MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“We, Falklands are the only people who can say what we want for our future”, MLA Short tells the C24 committee
A Falkland Islands lawmaker addressing the United Nations Special Decolonization Committee, C24, in New York said that the political future of the Islands is not about the UK or Argentina, but rather the people of the Falklands, and “We are the only people who can say what we want for our future”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesis equal to occupy your home and then discussed in court , no?
Jun 23rd, 2016 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Falklanders aren't occupying anyone's home, but their own.
Jun 24th, 2016 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 02) Argentina has had decades to 'discuss' its claims in court and hasn't. Chances are that is because, behind the rhetoric, they have nothing to bring to the 'discussion'. 'It's ours because we say it is' may be a winner in domestic politics, but has not historically been a successful argument at the ICJ.
1- That is what your side tried in April 1982 I remember-0 steal our homes by armed force- and then invite the UN in to decide.
Jun 24th, 2016 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Trouble was the UN Security Council( you know the ONLY past of the UN that has the power to order a nation to do or not do something) told you lot to sod off and withdraw from the Islands.
You refused to - So Great Britain was in 100% full compliance with UN Law when it then used entitled force to throw your lot out of here.
Get real and get over it.
Well done Gavin. Refused to shake Malcorra's hand. Rex Hunt would be proud.
Jun 24th, 2016 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Has the word 'bonkers' been heard at the UN before? How did it translate I wonder LOL
@ 4
Jun 24th, 2016 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOCO.
Neither argieland nor Malcorra has any credibility. Argieland promises to overthrow two nations. List the reasons for a rogue state to be allowed to proceed. Remember nazi Germany? War could have been avoided if it had been destroyed. And the result of destroying argieland?
Jun 24th, 2016 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@1 Evertono
Jun 24th, 2016 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your name indicates you may have(?) some connection with Liverpool.
Did you know they speak English there? Why don't you try using English here?
Game, set and (very shortly) match to the Falkland Islanders, I think.
Jun 25th, 2016 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0@1 Evertano
Jun 25th, 2016 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”is equal to occupy your home and then discussed in court , no?2
The British claim to the Falkland Islands, originating from 1690(landing) or 1765 (first settlement), was proffered to the United Provinces in 1829 and 1832
.
This claim was ignored but it still existed.
Therefore the claim was exercised in 1833, when you are well aware that only the mutinous UP militia were asked to leave, by letter (as you are aware about ten of them were tried and executed NOT by Great Britain but by the United Province's authority). Also the settlers there were allowed to stay, most of them from South America.
Next you are going to deny that most of Pinedo's sailors were British (guess why they didn't fight the Royal Navy in 1833, can you work that out amigo?),and none of those stayed on the Islands. And contrary to the crap your country spews out, NO BRITISH SAILORS were left on the Islands from HMS Tyne or HMS Clio in 1833, just the settlers that were there before the British arrived in 1833, minus 4 that wanted to return to South America.`
Most of Vernet's settlers were booted off in 1931 by the US NAVY, so your beef is with the USA, not the UK who's claim was not dropped.
The Original British settlement was from 1765-1774. Vernet's settlement (he asked permission from the British Consul In Buenos Aires for his colony in 1828) was from 1828-1833.
So your claim is based on a settlement run by someone who had permission from the British to be there (strange if it was solely a United Provinces settlement surely?), that was only there for 5 years, yet a previous British presence of 9 years is invalid?
And your argument is that a United Provinces settlement, run by someone who had permission from Great Britain to be there, of only 5 years, supercedes a previous British settlement of 9 years or was suceeded by one of 183 years?
Do the Maths.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!