing on East Falkland...I thought Buenos Aires established a settlement there after it was abandoned by Spain...were all the settlers evicted?
If these settlers were not evicted...surely this would make it an Argentine settlement.
So why is it British?
58 Roger
Jan 28th, 2014 - 03:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0This British historian, like many others in Britain, disagree with you.
British Empire
“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823”
“It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there.”
Jan 28th, 2014 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jewett wasn't sent to the Islands. He just happened to end up there. BIG difference.
The biggest holes in this current version of history is the dozens of ships that were in the area at the time, the fact that Jewett never saw fit to actually notify BsAs that he had claimed sovereignty and the claim was never gazetted by the government in BsAs.
“Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823”
So. Appointing someone as a governor and actually asserting sovereignty are two totally different things. Don Pablo Areguati never set foot on the Islands. There is nothing to stop my country appointing a governor to rule Argentina. The legitimacy to do so does not exist and doing so would not automatically invest sovereignty over Argentina to my government.
@58
Jan 28th, 2014 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Give up lorton, you re a clown, you know it, everbody knows you and your poor background. Dont waste your/our time.
59 A_Voice
Jan 28th, 2014 - 04:57 am - Link - Report abuse 01648 Treaty of Münster. Spain accepts its territories are what it holds. Spain only ever held Puerto Soledad/Port Louis in the Falklands. It never established itself anywhere else in the Falklands.
1811 When Spain left it did not relinquish its claim. Abandoning a territory is not enough to lose sovereignty, sovereignty must be relinquished, Spain did not begin to relinquish any sovereignty claims in the Americas to rebellious colonies until December 1836. 1811 - 1833 too short a period to lose rights to Argentina by prescription
1816 Argentina declares independence unilaterally. No inheritance from Spain.
1820 - 1833 Argentina's actions not enough to overcome the still existing Spanish claim. Argentina did not make a formal claim to the Falklands until 1829.
1833 When the UK took over in 1833 it was Spain's prerogative to complain about the UK's actions, not Argentina's, and Spain never did.
1863 Spain accepts UK sovereignty.
Strange this conference is to be held in Cuba; a one party dictatorship. There are no elections here, no democracy, no bill of rights and no freedom of the press. Hundreds of political prisoners’ languish in jail, many for years on end. People can be imprisoned for “dangerousness”, a device for imprisoning people before they have actually committed a crime. For example it has been used to imprison people for failing to attend pro-government rallies.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Reports published by human rights watch detail chilling examples of the appalling treatment of political prisoners in Cuban jails.
There are no independent newspapers, no independent trade unions. In a country where the state is almost the sole employer, anyone who dissents from “socialist norms” or tries to exercise their basic human rights can be permanently excluded from work. The unemployed can be jailed for being parasites.
The economy is a total basket case, an Alice-in-wonderland world of meaningless slogans, poverty and economic failure.
Since the revolution 1,200,000 people have risked their lives to escape, often in the flimsiest of boats. Thousands have died trying.
Yet President Kirchner is so enamoured of the place she flies in days earlier. To do what? commune with President Raul Castro? Who elected him?
What does this say about CELAC? Can you imagine the European Union holding a meeting in such a place?
No wonder so many of the attendees show so little regard for the rights of the Falklanders. Just make a few “anti-colonialist” speeches. Just scream and shout anti-western, or anti-American, or anti-capitalist slogans and the islanders are suitably de-humanised, whose rights can be ignored and denied.
63 so far - no argument
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sofa_R, I notice that you are unable to refute what Roger Lorten states in his book.
Resorting to personal insults shows your lack of an argument or facts.
Well said Rupert. Nothing agreed at this conference will have any real legitimacy on the global stage
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0SELF DETERMINATION is the trump card, the UN is not going to say either way who it thinks has sovereignty over the islands. They of course like the USA sit on the fence for their own reasons. If Argentina wants the FALKLANDS ( unlikely in my opinion ) then they can take it to the only authority that can make a decision the ICJ.I applaud Chile and Paraguay who have accepted the ICJ ruling regarding their dispute. Well done Chile and Paraguay.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let us hope that the Oil Companies find plenty of Oil and Gas in the next few years in the FALKLANDS.
The same fantasy tale, Argentina didnt exist...juajua....yes, by that time didnt exist neigther France, coz was a kingdom, nor Ireland, coz was under UK rules, Germany wasnt a republic ...and so on...and the most funny is when this diplomat, who should back to school and study world story, not only british colonization history, say that Argentina is a powerful neightbour, in that case , we already have expeled, the british goverment from the squat position....not the people, if they want to live in their soil..but under the legitimate sovereign...
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 069 bloporta (#)
Jan 28th, 2014 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:57 am
It's interesting that you should mention Ireland because by Argentine/Malvinista logic the only mistake the Brits made was that they failed to slaughter the indigenous population. By this logic the Republic of Ireland would not exist and the theft of the land would have been perfectly legitimate. Why? Well because that is how Argentina did it to the indigenous people of what is now called Argentina in the land that they stole and that they now occupy. It is the Argentine way.
70 Furry-Fat-Feck (#)
Jan 28th, 2014 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed, that the real british hypocricy way....check, even wikipedia, and see how many indigenous were murder by Argentina, and see in the history, how many irish not just dies, but also fled because the famine, were the cattle were belong for english landlord and potatoes belong to irish, plus all the ones were taken to fight in british wars...and the list is long enough, not even counting the killed under the 19th's “revolution”....
Axel,
Jan 28th, 2014 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only “special case” here is you.
@60 A_Voice,
A lot of the locals have part South American(even Argentine)ancestry.
Will you now say that these people don't have a right to their own land?
And these people voted approx 99.8% to stay British.
What do you say to that, A_Voice?
71 bloporta (#)
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jan 28th, 2014 - 10:50 am
The British hardly caused the famine in Ireland but what they didn't do was render effective help. You got me there, well done you. There were mitigating reasons for this though and not just a distaste for Catholics. The famine affected mainland Britain too you see which complicated things.
Either way, fill yer boots. The British did NOT destroy the Irish population. The Argentines DID destroy the Amerindian population in Argentina. There IS a Republic of Ireland. There is NOT an indigenous Amerindian Republic in Argentina.
Is that simple enough for you to comprehend or would you like to continue comparing alleged massacres or dick sizes?
Britain had a very very weak and tenuous claim to East Falkland in 1833, in that when it first claimed sovereignty in 1690, it claimed for the whole archipeligo.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, much like its claim to West Falkland, it had elapsed...as Britian was unable to satisfy the key criteria of permanaent settlement.
It is far more accurate to state that by November 1832, nobody had sovereignty of any of the islands because nobody had managed a perminant settlement.
To suggest that the settlement on East Falkland was “Argentine” is again stretching the truth.
It was not Argentine in its concept, Vernet wished to run a business which was not based on sovereignty. This was how the idea was sold and agreed by both BA and the UK.
It was only once on the islands that Vernet accepted a title from BA, there is no record that the people on islands supported this title, nor whether they considered themselves Argentine representatives of their own nations. Certainly Matthew Brisbane was British and remained British.
It is slightly an irrelevant point as Vernet left the islands and took the title with him, as did the majority of the business population. Those left were under the leadership of Brisbane.
If the population automatically ceded to the nationality choices of their leader...(as is suggested by Vernet accepting the title from BA). Did they not become British once Brisbane was in charge...Clearly not.
So...as of October 1832 there was no sovereignty just a number of very very weak historic claims.
The sending of the SS Sarandi was Argentinas first real attempt at uneqivocally claiming sovereignty, which is why Britains response was quick and decisive.
The Argentines made no attempt to consider any historic claims, as they considered them too weak to be relevant.
The crew of the Sarandi were evicted after 6 weeks during which they murdered their own leadership.
it is this eviction alone that is Argentinas claim to either island...it is monumentally weak.
I dont know why should i discuss this issue with you, more than 3.000.000 irish people disapear from british census in matter of years in the IX century,under british rules, and you say is not british fault!!?? Hardly 3000 aborigen were killed in the so called desert campaign. All others aborigens are argentinean citizen, which you are hypocrytical criticising, and they are doctors, lawyers, politics etc.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0You were and are killing people around the globe, and pretend compare your acts with Argentina..!?? Never mind, is not the point, we are talking about the Malvinas issue, and what the reason why you are in this land pretending not be what you wanna be......
I'll tell you a little bit about myself, just for a point of reference. My children attend a Catholic school; predominantly Irish. Make of that what you will but I am hoping it will give you an insight into which way my moral compass points. Beating me over the head with the guilt of perceived British imperialism has precisely no effect on me whatsoever. Even if you are right.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0With that in mind please answer this:
Is there or is there not an indigenous Amerindian Republic in Argentina? If not, why not?
@7 But the Falkland Islands DID hold a referendum. Pity you didn't like the result....NOT!
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0@14 Then you should stay a long way away, shouldn't you?
@20 Aren't you an “imaginary friend”, i.e catholic, state? How about you start by giving back everything you stole on behalf of your “imaginary friend”? After all, it was authorised by your chief “witch doctor”. In fact, your “head of ”government“ rushed off to see the new ”witch doctor“ as soon as he was appointed. No doubt hoping for some evil ”magic“. Didn't work. Crap argie ”witch doctor“.
@26 Usual crap.
@28 Still more crap. If the Falklands referendum was so irrelevant, why do you keep banging on about it? Why don't you go to the ICJ? Its been offered THREE times. YOU refused each time. The subject is CLOSED.
@39 There is no such principle in international law. There are FIVE methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. ACCRETION - the physical expansion of existing territory. CESSION - the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was NOT ceded by Spain, because Spain didn't have sovereignty. Spain didn't even recognise ”argieland“. And cession takes place by treaty. Where's yours? CONQUEST - If you ”conquered“ the Falkland Islands, we ”conquered“ them right back! EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION - You are confusing this with trespassing. PRESCRIPTION - requires the actual exercise of sovereignty without objection from other states. Even Vernet's ”appointment“ was objected. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.
@40 Cluck!
@42 ”Self-determination“, child. Not determination of others.
@61 Dragged that one out again, have you? For those that don't know, the ”author“ of said website was a retired teacher. A few minutes research will show that he has stated that not everything on his site is ”historically accurate“ but is meant to give a ”sense”. When challenged, he ran away!
@69 Begone, damned spot!
@71 Yep, we killed the lot! Nothing to do with the dumb Irish being too stupid to take advice. Advice. Off!
Speaking of utter strokers. Afternoon Conq.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 075 bloporta
Jan 28th, 2014 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I rather think yur missing a crucial point. Namely that the Argentina of today consists of land stolen from the south american indians. Patagonia was forcibly incorporated into the Argentinian Republic by armed conquest after Argentina gained independance from Spain.
The British empire has meanwhile ceased to exist. Argentina still benefits from its colonial enterprise.
Stevie your comparison is really poor and to be honest I expect better from you from what I've read.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stamping feet and choosing not to trade with another is pathetic. Banning ships which fly a particular flag, is pathetic. It's one thing to choose not to trade but quite another to act as Argentina has and continues to.
I suspect Argentina would attract more respect if it was to simply take it's national cause to the ICJ. But instead Argentina has chosen to go down the silly path it has done. Crying like a baby and attempting to impose laws on lands it does not control hardly commands respect.
Banning ships wont work, sneaking on to the islands to 'train' (LOL) wont work, burning flags, attacking HSBC etc.. has and will get Argentina nowhere. Going to the ICJ has more chance of getting Argentina somewhere so, what's with the delay?
Like I previously pointed out, Argentina is prepared to go to the ICJ over a pulp mill but wont do the same in regards t it's oh so important, national cause. WTF!?
It is so amusing to read the comments from the various Argentine trolls - they are full of the usual fairy tales, invented historical events and arrogant claims about their suitability to the sovereignty of the Falkland/Malvinas archipelago. They reminded me of jaded unsuccessful pantomime performers - nowhere to go!
Jan 28th, 2014 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@78 Pity you have nothing better to do. Furry, Fat. And Feck?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jesus H Christ!!! The FALKLANDERS have spoken, who in their right minds would want to be under the governance of Argentina, they cannot run their own country without making a mess of it. Argentina will NEVER,NEVER have control of the FALKLANDS, all this talk about Ameridians, Mapuche exc, is just so long ago. THE FALKLANDS HAVE HAD THEIR SAY. Just get over it. We believe it or not are in 2014 NOT 1833.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Porkchop
Jan 28th, 2014 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think your claim is pathetic...
Regardless of our opinions, Argentina is in her right to choose whom to trade with and which vessels are allowed on her soil.
#84 How can 180 years of peaceful occupation, with a prior 50 year claim to sovereignty, be “pathetic”?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has held Patagonia and parts of Paraguay for a lot less time with no prior claim.
Claims of sovereignity?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I only hear claims to remain a British colony.
Rense it all you want, a colony is a colony...
Did you lot listen to the worries presented in Davos?
Karl Marx was mentioned in a few occasions for his views on capitalism being self-destructive... Seems the rigest people on the planet are experiencing issues in multiplyinh their wealth when there no one left to sack.
That's proper Monkeymathemagics...
Maybe if they would borrow money to themselves... Hmmmm...
It's over, isn't it?
;)
I can understand why Argentina is afraid of self determination. If the colonised people of Argentina were ever offered a vote of self determination it could lead to the Argentine nation being a country without a home. It is time for a vote in Argentina. Once that is satisfied I am sure the Islanders will have a much easier time resolving their situation by peaceful agreement with Argentinas rightful owners.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you determined that all by yourself?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stevie
Jan 28th, 2014 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just how stupid are you?
You have to be one of the last people on the planet that believes in communism. I know, I know...it's “Stevie communism” that hasn't been tried anywhere but will lead “the masses” into prosperity.
PMSL.
Quoting Karl Marx....you backward retarded fool.
Yes...it's self destructive alright Stevie...all those poor capitalist countries, their terribly poor masses, and their terribly low GDP per capita.
Versus all those socialist countries with their terribly rich masses and their terribly high GDPs.
I think communism self destructed far earlier than capitalism....which is just fine thanks.
I know you have learnt this week that pension fund holders lend governments money....it's a pity they you struggle with the concept Stevie.
The richer in society pay taxes to the government for services and benefits for all. They also loan money to the government to pay for their retirement.
I know you'd like it all to be tax Stevie, so that your communist Utopia would be as successful as ...erm North Korea, or USSR, or erm....Uruguay.
Jeez..your whole belief system is corrupt..
“A colony is a territory being run without the consent or input of the people”..erm...that's what Argentina wants it to be...not what it is today.
Your trolling is really suffering Stevie...perhaps you need further indoctrination...try some Trotsky may be...whatever happened to him
Who mentioned communism?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't quote Karl Marx, the rich lot in Davos did...
Don't shoot the messenger...
And try to agree with yourself if it's communism or socialism you are talking about. Even if you think it's the same, it's not.
Educate yourself.
And pay your debts.
;)
Has anyone noticed that my prediction about Stevie getting more and more ridiculous with his posts is coming true?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suspect it won’t be long now before he “leaves us for a rest” as this little gem from 84 shows: “Regardless of our opinions, Argentina is in her right to choose whom to trade with and which vessels are allowed on her soil.”
That’s what the argies are up to! Cornish wrecker actions to get “vessels...ON her soil! Just imagine the antics TMBOA could get up to IF that were ever to come about.
You mean that's for you lot to self-determinate as well?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How does one utterly confuse and stump an argy like mr axel,
Jan 28th, 2014 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[remove 1833 ].
Stevie
Jan 28th, 2014 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't matter which of communism or socialism you talk about, both have failed absolutely every time they have been tried.
Whereas Capitalism hasn't failed, despite your best wishes, all the countries with the highest standard of living of its “masses” have embraced capitalism and have ended up with a far better welfare state and far better benefits for the poor than any socialist/communist model.
In the UK the debate is whether to cap benefits to £26,000 per year....in Uruguay that is a dream income for the vast majority.
you can't make your own mind up if you are a fascist, communist or socialist....or perhaps just a Stevieist....which is both a racist and a turd.
Just for reference Stevie...self determination is to choose your own government. What that government then decides to do is open for criticism or debate.
I absolutely support the Argentine populations right to choose their government even if they choose a ludicrous corrupt hag.
I absolutely support the UK population right to choose their government even if they choose a one-eyed Scottish socialist...
I absolutely support the Falkland Islanders right to choose their own government.
You are quite within you rights to criticise the UK government (although often your criticisms are incoherent, ignorant or plain racist).
I am quite within my rights to criticise the Argentine government because they are ridiculous, inept and corrupt.
I know macro-economics and seemingly democracy are concepts beyond your intellect Stevie...but do try and keep up.
And abra cadabra *poff* magic is made.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you ever looked beyond the wardrobe the communism hid in when you were a kid?
You have no clue on what you are talking about.
You can't tell socialism from communism and you aren't too sure of what capitalism is either.
In what country have you ever seen communism?
And has Britain ever had a richer or more equal society than Sweden in the 80's?
We can easily call USA the most capitalistic nation on the planet. Is that proof of success, you mean?
Then we must be following different dreams, you and me...
MONKEY MAGIC: It was obvious that you were going to keep on invaliding the rights of the u. p., and everything that differs from your view, anyway, i don't think you are neather stupid nor indoctrinated, actualy nobody is stupid, the problem of people like you, is that you think that all those people who don't think like you, are stupid or indoctrinated, however facts are much more important than your too partial lectures.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Accept it or not, unless in the case of the soledad island, it had been submited to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, like all the rest of the country, anyway it's interesting to talk about the other nations which joined the viceroalty, like uruguay, in my opinion, if they decided to separate part from our country, then they have nothing to claim. As i said before, sucession of states is applied to all emancipated colonial territories.
On the other hand, the bibliographies i dated, are written by professors of public international right, like it or not, those people know much more about legal questions than us.
CONQUEROR: I always read all the comments where you refer to me with your usuall insults, but this time you were polite, that's why i decided to answer your comment.
In my comment 26, i tell about the rights of both nations in 1833. In the case of prescription, it can't be applied for this case, because one of the conditions of that institution, is that the occupation of the territory must be peaceful, however, respecting our conflict, although there weren't violent acts in 1833, however the u. k. forced our authorities to leave the islands, that's why the u. k. doesn't qualify in order to apply prescription for this cause.
ANGLOTINO and GFACE: ANGLOTINO: I never said you were unpolite.
I respect the opinions of you both, in relation to self det., but for being honest, i have always have had serious doubts about the application of that right for this case, in my comment 26, i say why i think it, i'll tell you more in my next commment.
#95 Groan... very few countries actually have a pure capitalist system. Most countries are mixed economies.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And has Britain ever had a richer or more equal society than Sweden in the 80's?”
Yes, in the 1980s in fact. In the 1980s the Gini index of the UK was *well* below that of Sweden. It was only in the 90s that Sweden attained a lower Gini index (i.e. lower income inequality).
It's also worth noting that the socialist paradises of South America have much higher income inequality than the UK, Europe, and in most cases even the US.
But what has this got to do with the Argentina's imperial desire over the Falklands? and why haven't you answered my question at #85?
Income inequality is the new Global Warming screeching point for stupid liberals that have no idea what they are talking about.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm already sick of hearing about it
Someone being rich has no bearing on someone being poor
The Gini index?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You ever think of anything else than money?
Equality in the eyes of the law.
Equality In freedom of movement.
Equality of minoritets vs majority.
Britain didn't reach Sweden to the ankles...
To answer your question, did I ever say the Islanders claim was pathetic? The only pathetic about their claim, is that they choose to remain a colony.
Give the Islands to the Islanders and go home.
#98
Jan 28th, 2014 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice... just go and insult people.
Income inequality and global warming are both important. I'll admit that income equality is just one factor and should be contrasted with overall GDP per capita.
Countries with low GDP per capita and high-income inequality generally have the highest crime rates, low human development scores, and poor health indicators.
100. Income inequality in developing countries may be an issue but there it has no place in developed countries.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My Marxist Prez is all over that new screeching point and it is going to go over like a lead balloon here.
He is so clueless.
Global warming is not real, it was merely a way for poor countries to try to get rich countries to fund their development. I said long ago that would never happen and now the issue is all but dead in the USA.
#101
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Global warming is not real”, oh I can't be bothered. Yes, just ignore 99% of the scientists who have spent their entire careers working to understand AGW.
What libertarian dogma do you want to spew next? How about some NHS bashing? Want to claim that “Stephen Hawking wold be dead if he depended on the NHS” like some of the US media did?
#99 But the Islanders decided that want to keep their relationship, and very sensibly. They have the best situation in the world at the present, they have control over their natural resources with the UK is committed to defend them militarily and diplomatically. So, what's the problem? Do you object to the idea of a British military base on the Falklands? Surely that would be objecting to idea of a sovereign Falklands?
I object to the idea that there are no other intentions from the British side.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0History shows those have never done anything for anybody for any other sake than their own.
The Islanders may have the right to their Islands. But 2000 persons don't have the right to point guns to our continent.
If they feel they have that right, stop crying about trade and ports.
102. It's not my fault some scientist wasted their life on a failed political hoax.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They should have studied something worthwhile.
#103
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Frankly, most of the intentions on the British side are probably related to the fact that abandoning the Falklands to the Argentines would be political suicide for any government (presumably in the same way that any Argentine government that accepted the Falkland Islanders have a right would be crushed in the next election, as a result of the sterling brain-washing job they've done). People in the UK generally don't like the idea of leaving the Islanders to be subjugated by a foreign power, especially when that power was responsible for the deaths of hundreds men and women. While it's also likely that British companies will benefit from resource extract I doubt the tax revenues (to the UK) will cover the defence commitment.
“History shows those have never done anything for anybody for any other sake than their own.” - ah, a nice bit of xenophobic generalised UK bashing here. I'd make some argument about two world wars which we were under little obligation to become involved in but I'm sleepy.
The islanders have a right to maintain defences, given that in recent history Argentina invaded them. 4 interceptors and a relatively small (~1000 personal) garrison, and the occasional visit by a destroyer is a small commitment and virtually zero threat to South America. Indeed, presumably the French have a much larger garrison on the mainland?
Night night
103 Stevie
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I object to the idea that there are no other intentions from the British side.
History shows those have never done anything for anybody for any other sake than their own.
The Islanders may have the right to their Islands. But 2000 persons don't have the right to point guns to our continent.
If they feel they have that right, stop crying about trade and ports.”
Stevie,
Object all you like - that's just you, an admitted hater of the “English”.
The UK gave $9b in Aid to foreign governments last year, 2nd only to the USA at $20b, and ahead of Germany's $8b.
This year, UK will give $10b.
I'm sure there are many that are grateful.
Perhaps not Argentina, though they receive $50m a year from the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9970620/Britain-second-in-world-for-aid-spending.html
How much do you give to others ?
The Falklands have a right to defend themselves against foreign invasion.
Your Defence Minister Puricelli has stated to the Press publicly that if there were no military defences on the Falklands, Argentina would possess them.
But Stevie, you know all this - you are simply posturing and Trolling.
We have discussed this several times, and you looked like a fool each time.
Now that you repeat your lies again, I suppose we have to show readers the Truth, instead.
How is your Peso doing?
Is Argentine anger with CFK still rising with the inflation rate and unemployment?
Do you think CFK will come back from Cuba, now that her government is crumbling?
Did you get paid this week?
What will it buy you, compared to last week?
Is that Iraqi money?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@106 TT
Jan 28th, 2014 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and those billons you said is giving as “aid” is borrow from other sources, as of today the UK is 9 TRILLONS deficit....
jajaja
what a show!
£9 trillion deficit!!!!!
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And shooting 4 year old girls!
And monolingual!
£9 trillion?!?!?! WTF is Suzie on?
Anglo
Jan 29th, 2014 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't hear any answer from “Stevie”, or did he forget he was using his “sussie” alias?
103 Stevie
“History shows those have never done anything for anybody for any other sake than their own.”
C'mon, Stevie, Contrary to your statement, we give billions of US $ to other governments as Aid, EACH YEAR.
Again, how much US $ Aid do you give??
Considering that your “free” Argentine Health Care is on the rocks with no funds, I expect your drug using population are by now, spreading Aids of a different kind.
@109 Anglotino No, no you are getting all confused now.. you, yes you with your rubbish (1st world) education ...
Jan 29th, 2014 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Last time I checked it was 3 billion kids with 4 year-old debts shooting CT-scanners because there is no university to leave to their colonised parasites. They should pay up, the pensionists are starving! - umm... that right Stevie?
as for Ron, just Do Ron, Ron and 'do one' will you. The sandpit is to your left...
“The sandpit is to your left...”
Jan 29th, 2014 - 05:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0And learning to use cutlery starts at 2pm. No flinging poo in the dining room please ronron.
Crying with laughter. .. pmsl
Jan 29th, 2014 - 06:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0ROFL !!!!
Jan 29th, 2014 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0#107 Stevie:
Jan 29th, 2014 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you suggesting that the coalition invaded out of some financial reason? The US and UK have spent in the hundreds of billions on Iraq. In my opinion the ultimate aim of the Iraq conflict (removing Hussein's regime) was perfectly justified, he used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and started wars of conquest costing >1 million lives. The problem was that the coalition completely underestimated how much the various different ethnic and religious groups wanted to beat the crap out of each other.
#108 ron_57
Again with that worthless number which takes no account of overseas investments. But, just for amusement, let's pretend it is real, all that suggests is that the UK is willing to get into even more debt to help other countries, surely that makes us downright altruistic. Let's not forget that some of that money we give flows through the EU to would be imperialistic Argentina.
Their was and is no excuse for violence against another nation,
Jan 29th, 2014 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0take it to the ICJ and stop being hypocrites,,
their is only one nation that is using violence,
only one that used invasion as an excuse,
and only one nation using intimidation , threats , abuse , and trying blockading,
and that nation is Argentina..
Axel
Jan 29th, 2014 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reason why I believe that you are indoctrinated is that you cannot/will not see the HUGE GAPING HOLES in your argument. In this case you may as well be Dany Berger/marcos /Jose Malvinero.
The “inheritance from Spain/succession of states argument” is fundamentally flawed on nearly every count.
It would only work if the following were true:
1) The Spanish population had remained on the islands and declared themselves UP/Argentine
2) The Spanish population had left the islands, declared themselves Argentine
3) The Spanish population had stayed on the islands and been “conquered” by Argentina.
As it was, the Spanish population left the islands, went to fight Argentina and either became Uruguayans or returned to Spain.
So, categorically, the people of the Falkland Islands between 1760-1811 DID NOT WISH TO BE ARGENTINE. NEVER CONSIDERED THEMSELVES ARGENTINE NEVER BECAME ARGENTINE, IN FACT EVERY SINGLE THING THEY DID SUGGESTED THEY CONSIDERED THEMSELVES ANYTHING BUT ARGENTINE.
From all that, you believe that the islands were ceded by Spain to Argentina. That my friend is INDOCTRINATION. The evidence overwhelmingly points to something...you wish to see something different.
You then correctly apply a “perminant occupation rule” to the UK as a sovereignty necessity in the 1800s. I agree.
However, you then go to maintain that Argentina didnt require permanant sovereignty due to the succession of States rule...HUH?
Somehow in your mind, Jewitt getting blown of course in 1820 is a “sovereignty claim” but dozens of UK ships sporadically using the harbour is not.
Again...hypocritical blind indoctrination.
Finally, you suggest that Argentina ignoring a very weak histroical claim of Britains in 1832 is not the same as Britian ignoring a six week old claim of Argentinas in 1833. You are right...its far worse!
Your argument is so full of holes, so obviously weak, and your total denial of those facts can only point to either indoctrination...or poor education.
The “inheritance from Spain/succession of states argument” is fundamentally flawed on nearly every count.
Jan 29th, 2014 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It would only work if the following were true:
1) The Spanish population had remained on the islands and declared themselves UP/Argentine
2) The Spanish population had left the islands, declared themselves Argentine
3) The Spanish population had stayed on the islands and been “conquered” by Argentina.
No Monkeymagic,
Inheritance would have happened if Spain had willingly ceded sovereignty in 1816, or there had at the time been an international law that forced Spain to cede sovereignty. Neither was the case even over the UP itself. The UP established sovereignty over its territory by force against Spain, not inheritance from Spain.
118
Jan 29th, 2014 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Great logic....UP established sovereignty by force against Spain and gained territory...no need for inheritance...or sovereignty recognition from Spain...
UP occupied and settled Spanish abandoned island....no need for force...no Spaniards to defeat....no need for inheritance or recognition from Spain...
Logic with a twist of convenience...
Jan 29th, 2014 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They keep doing it, it's hilarious to read ;)
Voice,
Jan 29th, 2014 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has never claimed it established sovereignty over the Falklands by occupying a terra nullius. In any case, sovereignty has to be relinquished for a territory to revert to terra nullius. Neither Spain nor the UK had relinquished their claims. And by that time occupation of a terra nullius had to be effective, that is, control had to be established over the whole territory. Argentina never established control over the whole territory. It never even managed to establish control over Port Louis.
The logic is in cases of unilateral secession the rebels have de facto sovereignty only over the territory the effectively control. Argentina never established effective control of the Falklands.
121
Jan 29th, 2014 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet as appointed governor from BA established effective control of the Falklands...until it was destroyed by the Americans...then taken over by the British when they demanded the Military Garrison leave.....
Please explain how Britain has managed to claim sovereignty over East Falkland when they have never had a claim....
Interesting thoughts??
Jan 29th, 2014 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What the u. k. did in 1833, was to take advantages of the vulnerable situation of a country like our's, which was in the middle of civil wars,
Just like Argentina took advantage of the British in 1982 ,
when we were reducing our military, and at a low ebb,
……………
Respecting ban ki mon's words
He said that he hoped both countries dialogue in order to find a solution for this conflict, but he didn't include the islanders in that dialogue, he didn't say a word about the application of self determination for this case.
[And he never ever uttered the words Sovereignty either. ]
To quote-it to quote truthfully, not ones interpretation.?
///////////////
All you Argies need to know is this.
The 1850 Convention of Settlement,
In 1945. Following the Argentine claim, the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in The Hague (1947,[37] 1948[38] and 1955[39]); on each occasion Argentina declined.
The European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain
However, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. The Commonwealth of Nations lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory.[104] At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders' right to self-determination
And remember this,
The Argentine government is directly to blame for the innocent deaths of British personnel,
You are guilty of the illegal invasion of a peaceful, innocent unarmed, non aggressive islands,
You should be paying compensation to the families of all the deceased,
You have no rights to nothing, leave them alone to live in peace,
And stop diverting attention from your own country collapsing..
you should crawl past that cemetery on your knees begging for forgiveness
for stealing the lives of the innocent,, from their loved ones,
because of your greed and incompetence..
@123Briton,
Jan 29th, 2014 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is something that l'd dearly love to see.
malvinistas “crawling past the cemetry on their knees, begging for forgiveness for stealing the lives of the innocent”.
But they think that they are the victims! lol!
@ 124 Isolde
Jan 29th, 2014 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I concur 100%.
Also believe they should pay massive compensation and formally apologise.
PS: idiot Ron (in another thread) accused you of masquerading as me, or the other way round (?), not sure he even knows, anyway, was most impolite about it.
You can trust that I put him straight! The gibbering fool.
I think you should go home and prepare for your Knee Crawl: World Tour...
Jan 29th, 2014 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0126 Stevie Troll
Jan 29th, 2014 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What does that really mean ? ? ?
Is that all you have, Stevie, a childish need to post last??
Oh, forgive me, I suppose it's in your agreed mandate with your employer.
I hope you are not paid per “successful” thread.
:-D
What does it mean?
Jan 29th, 2014 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a failed Stevie comeback.
300 years ....= 3,000 islanders .....
Jan 30th, 2014 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0just to tell the world....
____we are briiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitish____
jijiji
Umm exactly Sussie.
Jan 30th, 2014 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see you aren't as stupid as we all think.
@127 & 128 Stevie is losing the plot, getting weak-kneed when the going gets tough and has been proved wrong for the thousandth time. Must be very draining eh Stevie? Need another biscuit?
Jan 30th, 2014 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 129 Dear little Ronnie Reagan wannabe (for surely you watch the old black & white movies on your old monochrome TV still?)
They are not British, as such, but proud Falkland Islanders who voted through a true and fair democratic referendum to remain a British Overseas Territory.
If they would ever wish to become Argentine, (which I truly doubt), I am sure they will make their feelings known through a clear and democratic process.
The numbers (3,000) is not relevant. As are your posts.
You have nothing to contribute to this forum or the World in general.
Bad doggy!
11 Troneas (#)
Jan 30th, 2014 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0don`t worry Argentina is down to its last 30 billion of it s critical reserves most likely Argentina will not exist as a state by the time the British have a oil spill in the Falklands but if it does happen the Brits will clean it up after all we Brits are very concerned about the wild life on and around the islands.
Troneas, take Yankeeboy's advice and start buying non-perishibles now!
Jan 30th, 2014 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0You will need something to trade when the pesos is worthless!
Good Luck!
@7
Jan 30th, 2014 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ 1500 farmers and fishermen you know little about ”
Correction, that YOU, Troneas know so little about.
Ok , chay seeing as us Poms 8000 miles away from the Falklands know so little about them, perhaps you 'EXPERTS' on your Imperialist dream can answer these simple questions to help us out?
1/-Which plant that can be found on the slopes of Mt Harriet, is indigenous to the Falkland Islands?
2/-What was the Royal Marine's nickname in the 1970s/1980s for Scragg Paddock Point?
3/-What is the name of the location on Sea Lion Island, where supply ships dock?
4/-Which form of the Elder tree could be found growing near Kelp Creek House during the 1980s? If you have viewed it for yourself you can describe it.
5/-From what type of rock are the majority of the stone runs on the Falklands formed of?
6/-From what nationality does the Falkland Island surname 'Hansen' originate from?
7/-What name is used in the Falkland Islands to describe a cattle grid?
8/-What uncommon grass is to be found on the grass verge by the sea wall, in front of the Secretariat Building?
9/-Which benefactor, funded the old people's sheltered accommodation in Stanley, directly connected to the hospital enabling old folks in trouble to be able to summon a nurse in a few minutes?
10/-What herbal plant imported from the UK (there are two, so the one I am referring to has yellow flowers) can be found growing around the foundations of the accommodation (long since removed) in the vicinity of the defunct Ajax bay refrigeration plant?
If your extensive knowledge of the Falkland Islands is based on Wikipedia, you're going to have some problems answering some of these questions.
However, you can prove how special the Islands are to you by getting 100% answering these 10 simple questions.
If you can't, your interest in them is totally false, and a sham.
Poor CFK
Jan 30th, 2014 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so desperate,
so far,
yet still no victory..
Comment removed by the editor.
Jan 30th, 2014 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0136 ron_57
Jan 31st, 2014 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands enjoy the highest standard of living in South America. There are no slums, no poverty, and no unemployment. Almost the entire population owns their own home and a 4x4 range Rover. The islands are the oldest democracy in South America by far. The government runs a budget surplus and possesses sufficient reserves to cover two years expenditure. Uniquely in South America there is no corruption.
There is virtually no crime. There hasn’t been a single rape or murder on the islands for over 100 years.
The Falklands are the best educated peple in South America, with free access to all UK universities, which are amongst some of the best in the world.
The Falklands are an associate member of the EU, the world’s largest trading block. They are a member of the Commonwealth. The Falklands send representative sports teams to the International island games, which also hosts island teams from the Caribbean, Greece, Spain, Estonia, Norway and others. They also send representative sports teams to the commonwealth games, along with 50+ other countries and are always made very welcome. The Falklands are represented on many international bodies covering the environment, whaling fishing and tourism in Antarctica. The Falklands have been members of the International postal Union since 1871, longer than Argentina.
Your feeble attempt to portray the islands as an isolated impoverished backwater is therefore refuted completely.
And Argentina? A collapsing economy, corruption on a massive scale. 6 military coups in 80 years. Appalling slums. Shocking government mis-management. Soaring crime levels. Massive drug, prostitution and AIDS problems. And your whinging about the Falklands?
@137
Jan 31st, 2014 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0I quite literally could not have said it better myself!
But if I may add to the list of problems that are occurring in Fuck-up central?
-Government controlled media.
-Total Kirchner/Peron domination of politics.
-Left-wing extremist rent-a-mob types who are quietly encouraged by the regime and act like 21st century Brown shirts.
-Educational indoctrination of children to support the parties/ governments claims to the islands and play it off so well that the brain washed actually believe that it is a fact that they have always owned the islands and that the claim is of national importance, when in reality its just a political card for the stupid.
-Preaching Latam unity while trying to bully ever other country around them (to little effect), etc.
137
Jan 31st, 2014 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...“ Almost the entire population owns their own home ”
Falklands Census 2012...
2.35.....Overall, 49% of households own their home, with 62% of this total owning their home outright (the remainder buying them on loan with a mortgage).
@122
Jan 31st, 2014 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it were permissible for Vernet to claim sovereignty for BA by accepting a title (which wasn't Governor, but I don't suppose it mattered), he was, in effect ignoring historical British and Spanish claims. He accepted a position for all of the islands.
I am ok with this logic, the islands were vacated and therefore it was possible to claim sovereignty, based on nobody meeting the criteria of a perminant settlement.
So, when Vernet scarpered, leaving Matthew Brisbane in charge...did the sovereignty go with him? Brisbane never had a title from BA, and he was British.
Not sure whether those left behind by Vernet were representatives of any nation particularly, and therefore, the fairest assumption is the islands were again, without sovereignty.
This would explain BAs wish to reestablish sovereignty in November 1832, by sending a 50 strong militia. Of course we know that this militia were neither perminant, nor indeed settled by the time the HMS Clio arrived.
I am perfectly happy in the sum total of the Argentine claim being that on January 6th 1832, 50 of their militia were evicted from the islands after six weeks. This militia had murdered their Captain and the BA appointed governor, raped his wife in front of their children and were mostly still living on their ship.
In the grand scheme of things, not the worst colonialist “crime” in South America and insignificant compared to 180 years of settlement and the conquest of the Desert.
So, in answer to your question...how could Britain claim East Falkland...it is quite simple. Nobody had established a perminant settlement there, Spain had vacated, Vernet had scarpered and six weeks is not perminant.
@140 MonkeyMagic
Jan 31st, 2014 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Close examination of history like yours rather than the Argentine umbrella theory that imagines there was a strong Argentine claim from 1820-1833 shows that indeed, the claim by the United Provinces was very sporadic. The fact that Vernet decreed a first claim on United Provinces ownership in 1828, also cancels out any prior claim as it was not a re-established claim but a primary claim. That in itself is dubious granted that Vernet sought approval for his venture from the British. If he truly acted on behalf of the United Provinces of the River Plate, why consult the British at all? The British paid compensation later in the 19th century to Vernet for the loss of his property-so why did The United Provinces/ Argentina not compensate him if the Falklands was their territory? Your point was valid, after Vernet left in 1831, Brisbane ran Vernet's settlement -was he named as a United Provinces governor? If not as you say the claim falls down until the militia turn up in 1832. So by Argentina's logic, if Ushuaia was run by the British Missionary Society for more than 3 years and three months -then the UK has a claim on Ushuaia.
Pete Bog
Feb 01st, 2014 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes indeed, the Argwntine myth suggests sovereignty passed from the Spanish settlement to Vernet to the “expelled authorities” in some form of seamless succession.
It is flawed all over the shop.
The British claim is based on the fact we claimed sovereignty first in 1690 and that the current inhabitants have been there since 1833 and wish to be a BOT.
If just claiming sovereignty and then leaving is paramount, the islands are British due to the 1690 claim.
If claiming sovereignty and leaving is irrelevant (as I believe) then the British settlement at Egmont, the Spanish settlement, Jewitt and Vernet are all irrelevant.
So....it then comes back to the key moments in 1832 and 1833.
Argentina (UP) tried to claim sovereignty in November 1832. It sent Esteban Mestevier and a rag tag crew of vagabonds, mercenaries and their families...all in all fewer than 60.
When they arrived, they mutineed, murdered Mestevier and raped his wife. When the British arrived they evicted the remaining crew...all 50 of them.
This is the crux...the question that would be paramount in any ICJ case.
How many we're evicted?
how long had they been on the islands?
Does 50 people for 6 weeks over-ride 180 years of permanent settlement? Does it override self determination?
If it does, redrawing the world map should be fun....99.9% would need to change!
@140 Monkeymagic
Feb 01st, 2014 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes if all the principles underpinning the Argentine claim were replicated the world would have to redraw most borders.
Something that has been repeated ad nauseum is that Vernet's preferred settlers(in the 1820s) came from Britain, Germany and the USA, so as you say a multinational mix which does not infer a settlement by the United Provinces of the River Plate, but a mullti national bunch of people wanting to settle the Falkland Islands for themselves (i.e. be Falkland Islanders).
I can't see any difference between Vernet implanting people (mainly from Europe) to the mainly British settlers from 1840 onwards who the Argentines claim as implants. All settlers on the Islands were therefore implanted as there was no indigenous population.
1833 will plague Argentina forever because a then predominantly South American population (more so than pre-Lexington raid), was encouraged to stay by the British. The Brits may have been doing more unseemly things in the rest of the world, but not in the Falklands.
Also to be taken into account (I apologise for repeating this-but it is relevant) that Clio's force was outnumbered by Pinedo's men who were mostly from Britain-who refused to fight Onslow. These sailors did not originate from the United Provinces, and yet they were sent packing to South America, whilst many of Vernet's settlers from South American were not, despite their origin.
The Argentines don't seem to understand that these settlers were not interested in claiming the Islands for UP, they wanted the Islands for themselves, otherwise the settlers would have been living near Buenos Aires or Montevideo, a point frequently overlooked.
In fact if it had not been for Rivero, the settlement might well have increased without any British military presence, but clearly Rivero was a criminal having murdered people of several nationalities, and had to be removed to ensure the survival of the settlement, still Vernet's at that point.
MONKEY MAGIC.
Feb 01st, 2014 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0During colonial times, the name of the country wasn't argentina, it was Virreynato del rio de la plata, when it declared it's independence, it's name changed for Provincias Unidas. Anyway, if the territory was submited to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, with a permanent occupation, i don't know why you say that people in the islands didn't consider their selves as part of our territory.
Respecting the sucession of states, after it declared the independence, the country had right to occupy all those territories which had been submited to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, the island was just one more part of the country. While t is true that spain never ceded anything to the autorities of the nation, it's also true that it didn't need spain's licence in order to occupy the island.
On the other hand, as i told you a few weeks ago, it's necesary to take the context into account when a historic moment is studied. I never said that permanent occupation wasn't obligatory for the u. p., i just said that in a context of civil wars, the occupation of an isolated island wasn't the priority, in fact, there were intents of occupation, the firts one was made in 1820, which was published in the times in 1821, and the u. k. didn't protest, however, jewitt's occupation didn't last so much. A few years later there were permanent occupations, but in 1832, u. s. a. unshiped in the islands, and destroyed all our settlement, but some months later, the government designed a new governor, and took some families to the islands in order to occupy the territory. If the u. k. searched a peaceful solution with our country in 1833, instead of taking advantage of the weak situation of the u. p., and force our authorities to leave the islands, our country would continue to occupy the territory permanently.
I have always recognized that the case has strong and weak aspects for both countries, however it's notable that you never criticise the weak aspects of your side.
If CFK has a case,
Feb 01st, 2014 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0take it to the ICJ,
if she does not have a case,
then she will continue to harass and intimidate the islanders illegally.
we know she will do the latter.
axel arg
Feb 01st, 2014 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Spanish settler on the islands DID not consider themselves Argentine.
“you cant see why” ....Axel, I explained in great detail why.
Firstly, they left the islands in 1811 and went to FIGHT the BA uprising from Montevideo.
Secondly, those that remained in South America stayed in Uruguay which was an independent state by 1828.
Thirdly, most returned to Spain.
So...which part of those three facts make you think that the Spanish islanders. Wanted to be Argentine....all three point to the fact that they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES ARGENTINE! not one of them EVER!
You are confidently calling the Viceroyalty a single entity...it wasn't, it was multiple entities.
I will give you an example. The East India company was an equivalent British Empire entity. For expedience it controlled the territory of Aden administered from Bombay.
However, upon independence from the UK, Ghandi didn't claim Aden based on your ludicrous rule...it remained part of the Empire, and now is part of Yemen.
When the Viceroylaty broke up, it broke into multiple territories, Uruguay, Paraguay, the UP, Bolivia (part), Brazil (in part) and the Falklands.
The idea that everything that wasn't any of the others is automatically Argentine...especially a group of islands 1000 miles away is LUDICROUS.
I agree the UP didn't need Spains licence to occupy the islands, as Spain had vacated them.
The problem for you is that Argentine didn't occupy the islands.
The 1828-1832 settlement which you claim as Argentine was being run by a Briton, who had no title from the UP....how was that an “argentine settlement”
The ONLY weak point in the UKs claim is “As I have always stated”, on Jan 6th 1833 we evicted 50 militia from the islands who'd been there 6 weeks. not a shot was fired. This militia had already mutineed, murdered and raped.
This “weak point” I acknowledge, on the grand scheme of things...tough luck. It is insignificant....
144 Axle Aargh
Feb 01st, 2014 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Respecting the sucession of states, after it declared the independence, the country had right to occupy all those territories which had been submited to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, the island was just one more part of the country. While t is true that spain never ceded anything to the autorities of the nation, it's also true that it didn't need spain's licence in order to occupy the island.”
You didn't have a “right” to anything - only to what you could hold militarily - Spain ceded you NOTHING.
Spain did not possess the Islsnds, and neither did any part of the ViceRoyalty, 1000 miles away.
The weak point is not having any claim to East Falkland whatsoever....
Feb 01st, 2014 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Especially when BA settled and claimed it before Britain had any ideas of trying to claim it....
It doesn't matter how long the settlement was there....the question is how long would it have been there if....a) the Americans hadn't destroyed the original Vernet settlement and b) The British hadn't evicted the Argentine Militia...
Spain had lost all the colonies and was not in a position to reclaim them...so all of Spain's possessions were up for grabs to whoever could take them or settle them...BA did first....it has a claim to East Falkland...
Britain has a claim to West Falkland......
Axel Arg
Feb 02nd, 2014 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have told you this more than once and you run away from it every time.
ARGENTINA IS NOT THE SUCCESSOR STATE TO THE VICEROYALTY.
You have no legal or historical basis to back up that claim.
But you will just ignore this AGAIN.
Anglolatino
Feb 02nd, 2014 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your own government ignores you.
Why should Axel pay you any attention...?
Axel
Feb 02nd, 2014 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Reread your “lecture”.
You had the “right” to settle on the islands
You showed the “intent” to settle on the islands
Neither of these constitute permanent settlement.
Both you and A-voice wish to claim the Vernet business as an “Argentine settlement”.
This is FAR from clear, Vernet was playing a very cagey game, and was using both sides to further his interests. By the time he left prior to the Lexington raid, it certainly appeared he preferred a UP direction...but he scarpered and left Brisbane in charge, it is NOT the UKs fault that Vernet left and the Lexington destroyed the settlement.
A-voice
Of course it matters how long and how many made up a settlement.
In fact in this scenario it is critical.
Had the Spaniards stayed and unequivocally wished to become part of the Up/Argentina, Britain would have committed a wrong in 1833 by evicting them.
Had Vernets community prospered and they had unequivocally claimed themselves UP/Argentine and completely rejected the British arrival. Britian would have committed a wrong in 1883. As it was there were a handful left under the management of a Britain, and none were evicted, many stayed for generations.
So, it still comes down to the 50 militia. “the Argentine authorities”, the “garrison”. All grand names for what they were.
They had already murdered their captain (the new governor) and raped his wife and were evicted without a shot being fired.
Now you, and Axel, maybe believe that the peaceful eviction of 50 people 180 years ago whosd been there 6 weeks should mean that the current islanders should give up sovereignty, their homes and businesses in some sort of shared “sovereignty”, especially in the light of Argentinas actions in 1982 and since...I don't.
If shared sovereignty is the result of “colonialist actions” on this scale...get redrawing the map...start with Patagonia.
If CFK has a case,
Feb 02nd, 2014 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0take it to the ICJ,
if she does not have a case,
then she will continue to harass and intimidate the islanders illegally.
we know she will do the latter...
Axel,
Feb 03rd, 2014 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0one of your many misconceptions is this idea you have that any weakness you think you can identify in the British case translates into a strength in the Argentine case.
This isn't true; the Argentine case is what it is, whatever the Brits are alleged to have done. And the fact remains that the Argentine case is based upon an inheritance that was never left to you by a power that was never in undisputed ownership, and the misrepresentation of a commercial venture in the 1820s as an Argentine settlement. That just does not stand up, for all the reasons that are routinely trotted out around here.
And it certainly does not stand up nearly two centuries later, when international law and practice have evolved to provide both an unambiguous answer to the question of ownership, and the means of settling any dispute that arises. The world has moved on, and this dispute is not about who had the best claim in 1833, it is about who has the best claim in 2014. And there is only one answer to that.
But all is not lost for you. You can have the islands tomorrow. No problem. All you have to do is convince the islanders. Why is that so hard?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!