MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands: no surge in troop numbers but upgraded infrastructure and £180 million in ten years
United Kingdom Defense Secretary Michael Fallon has dispelled media reports suggesting a surge in troop numbers was likely. Fallon on Tuesday outlined £180 million infrastructure spending plans, but told MPs numbers would remain at around 1,200 military and civilian personnel. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesTo all the Argentine trolls who are going to come on here and echo your stupid Mr Timmerman, who appears worried about how much the British are spending on defence, I would like to say this.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 07:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0To a normal functioning country £180 million (US$266, 540,000) to be spent over 10 years is pocket change, £180 million to be spent over a year would be more significant (but still small potatoes).
The truth is that weapon systems need to be upgraded and serviced regularly, something you Argentines don't actually bother to do with your military hardware, hence why it is such a shambles, and your government having to 'give' large parts of Argentina away to China to attempt to get something slightly better.
The fact that over the past few years Argentina has desperately, and it has appeared desperate, tried to get any kind of new fighter/bomber aircraft proves that Argentina wants to build up its military again.
Now there is no problem with this. Argentina has the right to do it. But they then can't complain when the British upgrade their own weaponry too. It's not one rule for Argentina and one rule for the rest of the world, no matter what you trolls think.
I am very grateful and reassured to learn that such a budget on maintenance and upkeep of Mt Pleasant is planed. Deterrence is the best policy. Who knows (well actually, I think we all know) what that crazy government would attempt given half a chance.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands are British and Argentina has no say over anything.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0And not only that but their silly thick bitch in London still cannot understand the difference between 1200(which includes civilian support staff) and the over 2000 she always rants on about!
Mar 25th, 2015 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0AS for Timmerman and Rossies lies about their policies towards us:
1. Why does an RAF Typhoon still have to periodically scramble to meet an unidentified aircraft approaching the Islands from Argentina- which then turns tail and runs away as soon as it sees the RAF are up and ready?
2. Why do we have spent over £1million a year of commercial shipping methods to avoid the Argentine commercial blockade and threats against container shipping lines that would otherwise carry freight to and from the Islands?
3. Why have they consistently refused requests for additional commercial flights that cross their airspace to the islands? Direct breach of IATA .
4 Why do they continually threaten harassment and interference with 3rd party fishing vessels that would otherwise with to make the normal international transit through Arg fishing zone areas but in international waters to travel from the Islands fishing zones to other countries?
Why do they publically state that we who live here- and have done for generations - are irrelevent-have no rights to have a say in our future-are a nonpeople - etc etc?
I could go one for several, pages - and Twitman and Chrissie Face try and tell the world they are peacefull and non aggressive!
@4 Islander1,
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Because they are assholes- we all know that.
Spineless, gormless, useless, surly, sulky assholes/arseholes.
lts a Latin macho thing, they have to win ALL the time & get very snaky when we don't let them win.
We've lost battles & we have won them, too.
I hope that we learn from our mistakes, but they don't seem to.
The RAF should shoot down the zone-testers/provocateurs.
With no warning.
But more to the point, what business is it of any Argentinian, what the UK decides to spend on it's defence budget. Perhaps if they are that worried for our unemployed, they could refund all the aid that has been given to them or maybe send the UK some aid instead.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0If I was an educated Argentinian I would be embarrassed that my government seems more worried about other countries finances than their own.
The Argentinian government is a joke
Thank you, Mr Secretary!
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/voters-call-on-david-cameron-to-stop-1521379
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0225 million pounds....cut them off now!!!
As I've posted before, the Falklands do not belong to Argentina, just as Gibraltar does not belong to Spain, Ceuta and Melilla do not belong to Morocco and, Belize does not belong to Guatemala, northern Chile does not belong to Bolivia and the western part of Guyana does not belong to Venezuela.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0On Chile's experience, maintaining a strong defensive military has been crucial for having a century of peace. German Leopard tanks, British/Dutch/French warships/French-Spanish submarines and F-16s come at a price, but keep our kleptomaniac Latin brothers from theft.
I highly recommend the same philosophy for our Falkland neighbors as well.
Criminal complacency by Cameron and Fallon.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can only hope that the whole story is not being told and that additional conventional precautions are being taken in secret.
When the Arg. Govt. rails on about a 'dispute' it always brings a wry smile. Silly beggars still don't realise that you need two parties for a dispute.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0As far as the UK is concerned, there is no 'dispute'.
The matter has been resolved. All that is left is some impotent losers still shouting from the sidelines.
The matter is over, finished. The Falkland Islands are British for as long as they wish to remain so, the rest is all hogwash.
Argentina needs to accept this and move on.
However, the UK Govt. is correct to remain alert and steadfast just in case these untrustworthy fools try something sneaky and underhand as they have done in the past.
Alicia Castro
Mar 25th, 2015 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0should be kicked out,
no matter what we do, we are dammed,
increase defence=and we are militarising the place,
reduce defence=we don't care,
The Falkland's are British, and CFK and her government who shouts that they respect human rights should leave them alone , accept that they are not argentine , or go to the ICJ,
the alternative would be irresponsible and a possible war crime by her government if it came to conflict through all her years of threats and intimidation.
then again the British could just through caution to the wind,
and say
any attempt against the Falkland's in any way shape or form would be regarded as an act of war and would leave Argentina open to military obliteration as a danger to life and limb of British citizen's, full stop...
@ 12 Briton
Mar 25th, 2015 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“any attempt against the Falkland's in any way shape or form would be regarded as an act of war and would leave Argentina open to military obliteration as a danger to life and limb of British citizens”
It will come to that sooner or later: the argies just cannot help themselves.
So what has happened to Filmus? I thought he was “in charge” of the Falklands, or Malvinas as these idiots call them. The name is derived from the French, so it's not even in low class jibber-jabber that is used in TDC.
I think it's virtually all been said, but there are some points worth repeating for the SA trolls who don't get anything even when their faces have been mashed into the brick wall umpteen times.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Castro is still attempting to polish up her CV as a comedian. “The United Kingdom is not only not listening but it is in breach of its obligation under international law to resolve disputes through diplomatic channels,” she said.
Stupid woman, why would the UK listen to argieland? Islander1 has kindly listed a number of reasons why the UK doesn't listen and is prepared to tell argieland where to shove its 'obligations'. Sideways. Rossi, of course, is thick. In fact, Rossi is so thick that he makes matters worse, rather than better. There is NO scope for dialogue with the United Kingdom over the issue.
But here are some points (with respects to those who have already made them).
1. Where and how Britain chooses to spend its money is OUR business, not argieland's.
2. If we want to turn the Falkland Islands into the most heavily armed and defended piece of land on the planet, we will.
3. We could build a spaceport on the Islands, launching rockets on a regular basis, and it would be no-one's business but ours.
4. We can fire missiles out over the ocean and, aside from the appropriate Notice to Mariners, it's our business.
5. Get rid of all the issues that Islander1 has listed.
6. Quit calling the Islands by that potty name.
7. Amend the argie constitution. All reference to the Islands must be expunged.
8. Argieland must go to the UN and publicly withdraw all claims to the Islands and make a commitment to never raise them again.
9. Argieland must agree to irregular UK inspections of its infrastructure.
10. Argieland must pay reparations. Not just for the war, but for every unfriendly act since.
11. The current argie government must resign.
12. The UK to have the right to have any member of an argie government dismissed.
GB taxpayer cost: £9000 ~ per citizen per year.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cost per GB Tax Payer: £2.81 over 10 years or 28.1p per tax payer per year.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cost per Armed forces personnel on the Falklands £15,000.00 per year
Cost to protect British Overseas Territory from a belligerent neighbour....priceless
Glad to hear Mr Fallon´s words. I´d like to believe that this would be an end for the `super atomic nato military base´ BS that keeps coming from the Arg gov, but I would not hold my breath.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#15
Mar 25th, 2015 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who cares ? If it pisses off Argentina then money well spent.
How much is a life worth,
Mar 25th, 2015 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0£9000 cheap at half the price,
and more if required
@15 Can you quote a source for that figure? Or are you lying?
Mar 25th, 2015 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20.. All he has done is divide the £180m by the number of Falkland Islanders
Mar 25th, 2015 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 Vestige
Mar 25th, 2015 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm always amazed at how you Argentine can put a price on the lives of people.
Freedom and self-determination is something that you can't put a price, and as a British taxpayer I'd say that £180 million spent over 10 years is only a small price to pay.
Personally I think that the whole of the UK defences should be upgraded and expanded massively, including those around the Falklands and our South Atlantic territories.
But don't worry, vestige, the UK taxpayer is generally more than content to have our tax money spent this way.
Wheras in Argentina, the few that actually do pay tax, don't know what happens to their tax money.
It certainly isn't being spent on education, infrastructure improved, security or creating jobs.
You should be far more worried about your own economic situation. The UK and the Falklands are sitting pretty.
@21 Except there is about 3000 of us lol. I was hoping for some ridiculous statement about military budgets, something about £ billions bla bla bla... Your know, the usual propaganda that I find ever so funny.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@23..I think he discounted the Military numbers, but still I am happy to add my £2.81 over the next 10 years, I would happily give a lot more for defence if it is needed
Mar 25th, 2015 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The cost of £180m has to be put into context here.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rapier is coming to end of life anyway and is being replaced across the board by CAMM. The Falklands installation is simply being replaced on schedule. So the money would have been spent anyway.
So it seems the extra expenditure is on upgrading military accommodation and building a new school. Pretty belligerent stuff, eh?
It was also announced that rabbits and other burrowing animals were to be introduced to islands as a cheap way of lifting the tens of thousands of mines left by Argentina over 30 years ago , but none of this seems to have made the news .
Mar 25th, 2015 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 025. in any given context its money spent. no presence = no upgrade = no expense.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Arg will of course naturally upgrade continuously as part of its national interests, as every country does.
some day maybe it will be £20,000 per turnip, whether Arg even care to look in the islands direction or not.
but money well invested if it pisses off the argies as they say.
the story has only one saintly side.
like with east Ukraine, it doesn't matter how a referendum takes place, all that matters is the result.
@27 Vestige
Mar 25th, 2015 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well your 1st figures were wrong, your second figures are wrong, but unlike you greedy trolls, the British don't put a price tag on freedom.
We will spend whatever it takes.
But your concern for our finances is noted. It's a pity you don't spend as much time scrutinising Argentina's finances, you might then just figure out where all your money has actually gone.
@27 You forgot to put; no belligerent neighbour = no presence = no upgrade = no expense but what we have is; psychotic neighbours = presence needed = standard upgrading as required = acceptable expense for the UK tax payer of 28p per year.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only difference with the Falklands as opposed to the Ukraine Referendum is that the Falklands were overseen international independent observers and declared free and fair and recognised by all the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations. Did the Ukraine have those? Well I suppose they had Argentinian support, didn't they!
@27
Mar 25th, 2015 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But just think of all that oil money coming to the FALKLANDS in 2019. They could buy Argentina in 2020. They will of course pay a contribution to the defence of the FALKLANDS by then. How's PUTA MUERTE doing ? Lots of investment yet?
29 - no need to have a belligerent neighbor, try recognizing that both parties have rights in the case of the islands. Or live in historic denial, thats worked well in certain other places. From Chagos islands to Belfast.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0People are always starting trouble with poor Britain.
the so called referendum was hardly independent - privately paid, and I'd hardly say commonwealth recognition was unbiased. May be reasons why the UN wasn't there and doesn't recognize the “result”.
unsurprising that theres at least 1 mp saying the same in Westminster, Im sure others think like Galloway, or like the prior GB govt who suggested negotiation, but its safer to keep your head down.
30 - ah yes the long awaited oil, somewhere over the rainbow. 2019 is it now.
31
Mar 25th, 2015 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0their will always be MPs that will sell you down the drain,
until it happens them, then all drain are cleaned,
to upgrade, you need some to upgrade first, or buy new,
the average good decent ship will set you back approx. 300 million plus,
a decent plane like the F18 or equivalent will set you back approx. 3/4 hundred thousand dollars,
missiles anything around a couple of million,
and a sub around 3/4 hundred million , or up to a billion for a nuclear one,
and this does not include manning them , or the maintenance or infrastructure,
were are you going to get this money,
we are talking a total of around a couple of billion.
now even if you sold your own people as slaves, it would not even cover the cost of exporting them,
were you get all this magical money.
Scrap the lot and become a pacifist you know it makes sense.,..lol
@28. Are his figures wrong? Even so, let's have £9,000 per Islander for each year from 1982. £870,804,000. Then we can add on the cost of mine clearance. An estimate in The Telegraph in 2008 suggested £100 million. It's all chicken feed, isn't it. Argieland can just hand over £1 billion and we can tell them how much more we want after we've spent it. The usual method amended for the location at which the 'dosh' is handed over. Packed into holdalls and dropped, by parachute, over a designated area of RAF Mount Pleasant. Entry and exit routes and altitudes to be specified. Any deviation gets the delivery aircraft shot down.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@27. Would you like to make it £2 billion? Here's a thought. We can afford it. Can you?
There was nothing 'saintly' about the referendums in Crimea and east Ukraine. Do you have pictures of the armed British troops standing inside each Falklands polling station? Plenty of pictures of the Spetznaz. Hang on. What were Spetznaz doing in the sovereign territory of Ukraine? Still, argieland has never been big on electoral honesty, has it?
@30. It's very cruel of you to remind of argies that they need 'foreigners' to 'exploit' their supposed resources. Don't I recall someone yattering about argie self-sufficiency?
The Minister reiterated the fact that “the state of Argentina wants to find scope for dialogue with the United Kingdom over the Malvinas issue, in compliance with United Nations resolutions”.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A couple of points here,
1--Argentina's Foreign minister Hector Timerman has rejected point blank that suggestion arguing the Islanders are a ”non-people“
2-President Cristina Fernandez refers to the Falkland Islanders as 'squatters'.
How does Argentina propose these talks start ???.
.
@31...Why should the UK and the Islanders recognize your rights, you do not recognize theirs.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But more fundamental Argentina do not have any rights in the case of the islands, you hanker after something that is not yours and never were yours. You have neither a moral or historical right on your side, just a made up fantasy that was sold to you by Peron.
The UN does not need to recognise the result, did the UN recognise the Scottish vote? (I honestly don't know the answer to this, but I haven't found anything). It is a UK internal matter.
But what I do know is that ' The United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution describing the Crimean referendum as illegal. One hundred countries voted in favour of approving a UN General Assembly resolution declaring the Crimean referendum illegal and affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity. Eleven nations voted against, with 58 abstentions. '
Did the UN vote on a resolution to declare the Falklands Islands referendum illegal, because it seems strange that they voted on Crimea but not on the Falklands.
One can safely assume that the UN accepts the referendum as legal without having to verbally recognise the results, as they were quite quick in showing that if it was illegal they would have voted on a resolution to say so.
Alicia Castro, Argentine ambassador in London, said that Falklands is “just an excuse” to increase military spending.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.........and I am lovin it!!! £180 million??? for 10 more years of this??? that's better value for money than the BBC licence fee!!!
Not only does it have all those clowns in BA chasing their tails, it also keeps the Islanders safe and allows them to give the big “F**K YOU!” to the argentines each and everyday.
If Ilsen was here, he would call it a “Win win” for the the UK and the Falklands and he would be right ( again ).
@36
Mar 25th, 2015 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes the trolls seem to think that £180 million is actually lot of money, but divided over 10 years its only £18 million per year.
Now if the UK said it was spending £180 million per year for the next 10 years...well that would be a significant amount - but in the budgets of civilised countries still quite small potatoes.
As I have stated on another thread, if the UK wants to station 50,000 heavily armed troops on the Falklands it would be no one's business but the Falkland Islands Government and the British Government.
Argentina is a completely impotent nobody, but I'm sure their screeching keeps other countries amused.
@31 Vestige,
Mar 25th, 2015 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, l see your problem.
You are under the illusion that Argentina has rights here!
How incredible that you believe such nonsense.
Let me put you straight,
Argentina has NEVER had any rights in the Falklands & has NO RIGHTS here now.
Sort of deflates your ridiculous argument, doesn't it?
@ 15 Vestige Birdbrain who writes “GB taxpayer cost: £9000 ~ per citizen per year.”
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now, £9000 ... how much did Argentina spend on each nun who was thrown into the ocean from a Hercules ?
@ 27 No Vestige of even a tiny titchy brain now!
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Arg will of course naturally upgrade continuously as part of its national interests, as every country does.”
There is only one thing to say about this: YOU ARE BROKE!
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
I get so confused between Vestige Voice and Think.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think its deliberate
:)
I think the islanders should all be given new straws and several pieces of paper to shoot spitballs if needed. Anything more is overkill.
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 031 Vestige
Mar 25th, 2015 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As to the Referendum the UN has stated nothing, and silence in law is consent, therefore the UN is giving legal approval of the referendum.
Argentinean by failing to take any legal action against the referendum has legally acquiesced, and therefor has tacitly approved.
The UK can rely on at least six-planks of international law and three Anglo-Spanish treaties, that support irrefutably her right of sovereignty, while legally Argentine is now barred from even submitting a claim to the ICJ or the PCA. Moreover, there is not one aspect of international law that supports an Argentine claim. The UK therefor is the only legal holder of sovereignty, and there is no legal power on earth to change that reality. So regardless it doesn't matter a jot what any other countries or organizations opinion is, or what they recommend. As they are prevented under international law from any interference in the UK's internal affairs.
Inevitable response to the increasing belligerence of the MalviNazi scum.
Mar 26th, 2015 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0As well as the increasing importance to the British of their S. Atlantic/Antarctic territories.
Much wailing and gnashing of teeth shall now be heard from the Argentine.
But not for all their wit nor piety (such as it is), shall they alter one iota of it (what has been written).
@9 Chicureo
Interestingly though Bolivia always seems to equate its “right full” claim to northern Chile, with Argentina’s “right full” claim the S. Atlantic.
I have yet to hear the Argy gov say that.
“Talk quietly but carry a big stick”
@27 Vestige
Even if your figures had any validity, you’re still missing the bigger picture.
What price defending the S. Atlantic/Antarctic, question is why??
Answer that and you see the bigger picture.
Oh and few people think like Galloway, on any planet.
Sorry Terrence but the Britons on the disputed islands are not by law 'a people'.
Mar 26th, 2015 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Personally I'm fine that London .... Where else ...... Is spending money on weapons for the islands.
My views aren't that outlandish even though every sun monkey in here likes to paint me as a zombie Nazi boogie man, and hurt my tender heart with name calling ... they can only see one side. Its not hundreds of years ago that B.Aires and London were of an outlook not dissimilar from mp Galloway or myself.
45 Vestige
Mar 26th, 2015 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since your asserting it's up to you to prove. In the meantime here's a couple of nuggets, in addition to four judgements from the ICJ that refute your contention.
“2. The Right to Self-Determination Within the UN Legal Framework
...Respect for the principle of the self-determination of peoples was first included in UN Charter7 and was later codified in both International Covenants, that on Civil and Political Rights and that on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.8
The modern meaning of the right to self-determination, as embodied in common Article 1 to both Covenants, consists of the right of all peoples to determine their political status and to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. ...
6. Concluding Remarks
...Seemingly, in the Court’s view erga omnes obligations with respect to the right to self-determination include the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding its implementation. ...”
Self-Determination through the Lens of the International Court of Justice by Gentian Zyberi
Served as legal adviser and coordinator of the Albanian legal team in the Kosovo case before the ICJ.
paragraph 80 of the ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion that states, 'the scope for the principle for territorial integrity is limited to the relationship between individual States and does not impinge on the right to self-determination and independence.'
Sixty-third session Agenda item 63 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly
63/163. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
Reaffirming also its resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000, containing the to self-determination … …
1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples,...is a fundame
Argentina, what are you waiting for cutting flights lan? squatters remain prisoners in the islands!
Mar 26th, 2015 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0What an interesting relation: Argentina spends $0 which necessitates that the UK spend $1b. The UK will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Mar 26th, 2015 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nurse! Nurse!
Mar 26th, 2015 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Come quick! someone has left the gate open!
Two have them have escaped!
Nurse! NURSE!
48 Hepatia
Mar 26th, 2015 - 04:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0It costs Argentina more than the UK in their conflict according to Carlos Escudé. He warned: “If Argentina had power, I would not be doing these proposals,” but reasoned that “pursue policies of power without power is counterproductive” because “leads to losing more than you earn systematically”
“La reivindicación argentina de Malvinas solo sirve para comprar el voto de ciudadanos poco educados”
http://www.infobae.com/2014/11/10/1607855-la-reivindicacion-argentina-malvinas-solo-sirve-comprar-el-voto-ciudadanos-poco-educados
Falklands War Cost-Benefit Analysis
The price of war
”Although the Falklands War had a very noticeable short-term impact on defence expenditure, the impact was not long-lasting. Notwithstanding the first few years after the conflict, when South Atlantic expenditure was greatly consumed by the construction of RAF Mount Pleasant (operational from 1986), the amount spent wasn't overly significant. In 1986-7, it was only 2.23% of total defence expenditure, and by 1989-90, a mere 0.33%. At their height (1982-3), the war's effects represented only 6.76% of total defence expenditure.
http://www.infobae.com/2014/11/10/1607855-la-reivindicacion-argentina-malvinas-solo-sirve-comprar-el-voto-ciudadanos-poco-educados
Unfortunately for you the reverse is true, time has been entirely on the UK's side. It has cemented her claim of sovereignty while Argentina has irretrievably lost any entitlement to a legal claim. Any opportunity to use force by Argentina is now past. One she is too weak, and secondly she would be subject to such an an economic blockade by the UN that her fragile economy would be irretrievably damaged.
If the UK were to become too weak militarily to ensure the Islands protection, she could unitarily submit the issue to the ICJ for a legal advisory opinion. The inevitable result would so shock world opinion and condemn Argentina to a permanent pariah status. Your hero Kohen agrees thus: ”Time is running against Argentina because the British have possession of the territory
'Sorry Terrence but the Britons on the disputed islands are not by law 'a people''...
Mar 26th, 2015 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your assertion, now prove it. But you can't, its just your opinion. Where in law have the UN or ICJ or any other binding authority ever said the Islanders are 'not' a people. And Pleeeasssseee don't come back with a rebuttal of 'show me where they have said they are a people', that is not proof. Just like your referendum comment earlier, which you have been easily proved wrong, you are entitled to your own opinions, but I draw the line at letting you have your own facts.
Just like an adolescent, hormonal teenager you are emotionally incontinent regarding the Falklands, you have stated they are not legally a people, show us all where this has been said.
#45 vestige - small quantity
Mar 26th, 2015 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Sorry Terrence but the Britons on the disputed islands are not by law 'a people'.”
Any government or person who claims that a community of human beings are not 'a people' are placing themselves on a very slippery moral slope. This claim has also been made by Argentina's foreign minister, apart from being morally reprehensible; these sorts of tactics are doomed to failure because they revolt the sensibilities of all decent people.
But Argentina became a great haven for Nazi war criminals after WW2, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised if some of them behave like Nazis.
@49 ilsen,
Mar 26th, 2015 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Coming,
Won't be long l'll just get their injections ready.
Double strength this time.
We'll soon run them to earth, they haven't got the intelligence to get far.
@48 Hepatia,
We can afford it, Argentina cannot!
And we consider it well worth it.
Next!
@45 Vestige,
You wish! Like you wish a lot of things! Prove it.
@48 : What interesting relation : You spend all day on here attempting to recover what was never yours , while Cristina spends over $2M of what is rightfully yours on baubles .....
Mar 26th, 2015 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.perfil.com/internacional/La-adiccion-de-Cristina-por-las-joyas-volvio-a-la-prensa-espanola-20150124-0086.html
Choripan , anyone ?
45 Vestige
Mar 26th, 2015 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0But the Britons on the disputed islands are not by law 'a people'
[-Once again-prove it,]
-paint me as a zombie Nazi boogie man
[- Can we see a copy of this picture-]
48 Hepatia
The UK will return the Malvinas within 25 years
[- and Argentina will return the land to the original inhabitants in 24 years. -]
.
46 - How can I prove a non-existence. If something isn't on the books my only proof would be the entirety of law.
Mar 26th, 2015 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So I guess thats my proof, the entirety of international law.
You can read it all and deduce for yourself from the absence of mention of these imaginary kel?erite people.
Easier to check if a single given thing does in fact exist.
So feel free to provide proof of the UN giving its institutional approval of some referendum which apparently took place in the disputed Malvinas.
It is on the books so read it and weep. Here are four sources that confirm silence in law is approval, for it not to be, it must be explicitly so stated.
Mar 26th, 2015 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
http://books.google.com.br/books ...
'In establishing whether a state has recognized a particular norm of international law, the issue of the “silence” of a state......As I. Brownlie correctly points out, “silence may signify either tacit consent or or absence of interest in a particular matter.”'14
14. Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie
Theory of International Law By Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin http://books.google.com.br/books
Overview of International Law and Institutions
Sources of International Law
“Nations that remain silent, however, may become bound by the rule, even if they did not expressly support it. Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.”
http://books.google.com.br/books
The legal effect of silence on international organizations and nations is as following:
”Customary international law; Silence as consent;
Generally, sovereign nations must consent in order to be bound by a particular treaty or legal norm. However, international customary laws are norms that have become pervasive enough internationally that countries need not consent in order to be bound. In these cases, all tha
@46...Works both ways, 'Easier to check if a single given thing does in fact exist.', so using your own argument, show us all where your assertion that the the UN has said specifically that they are not a people exists? . So that is also our proof, the entirety of International law.
Mar 26th, 2015 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You do not have to prove a non existence, you have to prove an existence of proof that your statement ..'Sorry Terrence but the Britons on the disputed islands are not by law 'a people', exists in the entirety of international law. Does the entirety of International law state individually that every sovereign nation, nation or countries population are specifically a people or for that matter, are not a people.
A question for you. Is it legal in the UK to drink a glass of water?, you logic tell us that as it is not 'on the books' and enshrined in law it cannot be legal. Can you see the flaw in your argument?
Oh I see we are back onto the referendum which you compared to Crimea, except the UN voted that referendum illegal. Did they vote the Falklands illegal, so if they didn't vote it illegal, it must by simple deduction be legal, or is there a middle point between illegal and legal. The UN does not get itself involved in internal affairs of which the referendum in the Falklands was one such action.
Your arguments and opinions just don't stand up to the simplest of scrutiny
57 Terence Hill Continued
Mar 27th, 2015 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0In these cases, all that is needed is that the state has not objected to the law....“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_intern...”
58 Buzzsaw I have never stated “the UN has said specifically that they are not a people exists”. It is you who in separate incarnation visa-vi as “45 Vestige” stated that the Islanders by “law are not 'a people'”. Therefore without proof you are committing the Logical Fallacy of Ignoring the Burden of Proof:
Generally speaking, he who asserts must prove. An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. Since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument. Writers sometimes forget this, and their articles can be littered with assertion after assertion. In the end, the duty to support an assertion is on the writer, not the reader (like the burden of proof is on the accuser in court, rather than the accused).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_intern...”
Moreover, your claim that I stated that anything about ”the referendum which you compared to Crimea,' is an absolute lie as I have never proffered an opinion on the subject.
I have proved absolutely that your contention the Islanders Referendum wasn't recognised by the UN as sheer bunkum, with four apposing citations.
So give it up, your gobbledygook might satisfy you, but you've lost your argument.
“I doubt you can understand the magnitude of the stupidity in your statement” Robert Jordan, The Gathering Storm
Hmmm,
Mar 27th, 2015 - 02:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0no sorry, no sale.
can't you provide some official UN statement as proof, they stand by their official decisions so it can't be that hard to find surely.
It is you who has claimed at post #31 “the so called referendum... ... UN wasn't there and doesn't recognize the result”. Also at post #45 ”but the Britons on the disputed islands are not by law 'a people'.
Mar 27th, 2015 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since they are your assertions you bear the burden of proof, of which you have proffered none. I have proved both statements to be false under international law. The first being that UN silence is recognized as support of the Referendum en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_intern.... Secondly, paragraph 80 of the ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion that states, 'the scope for the principle for territorial integrity is limited to the relationship between individual States and does not impinge on the right to self-determination and independence.'
63/163. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination The General Assembly,
Reaffirming the importance, for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights, of the universal realization of the right of peoples to
self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights,1 as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,
Reaffirming its previous resolutions on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, including resolution 62/144 of 18 December 2007,
1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination
is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
@59.. Sorry Terrance, was meant for Breastige @ 56, my mistake he started with
Mar 27th, 2015 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0' 46 - How can I prove a non-existence. If something isn't on the books my only proof would be the entirety of law. ' appologies I must have subconsciously put @46 rather than @56.
But just for clarification, how did you manage to get your understanding for the statement
'It is you who in separate incarnation visa-vi as “45 Vestige” stated that the Islanders by “law are not 'a people'”.
Other than quoting Vestige (@45) to counter his argument, all my posts have asked him to provide proof that his statement is true. Just like you asking him to provide the burden of proof. Read my post @58 again substituting the @46 for @56 and tell me how this in any way would suggest I stated the islanders are legally not a people.
This situation is actually quite interesting from a psychological point of view, because you took my statement to be an attack on you (@46), you have taken the meaning of what I have said and turned it on its head, which I have re-read and it quite clearly states:
1. 'show us all where your assertion that the the UN has said specifically that they are not a people exists?'
2. ....''you have to prove an existence of proof that your statement ..'Sorry Terrence but the Britons on the disputed islands are not by law 'a people', exists in the entirety of international law',
to be siding with Vestige, when I clearly am asking for the same burden proof that you are. Strange what tricks our minds play on us.
@53 Isolde
Mar 27th, 2015 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hehe! Thanks!
*waves *
:--)
I wonder if the trolls will ever realise that the last thing CFK's government actually wants is sovereignty of the Falklands ?
Mar 27th, 2015 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They simply want endless talks , so that they can take up space on the media that would otherwise be used to highlight her so called governments shortfalls .
56 Vestige (#)
Mar 27th, 2015 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 046 - How can I prove a non-existence.
NO no no,
you said as stated [ by law ]
so prove it, where is this law, who passed this law,
if not,
then it must in all fairness mean that you were and are a liar.
@60...Was the Scottish referendum legal and recognised by the UN through a specific statement? They did however pass a resolution that the Crimea referendum was illegal, funny that they would pass a resolution with regard to that, but yet nothing on the two other referendums, why is that?
Mar 27th, 2015 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps it is because
a) The referendums were legal and therefore did not need to be recognised as such
b) They were internal UK affairs and do not therefore come under the UN jurisdiction
Have you ever had a police man stop you and tell you that you are driving in a very good manner and very safely or are you more likely to be stopped by the police when you break the speed limit or drive dangerously. Like with the Crimea referendum it was deemed illegal so they said so. Unfortunately you seen to think that the default position in law is guilty or illegal unless they state otherwise.
So you stated 'the Britons on the disputed islands are not by law 'a people''..'
and to use your own argument @60....can't you provide some official International Law document that supports your statement, I can't be that difficult can it?
How come theres nothing from the UN saying it recognizes this referendum event.
Mar 27th, 2015 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surely there should be at least some official release.
Wheres the beef.
67 Vestige
Mar 27th, 2015 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no beef, it's a done deal, already “asked and answered”, troll. As when necessary like the Crimea, the UN makes an official objection. Where no statement is made then the UN has legally accepted the result of the referendum. The legal effect of silence on international organizations and nations is as following:
“Customary international law; Silence as consent;
Generally, sovereign nations must consent in order to be bound by a particular treaty or legal norm. However, international customary laws are norms that have become pervasive enough internationally that countries need not consent in order to be bound. In these cases, all that is needed is that the state has not objected to the law....”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law
@67....Ok using your logic, how come there is nothing from the UN saying they do not recognise the referendum event, both Scottish and Falklands. Surely there should be some official release to support your statement. They were quick enough to conden the Crimea referendum were they not?
Mar 27th, 2015 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe, just maybe it's because they don't need to say anything, as it is an internal UK matter and they do not have any jurisdiction or interest in the internal political affairs of a sovereign nation, that has run two legal, free and fair referendums.
So you are also suggesting that the Scottish referendum is also not recognised by the UN? So far you have been schooled in attempts to portray you opinions as facts and yet you still insist on making yourself look foolish.
And just for a bit of light entertainment, could you point us in the direction of a international law document that specifically states that, let's say, the population of Argentina are a people. and every other country as well. It should be easy for you, as you are quite clear that no document exists for the Falklands, so every other country must have the said document to make them legally a people, no?
68 - which representative of the UN signed off on the recognition.
Mar 28th, 2015 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Were there any witnesses.
You for one, and all the norms of international law on this thread that have emphatically stated that “silence is consent”; that you are unable to rebut.
Mar 28th, 2015 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0@70...I see you are ignoring my questions Vestige, is that because you can't answer them, just like old Pottiboy.
Mar 28th, 2015 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here's one for you, where is the signed off recognition from the UN of the Scottish referendum result.....because that was legal wasn't it. I can find a UN signed of recognition that the Crimean referendum was illegal, but not one stating that the Scottish referendum was legal according to the UN. Why is that?
Of course you will ignore this fact because it blows apart your argument.
Here is another one for you, which representative of the UN signed off that the UN does not recognise the referendum in the Falklands, surely there should be a GA resolution as you have clearly stated that they do not recognise it?
The problem you have Vestige is that, as Terrence say's 'Silence is Consent' under international law, you seem to think the opposite to the process and fundamentals of International law. That is your opinion, Terrence has proven it with facts to back up his statement, you on the other hand have wriggled, squirmed, distracted and moved the goal posts but you still have only offered your 'opinion' and nothing more.
Now if there was a neutral individual reading this thread, what do you think their opinion would be based on the information provided?
I'd advise that neutral individual to look for simple solid proof for those things claimed.
Mar 28th, 2015 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd say truth usually doesn't follow a long sales speech full of whataboutery and home made theory.
Yes there's just opinions on here, maybe an amateur keyboard lawyer too.
Anyone can interpret morcels of law to their personal desire, there's some ridiculous laws still technically on the books out there ... like in England its still legal to kill a Welshman after midnight with a crossbow if he's inside the town.
I wouldn't take it literally though. Its on the books but will be quickly crushed in a real life court.
So basically don't look for reality in personal opinions and the technical theories of cherry picked morcels of law from online keyboard lawyers.
Rather look for proof for things claimed.
When someone says something is recognized by an official institution as big as the UN ask for some simple solid proof, something like a link, or the name of the official who signed off on it.
If they can't give you that proof ... there's something fishy going on.
If they tell you the UN officially recognized a the result of a referendum attended only by a tiny private and politically paid company with a 1 page website ... and they cant link you to any official document, photo or name ask yourself how much you'd bet in real life on it being true.
A weeks wage perhaps.
Nope didn't think so.
Vestige
Mar 28th, 2015 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A present for you, it might help..
http://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page_
uploaded by britbob.
What the ICJ Might Say About Argentina’s Claims’
28 4.3 Self-Determination The Argentineans claim that the right to self-determination does not apply to the Falkland Islanders is not supported by international law. The ICJ has made several Advisory Opinions and Judgments from Namibia through to Kosovo that have either confirmed or stated,
‘that the
subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined by the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable
to all of them.’
Argentina signed both Covenant s on the 19
th
Feb 1968 and ratified them on 8 August 1986.
Cheers
“Might”.
Mar 28th, 2015 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cheers.
That Terry Hill is at it again...trying to baffle us all with his bullshit...
Mar 29th, 2015 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0..that Silence as Consent quote was referring to Customs and the article about Customary International Law....
Laws that have not been codified, but are accepted as Customary Law...
..like...various international crimes; a state which carries out or permits slavery, torture, genocide, war of aggression, or crimes against humanity....
Natural Law Principles is what they are...that is why States generally don't need to codify them and so Silence as Consent is generally accepted....
This has fcuk all to do with referendums which as far as I know has fcuk all to do with customs...
He's such a card that Terry Hill it's a pity he's not a Falklander then he would be Benny Hill....;-)))))
73 Vestige
Mar 29th, 2015 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing you have proffered is your own sophisms. You have not produced even one instance of of a ruling from the ICJ or international law to support your nonsense. But then that is exactly how your nation acts on the international stage, which is why your nation is condemned to perpetual failure.
The only opinions I have shown are those of independent legal citations, none have been my own personal views.
All that you have confirmed is that the analysis that was given to your peoples by the US chargé d'affaires Francis Baylies was correct. He wrote about Argentina in 1832 “...The revolutions of these people are seditious; their knowledge. chicanery and trickery; their patriotism, their liberty, a farce... ”
Baylies held that the US should sign no treaty ...for we would abide by it, and they would consider the violation no greater offense than a lie told by a schoolboy...”
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/argentina/rosas.pd
In the face of 'live threat,' this is an extremely modest upgraded infrastructure.
Mar 29th, 2015 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0A lot more should be done against the openly declared enemy!
Philippe
76 Voice
Mar 29th, 2015 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's probably best to read the thread first before venturing an opinion that is devoid of any relevant facts. As “It is better to be silent and thought to be ignorant then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.” R. G. Risch
Knowledge of the world depends on the power of drawing general inferences from individual examples; and he is the most likely to be correct who has the greatest number of facts at his command.
CHARLES WILLIAM DAY, The Maxims, Experiences, and Observations of Agogos
We must make a personal attack when there is no argumentative basis for our speech.
Cicero, Pro Flacco, c.58. B.C
#73
Mar 29th, 2015 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you saying that the referendum was a put up job and did not fairly represent the feelings of the Falkland islanders?
@80 Clyde,
Mar 29th, 2015 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Vestige, like Argentina, is a sore loser & cannot accept that he is in the wrong.
They are both snaky because they are not allowed to win ALL the time.
Vestige, WE own the Falklands, you DO NOT.
Get over it.
@73 Vestige, sorry but I was under the impression it was you that in fact stated '
Mar 29th, 2015 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0'Sorry Terrence but the Britons on the disputed islands are not by law 'a people'.'
and this
'the so called referendum was hardly independent - privately paid, and I'd hardly say commonwealth recognition was unbiased. May be reasons why the UN wasn't there and doesn't recognize the “result”.
Now I will get re write your comment
Rather look for proof for things claimed.
When someone says something is 'not' recognized by an official institution as big as the UN ask for some simple solid proof, something like a link, or the name of the official who signed off on it.
If they can't give you that proof ... there's something fishy going on.
If they tell you the UN officially 'does not' recognized a the result of a referendum (i.e Crimea) attended only by a tiny private (or the Russian army) and politically paid company with a 1 page website ... and they 'can' link you to any official document, photo or name ask yourself how much you'd bet in real life on it being true.
So just to recap, you don't accept that the result of the Scottish Referendum for Independence is legal as it was not 'recognised ' by the UN in an official statement. Just so we are clear on how you perceive things to be. And that the UN issues statements of recognition on all referendums regarding all UN member and non member states, is that what you are saying?
Ask yourself how much you'd bet in real life on it being true.
A weeks wage perhaps.
79
Mar 29th, 2015 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Poor recovery and retort because I exposed your cherry picking, misleading use of a Customary Law...
If you are going to set yourself on a pedestal bandying about legal citations as though they are indisputable facts...make sure you use the right ones, otherwise ole Voice is going to make you tumble from your perch....
ps. You have no sense of humour....Benny Hill....it was a cracker....must be the way I tell 'em....
There was no change to recognize in Scotland.
Mar 29th, 2015 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Show me some proof that the UN gave any recognition to the (mock) referendum in the falklands/malvinas.
You can't. Because they didn't.
84 Vestige
Mar 29th, 2015 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your the person that made the assertion at #31 “the .. referendum ... the UN ... doesn't recognize the “result”. Therefore your claim is a Logical Fallacy as you are Ignoring the Burden of Proof: ”he who asserts must prove. An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. Since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument. In the end, the duty to support an assertion is on the writer, not the reader (like the burden of proof is on the accuser in court, rather than the accused). http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
Yet again legally “silence is consent”.
“or the wretched conceit of a liar, in supposing himself clever enough to invent stories so ingenious that they shall, for any time, impose on people for the truth, and the still grosser folly in imagining, as he must do, that the world will, without investigation and analysis, take for granted anything he chooses to assert that world more shrewd, more cunning, and as prying as himself what a conceited ass must the liar be! How superior over others in cunning must he not believe himself! What fools must he not suppose the rest of mankind!”
CHARLES WILLIAM DAY, The Maxims, Experiences, and Observations of Agogos
@84... Sorry... I think you have just contradicted your own argument there. What change was there to recognise in The Falklands? Answer : None, just like Scotland. Dooohhhh Gun....Foot. You do know what they were voting for in the referendum don't you?
Mar 29th, 2015 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you admit then that if they vote to retain the 'status quo', then the UN has nothing to recognise as things stay the same, as in your words -
'There was no change to recognize'.
Therefore, what applies to Scotland must also apply to the Falklands. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about the referendum (no change in the status quo means no need for UN recognition)
83 Voice
Mar 29th, 2015 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your the person that's making the assertion. So as to your claim that I am “cherry picking, misleading use of a Customary Law...”. Where are my supposed omissions or misleading use liar? In addition, your claim is a Logical Fallacy as you are Ignoring the Burden of Proof: ”he who asserts must prove. An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. Since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument. In the end, the duty to support an assertion is on the writer, not the reader (like the burden of proof is on the accuser in court, rather than the accused). learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm As you cannot claim one iota of support from international law that refutes my proven contention that “silence is consent”. Unfortunately, for you it is an indisputable fact as you are unable to refute that UN silence is considered legally an endorsement of the Referendum.
“A truth that's told with a bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent.” (William Blake)
You can't prove a negative.
Mar 29th, 2015 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its like listing all the things that didn't happen.
If the UN actually had a list of things it didn't do ... then recognition of a supposed referendum which took place on disputed islands would be right up there with refereeing the 10th. Annual conga festival.
Show me some proof that the UN gave any recognition to the (mock) referendum in the falklands/malvinas
Mar 29th, 2015 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To be fair here, one would have to say-
Show me some proof that the UN refused any recognition to the (mock) referendum in the Falkland's
88 Vestige
Mar 29th, 2015 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But I have, and it's a done deal I have met the burden of proof with four supported citations. It's you who is completely unable to produce any sustainable evidence to refute that “silence is consent”
Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio address, October 26, 1939 32nd president of US (1882 - 1945)
One of the first businesses of a sensible man is to know when he is beaten, and to leave off ...Samuel Butler
“Losers are always in the wrong” Spanish Proverb
'There was no change to recognize in Scotland.' your words Vestige.
Mar 29th, 2015 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'There was no change to recognise in the Falklands' my words, can you see the similarity.
Then you go on to say
'Show me some proof that the UN gave any recognition to the (mock) referendum in the falklands/malvinas.'........but you have just stated the reason the UN didn't give any recognition to the Scottish Referendum is because their was no change and nothing to recognise. So if what yo are saying is true, we would only expect to hear anything from the UN if they felt that
A) There was a change in the status to recognise
or
B) The felt it was illegal
So,
Scottish referendum, Legal, no change - UN - nothing
Falklands referendum, Legal, no change - UN - nothing
Crimea referendum, dubious, sovereignty change - UN Illegal
Do you see the pattern there Vestige or still to difficult to understand, it would suggest that the UN will make a statement if they feel there is something illegal going on and not make a statement if it is deemed legal and a free and fair result.
'You can't prove a negative.' Well, you may not be able, but I have just done it above with the Crimea example, the negative would be a statement from the UN saying the Falklands Referendum was illegal. Did this happen? Just need a yes/no answer Vestige
87
Mar 29th, 2015 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That was a lot of words to say nothing....
...now show me where is your support that silence means consent concerning referendums...as a far as I can see your link infers it is only applicable to Customary law...in short...Customs...Natural law Principles...
@92 Scotland
Mar 29th, 2015 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN have active publicly announced resolutions that say the dispute over sovereignty must be settled through bilateral negotiations, between Argentina and Britain, not with the islanders.
Mar 29th, 2015 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Theres been no UN recognition at any time of any referendum result on the disputed islands.
The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), of which all 12 South American nations are members , passed a resolution rejecting the referendum during a December 2012 summit in Peru. China and Russia have also actively and publicly rejected any result.
Wheres your silence.
92 Voice
Mar 29th, 2015 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have posted four citations showing that legally “consent is silence”. If you were right, where is the supporting evidence showing that the Referendum is an exception to this rule? You can't because there is no such exception, this is just some artifice of yours, liar.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. – Albert Einstein
“In order to disprove the assertion that all crows are black, one white crow is sufficient.” William James
Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute. Josh Billings
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Abraham Lincoln
Truth may be stretched, but cannot be broken, and always gets above falsehood, as does oil above water. Miguel de Cervantes
Unfortunately people,
Mar 29th, 2015 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this will be a case of,
mirror mirror on the wall ??
94 Vestige
Mar 29th, 2015 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“there is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie
There is no requirement for UN's formal recognition, as they have all ready legally acquiesced, as “consent is silence”
The UNASUR or any other party has absolutely no legal standing in the matter, consequently their opinion is meaningless.
Vestige, maybe you should research a little more, you have got 14, I have got.....
Mar 29th, 2015 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 53 Sovereign Nations of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association during its conference in Johannesburg, South Africa, accepted a motion recognising the Falkland Islands Referendum as a free and fair expression of the Falkland Islanders wishes and their right to Self-Determination.
“This Association recognises the internationally observed Referendum held in the Falkland Islands over the period 10 and 11 March 2013, which sought the electorate’s views on their Political status, as a free and fair expression of Falkland Islanders wishes and their right to Self-Determination.”
Plus the EU and Canada. That's approximately 78 ish countries that recognise the referendum.
'The UN have active publicly announced resolutions that say the dispute over sovereignty must be settled through bilateral negotiations, between Argentina and Britain, not with the islanders.' Of course any dispute should be settled through negotiations, it is to remind Argentina that a unilateral Military Invasion is and was illegal, so look at it as more of a reprimand for you guys, a little slap on the wrist.
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/03/25/falklands-no-surge-in-troop-numbers-but-upgraded-infrastructure-and-180-million-in-ten-years#comment388243: I think that you need to read the article that you posted. Beyond that I cannot see how the cost benefit analysis has any bearing on the return by the UK of the Malvinas within 25 years.
Mar 30th, 2015 - 03:48 am - Link - Report abuse 099 Hepatia
Mar 30th, 2015 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0You raised the issue of cost benefit re: 48 Hepatia “What an interesting relation: Argentina spends $0 which necessitates that the UK spend $1b. The UK will return the Malvinas within 25 years.”
Unfortunately for you the reverse is true, time has been entirely on the UK's side. It has cemented her claim of sovereignty while Argentina has irretrievably lost any entitlement to a legal claim. Any opportunity to use force by Argentina is now past. One she is too weak, and secondly she would be subject to such an an economic blockade by the UN that her fragile economy would be irretrievably damaged.
If the UK were to become too weak militarily to ensure the Islands protection, she could unitarily submit the issue to the ICJ for a legal advisory opinion. The inevitable result would so shock world opinion and condemn Argentina to a permanent pariah status.
Your hero Kohen agrees thus: “Time is running against Argentina because the British have possession of the territory,”
International Hague Court “only alternative” for dispute
http://en.mercopress.com/2004/06/23/international-hague-court-only-alternative-for-dispute
Hepatia & her 25 years again- wholly laughable.
Mar 30th, 2015 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0#90
Mar 30th, 2015 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly, you cannot see anything for the blinkers that you are wearing
When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large scientific method in most cases fails. One need only think of the weather, in which case the prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible.”
Mar 30th, 2015 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Albert Einstein
@94 Vestige
Mar 30th, 2015 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN hasn’t passed a resolution calling on the British to negotiate since 1988.
Even then it said “bearing in mind the principles and objectives laid out in the UN charter and UN resolution 1514”.
If you read those documents you will find the objective is self-government and the principle is self-determination.
Exactly which UN resolution says “bilateral negotiations, between Argentina and Britain, not with the Islanders?”
There has been no rejection of the referendum result by the UN, as was the case with Crimea.
All of this generation of S. American leaders may support Argentina in this, to a greater or lesser degree, but this will change, because certainly not all S. Americans support Argentina in this, or just about anything in some cases.
Yeah Russia and China, currently the world’s most active colonisers, that they support you tells you all you need to know.
Add up all the countries they are in territorial disputes with, then do the UN maths.
of the Malvinas within 1,925 years
Mar 30th, 2015 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looks like Terry Hill got himself a book of quotes....was it your birthday...?
Mar 30th, 2015 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...here's mine....
...Inter faeces et urinam nascimur...
106 Voice
Mar 30th, 2015 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've reached the limit of your intellectual plateau namely “potty talk”. I'm impressed; I've never met such a small mind inside such a big head before. So it's obvious to all a sundry that the only argument you can really proffer is an argumenta ad hominem; dare pondus idonea fumo.
...can't wait for more thrilling quotes...from the Terry Hill bumper birthday book of quotes for every occasion....
Mar 30th, 2015 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Careful with that...“With great power comes great responsibility”....(Spiderman 2002).....;-)
@ 108 Voice
Mar 30th, 2015 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you really expect us to believe that you think 'Spiderman' uttered those words first?
Silly boy.
Try: Francois-Marie Arouet aka Voltaire around the time the frogs were chopping heads off!
....I'm well aware of that, but it's more fun coming from Spiderman movie...
Mar 30th, 2015 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ps......It was Uncle Ben that said it...not Spidey....;-)
109 ChrisR
Mar 30th, 2015 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The quote “With great power comes great responsibility” originally was made by Voltaire. I guess our resident Marvel comics fan didn't realize that.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/709747-with-great-power-comes-great-responsibility
Oh dear...don't you just hate it when, whilst you are busy typing someone posts something that leaves your retort somewhat lacking in lustre....;-))))
Mar 30th, 2015 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear...that was me....
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/03/25/falklands-no-surge-in-troop-numbers-but-upgraded-infrastructure-and-180-million-in-ten-years#comment389045: On the contrary I raised a semantic relationship the corollary of which makes performing cost benefit analyses a pointless exercise.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0To be clear the UK will be returning the Malvinas within 25 years irrespective of any sovereignty claims or strength or weakness of that country - perceived or real.
113 Hepatia
Mar 31st, 2015 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0WHat a ditz you are, you raise the issue of “cost benefit”, which you suppose is in Argentina's favor. When you discover that one of your most eminent political writers has in the past stated that the cost is greater to Argentina than the UK you try to down-play the issue as now being inconsequential. Then you take a “fall-back position” of “tea-leaf reading”, well in answer to your claim to be able to predict the future. Heres some contrary opinions “The herd instinct among forecasters makes sheep look like independent thinkers. ” Edgar R. Fiedler “The future isn't what it used to be !” anonymous. “Predictions, there's no future in it” anonymous. “He who lives by the crystal ball soon learns to eat ground glass.” Edgar R. Fiedler
Hey Voicey @92, I answered your question on @93, but you remained silent, I guess that means you have consented to me being correct, after all it seems that you and Vestige only answer when you think a mistake has been made.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you have proved that silence is consent of something being right, otherwise you would have said something to point out the wrong.
@113 Hepatia,
Mar 31st, 2015 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you say, ad infidum, ad nauseum,
However its a very good chance that Argentina will not exist in 25 years time.
Especially the way that they are going.
They won't be missed by ANY of their neighbours.
They can have these mythical “malvinas”, if they can find them, whenever they like, we will keep the Falklands.
But pray continue, its entertaining.
115 Buzzsaw
Mar 31st, 2015 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your absolutely correct in that regard. “..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
Heres more failures to deny that legally are now considered proven. ”there is not one aspect of international law that supports an Argentine claim. ...you bear the burden of proof...have not produced even one instance of of a ruling from the ICJ or international law...there is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes...UNASUR or any other party has absolutely no legal standing in the matter...the only argument you can really proffer is an argumenta ad hominem;
115
Mar 31st, 2015 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You were ignored and I remained silent for the same reason I would ignore the village idiot shouting that he has aliens living in the shed at the bottom of his garden....
I couldn't be bothered answering the uninformed....
You obviously never voted in the Scottish referendum...on the ballot paper was the simple question...asking for my OPINION.....“Should Scotland be an independent country?”
Why the UN would need to stay silent or endorse the opinions of the Scottish people on a UK internal matter...when there was no change in the status quo is beyond reasonable understanding...
In fact the only legal ramifications of the result of this opinion was that the Edinburgh Agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament stated that both governments would accept the outcome of the referendum and thereafter would “continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”
....the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom....
In theory was no legal obligation for the UK to even give independence to Scotland...
The UK Parliament retains parliamentary sovereignty over the United Kingdom as a whole...the Crown in Parliament is unconstrained by any entrenched or codified constitution. It could make or unmake any law it wished...
It could have easily ignored a negative result...
....so it was a toss up... should I have remained silent and ignored you or reply...
...as you can see silence doesn't mean sh!t....
Why the UN would need to stay silent or endorse the opinions of the Scottish people on a UK internal matter...when there was no change in the status quo is beyond reasonable understanding...
Mar 31st, 2015 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not quite sure what your are trying to say there, it may be beyond your reasonable understanding, but I think you were trying to say that the UN wouldn't comment on an internal UK matter.
So, and just indulge this village idiot with your far greater informed and intellectual brain, the Falklands Islands referendum, was it and internal UK matter.
Just a simple yes or no will suffice, insults not required.
You are obviously confusing me with having an opinion on the Falklands referendum and how it relates to the UN...
Mar 31st, 2015 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My comments were blatant and obvious contradictions to Terry Hill's use of International Customary Law as carte blanche support for Silence as Consent...
...who mentioned the Falklands...?
I suggest that in future you carefully read my comments and understand their pertinence...
but UN member states do object and are NOT silent, the entirety of UNASUR object, China and Russia too.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why say that the world approves of something when clearly a lhuge portion of the world objects and rejects it.
and please, stop dressing your comments with Einstein and Cervantes quotes, you can't polish a turd.
121 Vestige (#)
Mar 31st, 2015 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mar 31st, 2015 - 02:05 pm
If the entirety of UNASUR, China and Russia think that the Falklands Referendum was in some way illegal, or badly run, or some other problem, why haven't they made a complaint to the UN as was made by a preponderance of countries over the Crimea referendum???????
121 Vestige
Mar 31st, 2015 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong again what is legally binding is the views of nations of 1833 since there is a legal bar in applying such present-day views retroactivly.
In 1833 not one nation supported Argentina's claim their “silence” is indicative of support for the UK. Present day views are merely political in nature and have no legal effect. They are only indicative of Argentine lying and or the lack of application of the appropriate legal principles to the issue. I guess you would know about polishing as your the expert.
I am sorry Voice but for some reason I thought it was you that stated '...now show me where is your support that silence means consent concerning referendums'
Mar 31st, 2015 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You made no other qualifications to that statement, and as we were discussing the UN recognising the Falklands Referendum, any intelligent observer would reasonably assume that you are referring to the subject being discussed, after all what other referendums did you think we were referring too.
You seem to be an advocate of 'Bull Shit Baffles Brains' as it comes across in many of your posts such as @118. I made no reference to the legalities of the Scottish referendum with regard to the UK and have no interest in it, yet you deemed it important to deviate the conversation as if attempting to prove what a superior intellect you have.
So let me ask you again (even if you don't have an opinion on the falklands referendum) as a point of law, was the Falklands referendum an internal UK matter. Yes or No. Or is this too simple for an intellectual superpower such as yourself to answer?
If only Scottish Rugby could learn to side step as well as you they might have done a little better.
Try understanding what we are discussing before writing, it helps to make a cogent argument.
@121 Vestige
Ah another idiot who side steps and who obviously can't read properly look at @98 for your answer. But I don't expect for you to read it , you just carry on sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes while singing la,la,la,la,la,la, can't hear, can't see, la,la,la
What about 98 ... your retarded logic of 'I've got more friends than you' ?
Mar 31st, 2015 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(which itself is wrong btw - 54 African countries side with Argentina)
Theres no silence, theres ample objection, so even if we use the hodge podge jackass patchwork of cherry picked and thinly threaded together legal excerpts that terrence proposes to mean something by himself on the internet, it still doesn't work.
Even with some random links to universities and quotes from Einstein on unrelated topics, you still can't polish that turd.
China, Russia, Latin America, and 54 African countries refuse the sham referendum, the US says won't comment other than to say Arg and GB should talk it out. Nobody is recognizing it. Maybe because they see it for what it is.
No formal UN recognition available.
Abundance of refusals worldwide.
Bestest buddies USA saying nothing.
MP in your own parliament dismissing it.
Only observers a paid private company.
Maybe some harvard links and an Einstein quote will make it shine.
120 Voice
Mar 31st, 2015 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“My comments were blatant and obvious contradictions to Terry Hill's use of International Customary Law as carte blanche support for Silence as Consent...”
Another lie as you fail yet again to bear the burden of proof in showing any support for your assertion. So I guess it's just another of those “bullshit baffles brains” quotes, as it's totally lacking in both truth and logic.
Ermm.. Vestige, where did the 54 African countries say they didn't recognise the referendum, are you confusing it with ...
Mar 31st, 2015 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The African countries position reflected in the Malabo declaration was born out of the III Summit of South American and African countries which was held during two days precisely in Malabo.
“the UK to resume negotiations with Argentina for a fair, peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute, as soon as possible and in conformity with the relevant resolutions from the UN and other regional and international organizations”
Because if you are then you are either mistaken or deliberately lying.
Nobody is recognizing it. Maybe because they see it for what it is. ...erm I have just proven the Commonwealth of Nations recognises it (some of which are African countries), the EU recognizes it as they provide EU funding for the Falklands. So tell me again, no one recognizes it did you say.
And it was you that said the ...' Why say that the world approves of something when clearly a huge portion of the world objects and rejects it.' So who's retarded logic is trying to prove that I have more friends than you, it was you who first claimed that UNASAR, China and Russia all sided with you. So it appears that a huge portion of the world infact recognise the Falklands referendum.
Now come back with some equally ridiculous claims.
125 Vestige
Mar 31st, 2015 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing that is important is the permanency of the UK's unassailable legal position. Which is totally predicated on issue at the time it occurred, namely 1833 and the actions of other nations at that time. The present-day opinions you refer to are considered as merely political, with no permanency, that can change at a moments notice. But more importantly the UK has to do nothing, as there is no legal power on earth can impose on her legal sovereignty. It was up to Argentina to bring suit, she failed and has now lost to petuity the opportunity. So now you are reduced to “knuckle-dragging” and “pot-banging”. You will remain completely ineffective as you cannot produce one iota of international law, in pursuit of your lame claim. As for your “fecal fixation” make sure you don't chew your nails.
ah yes, the shifting goalposts.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0first it was an internaut theory of recognition by silent consent.
then its seen that there is no silence.
or consent.
or formal recognition.
so now its legal jargon about permanency.
I'm sure a lot of the empire was legally unassailable.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/British_Empire_evolution3.gif
@125 Vestige
Mar 31st, 2015 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Btw many of those African countries, along with many of the Caribbean countries Argentina claims supports its position, also voted in favour of the Islanders at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
If so many countries support Argentina then propose a resolution at the UN, calling on “the Brit Gov to negotiate sovereignty of the Islands directly with Argentina”, that should do it, Spain will second it.
Without such a resolution your claim like your argument is going nowhere.
Sooner or later, it can only die.
You seem to forget (conveniently) that the world in the form of the UN voted to give the Islanders the right to self-determination a long time ago, and has re-affirmed that right in every resolution on the subject since.
The hard reality for you is the status quo suits the British, screaming Argentina is all the justification the British need on the world stage, to ignore Argentina.
@129 Vestige
Yes it was, as the law stood at that time.
That is actually the question in law, what was legal then, not what is legal now.
124
Mar 31st, 2015 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am sorry, but for some reason I thought it was you that mentioned Scotland whilst I was explaining how Silence as Consent was only applicable to Customs and natural law principles...
That it didn't mention, that it does or should pertain to referendums per se...
I didn't mention the Falklands at all....but you thought you might side track me by mentioning Scotland to which I went to great lengths to explain why the UN wouldn't have an opinion either way and haven't either condemned or acquiesced using silence as a legal citation...
You have been the one deviating from the points I was making...when I am discussing apples it is not necessarily true that I should want or have to discuss pears with any rag tag and bobtail that tries to side track me....
Terry Hill has not shown one single link or citation that supports his theory that Silence as Consent is applicable to any referendums...only Customs..
...it doesn't matter how you try to twist the facts...it was you that mentioned the Falklands and you that mentioned Scotland....
So what part of.... I was talking about referendums in general...didn't you understand...?
Your repeated question is irrelevant to the point I was making.....
@129...Moving the goal posts? We were discussing originally the silence of the UN regarding the referendum, so far you have failed to support your statements regarding this and the assertion that the islanders are legally not a people. You and Voicy, the blind leading the blind.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You were the one that moved onto other committees and individual countries that have said they do not recognise the referendum and then purport to show this a evidence of the UN stance.
Any answer on the African countries, where is the said resolution or signed document to support your claim or is it another lie?
129 Vestige
Mar 31st, 2015 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's still my assertion that the Referendum is legally recognized under the rules of international rules of international law. More importantly, you have been completely unable to rebut that contention in any of your posts. As you can find no support from international law for your personal view-point. The point of my addendum is that the UK's position is legally unassailable, is a a rebuttal to your claim of vox populi as per #94 and #121. Showing that “cheer-leaders” are not part of the legal equation.
theres no silence.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0theres no consent.
your theory is refuted.
134 Vestige
Mar 31st, 2015 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not my theory it's a a norm of all law, except perhaps criminal be it international, municipal, contract et al.
All that you have proffered is your own unqualified personal opinion which is worthless unless supported by a exception in international law.
no silence.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0not from UNASUR, not from China.
@ 134 Stop moving the goal posts....yes there is the UN have said nothing.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes there is consent, from the CoN and the EU.
It was your hypothesis regarding the UN, you need to prove your theory.
Falklands referendum, UK internal matter, free, fair and legitimate: UN no comment
Scotland referendum. UK internal matter, free fair and legitimate: UN No Comment
Crimea referendum, Ukraine/Russia, dubious was either free or fair, considered by majority of nations illegitimate: UN GA Resolution passed Stating Illegal result.
Now prove that is wrong
136 Vestige
Mar 31st, 2015 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can desperately try to hang on to the notion that political pandering can shoe-horn its way into the legal equation, it can't it's merely relegated to the side-lines as “cheer-leader” status.
Theres no silence. Theres no consent.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0139 Vestige
Mar 31st, 2015 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only in your humble opinion, the onus is still on you to show any legal support for such a contention, that would refute the accepted legal norms.
you have to achieve the accepted norms first.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you have:
no formal recognition.
no silence.
141 Vestige
Mar 31st, 2015 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They have certainly have silence from the UN, or you would have shown otherwise. As to the Referendum the UN has stated nothing, and silence in law is consent, therefore the UN has given legal approval of the referendum. So there is no legal requirement for formal recognition of a recognized Charter right. As has Argentina by here failure to legally challenge the Referendum has acquiesced. Game, set, and match.
@141.....And you have no formal resolution to say the UN does not recognise the Referendum. So what are you trying to prove? You have to achieve the accepted norms e.g. UN resolution stating the result of the Crimea referendum was illegal. That is the norm/precedent set by the UN for referendums they consider illegal/illegitimate.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The accepted UN norms for a legal/legitimate result of a referendum on internal matters of a sovereign country is as per Scottish Referendum result.....
So we have shown and achieved the accepted norms, what have you achieved?
Silence in its simple definition is gone, countries like China and the members of UNASUR voiced objection. Your legal mechanism doesn't work.
Mar 31st, 2015 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you now wish to re-define silence into your terms. How convenient.
Is silence exclusively the silence of the UN , or can continental organizations breach the silence when they make official objections. Where does the UN stand on this. Do you know ? How confident are you in your theory ?
I know you'd like it to be the silence of the UN - cause then you'd have at least a chance of your patchwork theory working.
Buuuut I don't think you'll be able to prove this is the case.
I think its much more likely that because we must make multiple assumptions, without evidence, for your theory to be true, that its probably not.
assumption: that silence equates only with silence from within the UN as an entity.
assumption: that the UN does/would not account for external country/body objection as breaching the silence. Even though UN member countries are within those categories.
assumption: that your theory in its multiple diverse parts actually legally functions.
assumption: that your theory has been applied to the falklands/malvinas, a place with many resolutions.
or
the UN has not formally recognized the referendum with took place on the islands. Evidenced through a lack of any official account. what. so. ever.
:)
So you are also saying that the UN has not formally recognised the result of the Scottish Referendum either as their is no official account, so does that make the Sottish referendum illegal as well (using your theory and opinion).
Mar 31st, 2015 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be of the opinion that countries that have stated they do not recognise the referendum speak on behalf of all the UN members and that countries that have recognised the result do not or they do not carry as much weight.
'...assumption: that your theory has been applied to the falklands/malvinas, a place with many resolutions. ' Exactly Vestige from your own mouth, if the falklands are subject to many resolutions, wouldn't you think that if the referendum was illegal Argentina would have moved the earth to get a referendum passed to say just that. You have just highlighted why we would expect to see a resolution if it had been illegal.
...' Is silence exclusively the silence of the UN , or can continental organizations breach the silence when they make official objections. Where does the UN stand on this. Do you know ? How confident are you in your theory ?
Other continental organisations are not the UN, so for example, the Parliamentary Committee of the Commonwealth has recognised the referendum, does it mean that the they speak for the UN. of course you will say no because I have just provided the Antithesis to your thesis above. Since when has the UN been under the jurisdiction of smaller continental organisations.
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/03/25/falklands-no-surge-in-troop-numbers-but-upgraded-infrastructure-and-180-million-in-ten-years#comment389230: But I didn't raise the issue of “cost benefit”. You did. Its your straw man. And you raised it despite the fact that I illustrated a semantic relationship that makes it pointless to talk in terms of “cost benefit”. That's the point - which you have totally missed. I think that you have finally beaten that particular straw man so badly that it has now disintegrated. You should give it a decent burial.
Apr 01st, 2015 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not content with your past failed efforts you now try and prop up another straw man when you talk about “one of your most eminent political writers.” To whom you are referring to you do not identify and I cannot say. But I feel sure that whomever it is will not inhibit the return of the Malvinas by the UK within 25 years by any actions he or she may undertake.
144 Vestige
Apr 01st, 2015 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can attempt as many end runs round the legal issue as you wish but it doesn't change the salient facts one jot. You attempted to assert that the Referendum originally was illegal. You've tried to foist the idea that it is an issue that is subject to vox populi. Self-determination is a core right of modern international law international and is not subject to any restrictions. Nations can politically hold any opinion they wish, what they can't legally do is amend the legal effects of their failure in 1833 to recognize an Argentine claim of sovereignty; to late the horse has left the barn. So regardless of how many nations Argentina can dupe, it has absolutely no legal consequences, as they are simply none-particpating by-standers in the issue. Any “voiced objection” 182 years after the event is legally null and void.
146 Hepatia What a liar you are here's your original terms of “cost benefit” again at. #48 Hepatia “What an interesting relation: Argentina spends $0 which necessitates that the UK spend $1b”. Your straw-man turned into Guy Fawkes on you, burn baby burn.
Oh there's no attempted runs Terrence, your fantastic strewn together legal theory is flawed.
Apr 01st, 2015 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0It was predicated on silence. And its been shown that this silence is lacking.
Now its more fast talk.
There's zero formal UN recognition of the (mock) falklands/malvinas referendum. Fact.
146 Hepatia
Apr 01st, 2015 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here, the second lie in your post, “one of your most eminent political writers.” To whom you are referring to you do not identify and I cannot say”. It's in the my initial response #50 to your original assertion at #48 “costs Argentina more than the UK in their conflict according to Carlos Escudé.”
148 Vestige
“your ...legal theory is flawed.” Apparently not, if it was why didn't Argentina who had the greatest stake in the issue challenge the legitimacy of the referendum at the ICJ? In spite your sophistry Argentine subsequent acquiescence endorses my assertion, and that the Referendum's legitimacy was further supported by UN “silence”, i.e. “silence in law is consent”.
#148
Apr 01st, 2015 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You keep mouthing off about the referendum.
At the very minimum it demonstrated the Islanders wishes on their future which has nothing to do with you.
If nothing else, it demonstrated that they wanted NOTHING to do with Argentina and would resist any attempt at a take over. This sounds like self determination to me, something the UN has in it's founding charter.
So, what's your beef ? Or will you just trot out the tired old story about our precious Malvinas and the hero Gaucho Rivero...boo-hoo.
Vestige is just SOOOOO impotent.
Apr 01st, 2015 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No case,
No rights,
No hope,
And he knows it, which makes it all the more galling for him.
Suffer baby, suffer!
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/03/25/falklands-no-surge-in-troop-numbers-but-upgraded-infrastructure-and-180-million-in-ten-years#comment389468: I understand now. I make an observation about an interesting semantic relationship, the nature of which precludes a “cost benefit analysis”, and you proceed to make a cost benefit analysis. You really do not understand what's happening, do you. And there is a reason for that. Rather than spend your youth productively by studying a useful discipline such as math or physics or even engineering or some other meritorious pursuit you wasted your time by studying accountancy. Now you are a suburban CPA with a model of the world to match.
Apr 02nd, 2015 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Had I been, for instance, foolish enough to ask you for advice in the 1970s about whether to invest in Intel or Apple and so on you would have told me that the cost benefit analysis would not support these business models. Yet here you are posting your asinine posts on a device for which there was an adverse cost benefit analysis.
And so it is that when the UK returns the Malvinas within 25 years you will be shocked and mystified because you will have occupied your time, pigeon like, with irrelevant cost benefit analyzes. Its so sad.
I have not heard of Guy Fawkes before so, as you will have to concede, he cannot possibly be one of my most eminent writers. Another straw man beaten to death.
You have failed to provide me with the entertainment that I require from you. I suppose Given your dullness I should not be surprised. So its back into the filter for you.
152 Hepatia
Apr 02nd, 2015 - 04:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0You proffer an opinion about the relative comparative expenses of Argentina and the UK over their dispute. When you are shown your claim that “Argentina spends $0 which necessitates that the UK spend $1b.” is in fact totally wrong. This is claimed by no less a luminary than Carlos Escudé. I personally don't care what the cost is, my point was in showing what a pompous ignorant windbag you really are. Who likes to make assertions based only on personal biases not on any factual basis. Whom after working himself into an intellectual fury delivers his objective pièce de résistance namely your prediction as to the future. “..when the UK returns the Malvinas within 25 years” Whom when called to task over his errors attempts to wriggle out of it by resorting to an argumenta ad hominem.
“Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge.” Lao Tzu, 6th Century BC Chinese Poet
“Forecasting future events is often like searching for a black cat in an unlit room, that may not even be there. ” Steve Davidson
«They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-»
Last words of Gen. John Sedgwick, spoken as he looked out over the parapet at enemy lines during the Battle of Spotsylvania in 1864.
“Forecasting is the art of saying what will happen, and then explaining why it didn't! ” Anonymous
With all that jive talkin, you're telling those lies.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- the bee gees
(..............................)
- the UN, on the malvinas “referendumb”.
Well it's a no brainer that you have been entirely unable to refute.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.”Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio address, October 26, 1939
Here's another tip.
“The best way to win an argument is to begin by being by being right.” anon
International law “Silence is consent”.
“We object”
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- UNASUR, Argentina, China.
“He wrapped himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors.”
― Rudyard Kipling
156 Vestige
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What ever think UNASUR, Argentina, China are Just the “peanut-gallery” and have no legal standing. Besides, those countries have already legally recognized UK sovereignty by their initial “silences” of 1833, and have already “consented”. Just as you have legally acquiesced by not refuting my earlier statement ”Argentine subsequent acquiescence endorses my assertion, and that the Referendum's legitimacy was further supported by UN “silence”, i.e. “silence in law is consent”
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” Euripides, Bacchae
The problem is that the people with the most ridiculous ideas are always the people who are most certain of them.- Bill Maher
“He had just about enough intelligence to open his mouth when he wanted to eat, but certainly no more.” P.G. Wodehouse
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!