MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Antiquated and muddled”, Corbyn's views on BOTs says Gibraltar's opposition leader
The Leader of Gibraltar's Opposition has described UK Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn’s views on overseas territories as ‘antiquated and muddled’. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAntiquated and muddled.... pretty much describes Corbyn full stop.
Jan 27th, 2016 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Corbyn's problem on the Falkland Islands is that he is one of those unreconstructed communist leaning left wing socialists from the 60's who were so disappointed by Thatcher's election victory in 1983 that they blamed the Falkland Islands for it. We have dealt with this for years with Dayell, Benn, the loon from Islington and their little coterie.
Jan 27th, 2016 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Common sense and a willingness to engage has over the years persuaded many of them that the fundamental human rights of Falkland Islanders are more important than their pique over losing the election. Even George Foulkes now claims to be one of our biggest allies.
So Corbyn will need to open his mind and listen. And then he might be in a better position to make a proper judgement. Even then it might go against all his natural instincts for things South American (especially women).
@2
Jan 27th, 2016 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Even George Foulkes now claims to be one of our biggest allies.”
That is quite a transformation. I remember how Eric Ogden related an exchange with Foulkes when MPA was opened,for not listening to Islander's views.
Also there is Michael Foot's speech on Youtube (from April 1982) in which he has no doubt that the Falkland Islanders should determine their future and he rightly berated the Conservatives for letting the Islanders down by allowing the Invasion.
And Foot was left wing!
Another thing that puzzles me. You would imagine that Corbyn would support a small nation that has had a national blueprint drawn up by a Labour Peer (Lord Shackleton), that reversing absentee firms owning the Falklands to one where effectively everything was nationalised and has most of its utilities (is this still so?) such as water, power, FIGAS, much social housing, and a thriving public sector funded and run by the FIG.
You would have thought that this society, effectively blueprinted by a Labour peer, mostly state run with healthcare and education freely provided, would resonate with Corbyn.
His problem is that if everyone in the Shadow cabinet who disagrees with Corbyn's Falkland views leaves it, Corbyn is stuffed as the people who elected him Labour leader, do not represent the majority of voters in the UK.
Odd, that he claims to go to great lengths to listen to people but not to the Falkland Islanders.
Corbyn has been married to two “latinas” - his second wife was a chilena and his current wife is a mejicana. I wonder what their politics are? Also I believe one of his advisers is that old commy “stuntman” Richard Gott!
Jan 27th, 2016 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quote:“The GSD leader says Mr. Corbyn takes no account of the fact that the people in these territories feel as British as anyone in the United Kingdom ”
Jan 27th, 2016 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is quite a contradiction. Everybody's agree they have british citizenship, but the self determination excuse was that they were another people, different from anyone in the United Kingdom, that freelly choosed to associate to the UK, or to be under the UK.
Now this guy is telling what the argentines and spanish have said all along, Thay the people who live in those territories are not a different people from those living in the UK. Exactly feeling as british as anyone in the UK. So no (“falklander” first, british second) charade.
?
Jan 27th, 2016 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@5
Jan 27th, 2016 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not a contradiction if you can manage to grasp that “British” is an umbrella term that covers a number of distinct identities. Ask any Welshman, Scotsman, Ulsterman, Manxman .... the common factor, of course, is that they all enjoy the rights of self-determination, and of defence against invasion.
@5
Jan 27th, 2016 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do try and write in English so that we all understand. If you ( presumably Argie ) were living abroad would you not consider yourself an Argie as everyone in Argentina are. Same thing. Anyway not ALL the residents of the FALKLANDS are British. But still wanted to remain a British Overseas Territory. If you are the product of the Argentinian educational system then God help Argentina ( If there is a God )
@5 Liberato
Jan 28th, 2016 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Clearly you struggle to use your brain, so to help you to be able to comprehend I'll give you another example to equate this to...'Latins' in South America.
#7: Hans, you are trying to divert attention to cultural stupidities. If, for example, France claims sovereignty over the Isle of Wight, do they make that claim to England or to the UK?.
Jan 28th, 2016 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0The same with Malvinas. If, as you suggest, they are part of the UK as Scotland or the Isle of Man, then let the british negotiate sovereignty as the UN have requested several times, instead of presenting them as a third party?.
There is the scotish people, the english people, etc. But there is a british people. If there is a british people integrated in a United Kingdom, and if the Malvinas inhabitants are included as british people, then there is not a third party in the sovereignty dispute. Ergo, UN resolutions can be fullfiled by the UK and Argentina.
Liberato
Jan 28th, 2016 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have an extremely facile understanding of identity. There is no contradiction in someone having more than one identity when it comes to nationality.
Someone can be Falkland Islander and British.
Indeed to be British without another national identity is extremely rare if not impossible.
“”So no (“falklander” first, british second) charade.“”
Jan 28th, 2016 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, people, like me, cant be Welsh first, British second then?
Odd that... because I am.
Accordingly, by your standards, I should what? leave Wales? Stop saying I am Welsh? Stop saying I am British? (They are both true and accurate statements).
Will most Argentinians then stop calling themselves South American?... seeing as most are European 'squatters' occupying conquered territory ... I mean, claiming to be South American REALLY is a BIG lie.. because none of the Euro-descended 'squatters' ARE...
Or. IF you think they are, then the Falklanders are certainly more so.. as they've been there longer AND no natives got killed along the way...or did the River Plate territory just morph into modern day Argentina (f.ex) without any war of conquest, occupation, eradication of the indigenous..
oh, hang on, that DID happen
#11 Skip: may be im not being clear enough. I underestand the union that form the United Kingdom. But those nations that form it, has ceded sovereignty each over the Union. So my point is that if any nation claim sovereignty over the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wight, The Shetlands, etc. they have to claim them to the UK, as the sovereign state and not about each territoy, be it Scotland, England, etc. But when it comes to Malvinas they want us to recognize Malvinas inhabitants as another people different from those that form the UK, ergo, a different people from the british.
Jan 28th, 2016 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you claim that islanders feel as british as anyone in the UK, then it is up to the UK to decide over the soveregnty as if the claim was about the Isle of Man or Scotland or whatever.
The same with Malvinas. If, as you suggest, they are part of the UK as Scotland or the Isle of Man, then let the british negotiate sovereignty as the UN have requested several times, instead of presenting them as a third party?
Jan 28th, 2016 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Except that the Falklands and the Isle of Man, though they are under British sovereignty, are not part of the UK. Only England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are part of the UK. The other British territories are not.
Liberato,
Jan 28th, 2016 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UN have never once requested the British negotiate sovereignity, and what the UN has voted every years since 2008, when Argentina tried and failed to have it amended, is the following :
“The General Assembly ....
2. Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization, there is no
alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions;
3. Further reaffirms that it is ultimately for the peoples of the Territories
themselves to determine freely their future political status in accordance with the
relevant provisions of the Charter, the Declaration and the relevant resolutions of
the General Assembly” A/RES/63-108 A B
In this connection, it makes not a blind bit of difference whether you regard the Falklanders as a distinct identity in their own right, or just as Brits. In either case they enjoy the right of self-determination, and this inevitably makes them a party to the “dispute” as well as the object of it.
What is also undeniable is that the islanders are most definitely distinct from other Brits, in that they are the only Brits whose territory Argentina claims the colonial right to annex. And the great irony is that it's precisely Argentina's refusal to recognise the islanders' rights which ensures the islands will never be Argentine.
Form this point, it's in fact questionable whether there exists any “dispute” at all. Argentina has a grievance which, however, it adamantly refuses to pursue through any of the channels that might actually lead to a resolution (with the exception of the failed war as we know). This isn't quiet the same a s a“dispute”, which typically exists to be resolved rather than perpetuated. There are surely a number of psychological, cultural and political reasons Argentina has chosen this route, but you have to ask “Who benefits?”. I can't see that it's the people of Argentina any more than those of the Falklands.
Liberato.
Jan 28th, 2016 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The point you have missed is that the Overseas Territories (Bermuda, Cayman, BVI, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc) have a constitutional status that is different to the Islands around Britain and the constituent countries of the UK.
Although the terms British and UK are often used interchangeably, they are not the same. Great Britain is a union of England, Wales and Scotland. The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The relationship between the OT's and the sovereign state is one set down in the Constitutions of the OT's. The Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) are different again, and have quite complex Constitutional arrangements (and their own ancient parliaments).
So you cannot win any argument about “peoples” or who is responsible to the UN by using incorrect terminology and not understanding the interrelationships. The Falkland Islands are a separate people with their own Government, of which HM The Queen is Head of State. The Queen in this context represents the United Kingdom od Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It is complicated and takes some understanding.
Whilst the UK is our sovereign power, we are not part of the Union. The UK Parliament does not make our laws, the UK cannot levy taxes on us, and we are not automatically entitled the UK provided services, eg NHS and Education.
#15: Hans Argentina is also in agreement of those point 1 and 2. Generally speaking we can say many words regarding democracy, self determination, etc but the fact is not one resolution dictaminates the inhabitants of the islands are a people disctinct to those living in the UK. More like this article says: They feel as british as anyone in the UK. The UK is a sovereign State. The countries that form the UK are not independent, they have ceded sovereignty to the Union. Those “BOT”'s you mention are all on the decolonization list. All resolutions regarding the islands request the United Kingdom and Argentina to negotiate sovereignty starting with res 2065.
Jan 28th, 2016 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the difference basically is that Argentina's claim is taken account in like 40 UN resolutions that talks specifically about Malvinas situation. The british defense excuse in general resolutions that do not apply to the case of the islands. Wanting Argentina to recognize as a third party in the dispute a “New” people distinct to those of the UK that do not exist, becouse if the islanders feel as british as the people in britain feels they do not constitute a new people. End of story.
@17
Jan 28th, 2016 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina sees the Falkland Islands as citizens of the UK, and wishes to travel to London to talk rather than Stanley, why do they refuse(unlike pre 1982 when islanders were present at talks with Argentina), to talk to Islanders?
If you see them as British and you want to talk to the British, there is no logical reason to refuse to talk to them unless you accept them as being Falkland Islanders.
Which you have said they are not.
By the way, I am English first and British second, because of this basic reason.
I was born in England.
Therefore when I worked in the Falklands, I had to have a working visa to go there and did not become a Falkland Islands citizen. Therefore I could not vote in Falkland Island elections.
I could not contribute to a British pension because a separate pension system exisin the Falklands.
But I am/was still British because England lies within the UK.
And the Falkland Islanders are British by choice as are many French territories around the world, which you conveniently ignore are French despite their great distance from France.
When Falkland Islanders tell you they are as British as anyone in the UK , don't be fooled, they are not like us poms in many ways.
Ask any Englishman that has worked down there whether they feel the same as a Falkland Islander, unless they go native.
But then Scots folks aren't the same as English, neither are the Welsh.
Your problem is you told the Spanish to take a hike (and we know why) but you can't understand that despite many differences between the Falkland Islanders and us in the UK why the Islanders haven't told the UK to take a hike.
“in general resolutions ”
By this do you mean General Assembly resolutions or the C24 dictats that are passed to but don't get passed by the General Assembly?
“Argentina's claim is taken account in like 40 UN resolutions that ”
Are these General Assembly resolutions?
Are these non-binding or binding resolutions?
If the UK wanted the world to recognise the inhabitants of their overseas territories as separate and distinct peoples...then they should not have made them all British Citizens...
Jan 28th, 2016 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As they are now no more distinct from the people of the Isle of Wight...
The people of the Isle of Wight are represented by the British Govt in any dealings with the International Community as British Citizens....
...and so should all British Citizens...wherever they are...
Either they are a separate and distinct people...or they are not....not both...
@17
Jan 28th, 2016 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are not 40 UN resolutions on the Falklands. C24 resolutions aren't UN resolutions.
Of the bona fide UN resolutions that exist, there are none requesting the UK to negotiate sovereignity. None. (And incidentally all the UN resolutions that there are regarding the Falklands have been broken by Argentina, whereas none have been broken by the UK. Ask Ban Ki Moon). Nor is there any UN resolution that defines the status of the Falklanders one way or another. Essentially, all UN resolutions simply say “please sort this out between you” without taking one side or the other, and without making stipulations as to who exactly is entitled to participate in the process of “sorting this out”.
However, when you take into the whole of UN voting on the question of self-determination, it is quite obvious that Argentina does not have a leg to stand on, and this applies whether or not the Falklanders are considered British or a distinct identity or not.
And to return to the C24 it is a logical absurdity for a bunch of colonial settler states to be claiming on the one hand that an alleged but unproven colonial inheritance of 2 centuries ago negates the fundamental rights of people living today, while on the other attemtping to style themselves a decolonization committee. Make your minds up.
And as Pete has pointed out above, Argentina is once again typing itself in logical knots and shooting itself in the foot by claiming on the one hand that the falklanders are not distinct, and then refusing to talk to them while demanding talks with mainland Brits, which you then refuse to attend on the grounds that islanders are present.
@5. Have you noticed that you're a prick? Ever been to Gibraltar? Perhaps you were one of the cowards that tried to mine a British warship in Gibraltar Harbour? Notice that spain “co-operated”. Might have had something to do with the cowards recognising that Britain would have happily wipedout anything “latino”. The people of Gibraltar may well feel British. I don't have a problem with that. List the countries that feel argie. No-one. Try to understand that you're worthless. We're just politely listening to your pointless whingeing.
Jan 28th, 2016 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@10. So sorry. Perhaps you don't understand where the Isle of Wight is.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Isle+of+Wight/@50.6707725,-2.4518027,8z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x487378ac5fc88f09:0x5ef4152f9cdb1f32
Can you see that the Isle of Wight is nearly surrounded by England? Do you understand UNCLOS? Can you understand that, in your scenario, the French would die?
Here's another one. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Isle+of+Wight/@50.6707725,-2.4518027,8z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x487378ac5fc88f09:0x5ef4152f9cdb1f32
Do you understand that argieland's territorial waters extend to 12 miles. Relevance to Islands 400 miles away? We don't have to “negotiate” sovereignty. We discovered them. We claimed sovereignty. Nobody objected. The spanish tried in 1770/71. Failed. Nobody else until 1820. Too late. Especially by a criminal.
@13. You're thick. The Isle of Man makes its own laws. So do Guernsey, Jersey, Sark, Scotland. You just don't understand the UK.
@17. Sorry to disappoint you. Wales was conquered. Northern Ireland and Scotland never ceded sovereignty. They are in a state of union.
There is no relevant UN resolution. The UK is not in breach of any relevant UN resolution. So stuff it up your butt.
@19. You may have a point. I don't see why the scotch should be claim to be British. After all, they are just Irish invaders. Martial law and remove them at the point of a bayonet.
@19
Jan 28th, 2016 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It may have escaped your attention, but the Isle of Wight is not on the UN NSGT list, and there is no hostile power out to annex it.
Please refer to UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV), under “Annex”, subheading “The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” where inter alia it is written “The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or NSGT have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.”
Jan 28th, 2016 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think that just about settles the matter, no?
Black Rose...
Jan 28th, 2016 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UN Resolutions are merely non binding guidelines and principles...Ideals....
Not legally binding in International Law...
I think that just about settles the matter, no?
'If the UK wanted the world to recognise the inhabitants of their overseas territories as separate and distinct peoples...then they should not have made them all British Citizens...'
Jan 28th, 2016 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Voice:
You mean:
like the peoples of US territories are US citizens;
like the peoples of French territories are French citizens;
like the people of Tokelau are New Zealand citizens.
None of them should be recognised as distinct people with the right to SD because they are citizens of their parent states, right?
You do understand the peoples of British territories were British citizens before the UN was even set up, don't you?
'As they are now no more distinct from the people of the Isle of Wight...'
The Isle of Wight is an integral part of the UK because its people are represented in parliament and government on the same bases as any other part of the UK. This is what makes the people of the IOW not distinct from other UK people
The BOTs are not integral parts of the UK as their peoples don't have the same status, and are therefore distinct.
'Not legally binding in International Law...'
So you accept there's no obligation to negotiate with Argentina, don't you.
And remember the UN Charter and Conventions are binding.
25
Jan 28th, 2016 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN Charter is not binding in International Law...because they cannot be enforced...
UN Conventions are agreements that are binding upon those countries that have agreed to them...
...and yes I do agree there's no obligation to negotiate with Argentina ...all resolutions are non binding..
@26 Voice
Jan 28th, 2016 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As usual you are wrong.
“The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty that serves as the organization's constitution. The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause that makes it the highest authority of international law. The clause states that the UN Charter shall prevail in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/UN+Charter+and+United+Nations
”The UN Charter is the treaty (an intergovernmental agreement between States) that constituted the United Nations in 1945. It is legally binding upon the contracting States, and it so happens that virtually every country in the world is a member of the UN and therefore legally bound by the Charter.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/UN+Charter+and+United+Nations
So as you can see the moment a Sovereign State joins the UN they are legally bound by the UN Charter. Now no one can force a Sovereign State to join the UN, that is true, BUT Argentina is a member of the UN. Argentina signed all the treaties. Argentina is LEGALLY bound to follow the UN Charter.
Now if a member State decides it is no longer going to follow the UN Charter there are things that the UN can do to 'force' them into line.
1st they can put economic sanctions on them. This does work eventually, but can take a long time.
2nd they can authorise a member State or member States the right to use force. For example in 1982 when the UN authorised the UK's right to use force to remove the illegally occupying military forces of Argentina from UK soil. This is covered in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
3rd they can suspend the membership of a State in conjunction with sanctions. In other words that State become 'persona non grata' - a nobody, with no influence and no future.
Does that clarify things for you?
Confusion confusion,
Jan 28th, 2016 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For the none brits on here we say
T.A.R.D.I.S.
Great Britain, bigger on the inside, than it is on the outer,
Simple is it not, mmmm
///////
Gibraltar
'We don't want Gibraltar back' What Spain's King Juan Carlos told the UK
THE King of Spain told Britain he did not really want Gibraltar back during the Eighties, as such an action would lead to Morocco calling for the return of Spanish-controlled Ceuta and Melilla.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/451679/We-don-t-want-Gibraltar-back-What-Spain-s-King-Juan-Carlos-told-the-UK
not so confusing...lol
27. In that scenario what would happen in the USA unilaterally withdrew from the UN?
Jan 28th, 2016 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sanctions?
War?
Do you see how silly your posts is?
UN should be disbanded it is a useless bunch of bureaucrats that have never done anything good for anyone.
@29 yankeeboy
Jan 28th, 2016 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My post isn't silly. There is NOTHING in the UN Charter that says a member cannot withdraw from membership of the UN. So your statement is bizarre and I'm not sure what it has to do with voice's assertion that UN Charter isn't legally binding...which it is on member states of the UN. If the US wants out of the UN then I doubt anyone would care enough to try and talk them out of it.
I was also only pointing out to voice what the UN could do to 'force' a country that is a member of the UN into line, not necessarily what it would do.
Like sanctions...just like the ones the UN imposed on Iran, Iraq, North Korea and other states who were a threat to world security. I believe that the good old US of A were a driving force behind those ones.
I'm really not sure why you are suddenly defending the troll voice, who makes ludicrous statements all the time without backing them up.
It's obvious that you don't like the UN but nothing you have stated in your post, which just appears to be your opinion which you are entitled to, contradicts or overturns what I stated about the UN Charter being legally binding on member states.
In fact, the good old US of A often uses the UN Charter to get resolutions passed in its favour.
The problem, yankeeboy, the USA wants to be 'the' world leader. Well to do that you have to play the diplomacy game, and that is what the UN is all about. If the USA no longer wants that role, then withdraw ALL your troops from overseas, close your borders, and bury your head in the sand and leave the world to 'get on with their lives' without US influence or interference.
...let me know when Russia relinquishes Crimea...
Jan 29th, 2016 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm thinking...never...
That's how binding the UN Charter is....
like I said...principles and ideals, but not legally binding...
@31 Voice
Jan 29th, 2016 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Russia has sanctions imposed upon it and it is suffering. As I said sanctions can take years. So yes, legally binding upon it's members.
32
Jan 29th, 2016 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Without the US as the enforcer it would be nothing...
Also when the US wants to invade another country does it adhere to the UN Charter...?
The US does as it pleases or isn't the Charter binding on the US...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!