Falkland islands - British or Argentine?

HavingCrack

Seanchai wrote: »

How apt that one British nationalist would talk about the level of ignorance, while another British nationalist claims the British "discovered" the Malvinas when every educated person knows the first European to discover them was the Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600.

Well actually both the Argentinians would disagree with you on this one. The Argentines claim that the islands were first 'discovered' by members of Magellan's fleet-sometime in 1520. However this appears to be slightly shaky when examined closely-it seems unlikely if that particular claim can ever be verified.

There's no doubt that Sebald de Weert was the first explorer with a foolproof claim to 'discovering' the islands. However due to poor weather conditions he never actually landed.

The first landing on the islands was indeed under British Captain John Strong.

discus

realies wrote: »

Well one would hope for your sake when you are leaving that you be seeing it from the same body as you arrived in

True enough. Although I hear the view from heaven is great on a clear day :pac:

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ooh look, the Irish nationalist criticising the British.

How's Londonderry today Seanchai? Is it as cold up there as it is in Eire?

Thank god not all English share your opinion.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Well actually both the Argentinians would disagree with you on this one. The Argentines claim that the islands were first 'discovered' by members of Magellan's fleet-sometime in 1520. However this appears to be slightly shaky when examined closely-it seems unlikely if that particular claim can ever be verified.

There's no doubt that Sebald de Weert was the first explorer with a foolproof claim to 'discovering' the islands. However due to poor weather conditions he never actually landed.

The first landing on the islands was indeed under British Captain John Strong.

Actually the claims on both sides are from the 1800's onwards, its 50/50. Even the BBC state this. Of course if the issue of ownership was settled at the UN, we'd know the truth but both sides are not even sure if they would win so this nonsense of British ownership in stone is indeed nonsense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

NinjaK

The poll question is a bit strange. At present they are clearly British. Dont think a poll is need for that.
I think the real question should be - the Falklands, should they be British or Argentinian?
In which case I would say Argentinian, mainly because I oppose the Brits occupying foreign land.

44leto

Falklands Oil British or Argentinian.

If this thing flares up and goes hot it will be the first time in History that two proper and accountable democracies went to war.

HavingCrack

gurramok wrote: »

Actually the claims on both sides are from the 1800's onwards, its 50/50. Even the BBC state this. Of course if the issue of ownership was settled at the UN, we'd know the truth but both sides are not even sure if they would win so this nonsense of British ownership in stone is indeed nonsense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

No I wasn't arguing on when the claim's commenced-just pointing out the Argentinians claim the Falklands were originally 'discovered' by Magellan prior to de Weert.

I've seen that BBC page before-it's actually very impartial and fair I find.

NinjaK wrote: »

In which case I would say Argentinian, mainly because I oppose the Brits occupying foreign land.

Why should the Falklands be part of Argentina in that case? Surely Argentina is as "foreign" to the Falklands are the United Kingdom is.

discus

44leto wrote: »

Falklands Oil British or Argentinian.

If this thing flares up and goes hot it will be the first time in History that two proper and accountable democracies went to war.

True enough. I don't think many brits will be against the war... that is, if they appreciate their lifestyle that is.

snubbleste

44leto wrote: »

If this thing flares up and goes hot it will be the first time in History that two proper and accountable democracies went to war.

source?

NinjaK

HavingCrack wrote: »

No I wasn't arguing on when the claim's commenced-just pointing out the Argentinians claim the Falklands were originally 'discovered' by Magellan prior to de Weert.

I've seen that BBC page before-it's actually very impartial and fair I find.



Why should the Falklands be part of Argentina in that case? Surely Argentina is as "foreign" to the Falklands are the United Kingdom is.

Come off it, they are right beside Argentina.

HavingCrack

snubbleste wrote: »

source?

I don't think you really need a source for that-can you name a war where two democracies fought each other?

I read a lot of history and I'm stumped. You could make an argument for the Georgian-Russian War in 2008 or some of the wars at the breakup of Yugoslavia but they're both quite debatable.

There may be some war in Latin America I do not know of but apart from that I'm stumped to think of anything.

MR KALASHNIKOV

why would anybody want them from what ive heard and seen there a cold wet brutal place

HavingCrack

NinjaK wrote: »

Come off it, they are right beside Argentina.

They're 300 miles off the Argentinian coast-hardly right beside it.

Since when is geographic 'closeness' an acceptable reason to claim land and people as your own?

There's no doubt it's an element but only a minor one. Would you accept Alaska or Hawaii as part of the United States? Would you accept Kalingrad as part of Russia? The Faroes as part of Denmark? Are the Balearics part of Spain? Are the Andaman Islands Indian?

There's countless counter examples you see.


I believe in self-determination-an overwhelming majority of the Falklanders do not want to be part of Argentina-should they just be ignored?

gurramok

HavingCrack wrote: »

I've seen that BBC page before-it's actually very impartial and fair I find

The legal experts they quoted were based in the UK, perhaps they should have quoted independent international experts to leave out any hint of bias.

HavingCrack wrote: »

I believe in self-determination-an overwhelming majority of the Falklanders do not want to be part of Argentina-should they just be ignored?

Britain should never have settled people there until the competing claims were settled. This is what the BBC say:

Several modes of acquisition of territory are recognised in international law, says Dr Milanovic. The prior discovery of an uninhabited island and its first effective occupation is one of these, but in this case both the exact legal parameters and the facts can be disputed.
Prescription - or the acquisition of title through a long passage of time without protest by the adverse state - is recognised by international law, but again there are contentious legal and factual points.
Self-determination hinges on the difficult question of whether the current population legally constitutes a "people", since only peoples - and not national minorities, of which there is also no universally accepted definition as whether factors like self-identification, or identification by others, culture and language play a part is disputed - are entitled to self-determination. "Are, for example, the populations of Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man 'peoples' under international law? The answer is not clear."

44leto

snubbleste wrote: »

source?

Can you not google read the rebuttals I did say true democracies. Perhaps Israel and Lebanon in 2006. That is if you consider each of these states a democracy. Both are dodgy IMO.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=did%20democracies%20ever%20go%20to%20war&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.erols.com%2Fmwhite28%2Fdemowar.htm&ei=QvE_T66kC466hAfLlNy6BQ&usg=AFQjCNGfC-dPDtYBYUkPw-WmeSuTL0ZU8A&cad=rja

There is an exception that is not mentions Britain declared war against Finland because Russia was its ally. But they never fought each other.
Source QI

bwatson

snubbleste wrote: »

source?

Look up the democratic peace theory.

There are many limitations and doubts to the proposal and also many argued exceptions depending on what you believe to be a war or a democracy.

If two democracies were to be involved in a war with each other, I don't think anybody would be surprised if one of the ferociously nationalistic and somewhat unpredictable south american states were to be involved. Look at the Argentine arguments for taking back the falklands - they are ridiculous and yet they persist. They are a danger to peace.

44leto

bwatson wrote: »

Look up the democratic peace theory.

There are many limitations and doubts to the proposal and also many argued exceptions depending on what you believe to be a war or a democracy.

If two democracies were to be involved in a war with each other, I don't think anybody would be surprised if one of the ferociously nationalistic and somewhat unpredictable south american states were to be involved. Look at the Argentine arguments for taking back the falklands - they are ridiculous and yet they persist. They are a danger to peace.

Their claim is very viable, and behind closed doors in Whitehall they know this.

Just because the Islanders want to be British does not necessarily make those Islands British. But proximity does not necessarily make those Island Argentinian either. For example lets say the people of the Aran Islands elected 100% to become part of America that would not mean that they could.

As for proximity Alaska is closer to Canada then it is the US but Canada have no claim.

What is important with the Falklands situation is the history of the Islands and if you go by that they are Argentinian. '


http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=legal%20case%20for%20the%20falklands&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepicaproject.org%2F%3Fpage_id%3D750&ei=xPo_T6axGoeFhQfDlYTOBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhhcG9SBISj-Hj7UNpvMcQCtv6zA&cad=rja

Britain, alternatively, bases its claim on discovery; on prescription, having continued the possession of the islands for 150 years; and on self- determination, the fact that the islanders clearly wish to remain British” (Bluth, 1987, p1). Moreover, Britain maintains that it never recognized Spain’s claim to the islands, that it never renounced its claim in 1765, and then when it occupied the Falklands in 1833 its rights to the islands were clearly recognized.
This leads to the argument that the first state to exercise sovereignty over the Falklands thus gained a legal title because until then the islands were terra nullius. (Bluth, 87, p.6) According to Bluth it is agreed upon that the French were the first to settle the islands in 1764, carrying out a ceremony of possession they were the first to exercise sovereignty and thus could claim to legally hold the title (Bluth, 87, p.6). As soon as they ceded it to Spain, however, the latter became the legitimate sovereign owner of the land.
The arrival of the British Captain John Byron on 12th January 1765, confused matters with his claiming of the islands in the name of George III and establishment of a settlement on Saunders Island named Port Egmont. The British settlement must be considered as illegal since the islands were terra nullius before the French settled there. (Bluth, 87, p.6).The French, however, proved incapable of exercising effective control over all the islands, which weakened their case, but was arguably nonetheless stronger than that of the British, and the French claim was then ceded to the Spanish.
In 1770 when the Spanish enforced their claim to sovereignty over the islands by evicting the British from Port Egmont, war seemed imminent until Spain surrendered. On 22 January 1771 the kings of Spain and Great Britain signed two declarations in which Spain renounced the attack on the Port Egmont settlement, agreed to restore the settlement to Britain but this was not to say that Spain’s rights to the sovereignty over the Falklands were affected by this declaration (Bluth, 87, p6). The declaration restricted restoration to Port Egmont only.

Jorah

It's British. It's very British. That will continue for as long as the Falkland Islanders wish it to be so.

Red Hand

I'd go for Britain, just see another GOTCHA! in the paper.

44leto

Jorah wrote: »

It's British. It's very British. That will continue for as long as the Falkland Islanders wish it to be so.

That legally does not make them British, Argentina has the legal claim to the Islands and Britain know this.

toexpress

God Bless Baroness Thatcher that's all I am saying on the subject

Jorah

44leto wrote: »

That legally does not make them British, Argentina has the legal claim to the Islands and Britain know this.

And by that definition the Spaniards of Argentina should be in South America under what legal right exactly? By your own definition the Falklands should stay completely empty from anyone except seagulls (even the penguins were brought there).

Colonisation is something that happened over the last few hundred years. It established countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina etc. It's something the world has to understand and learn from.

It is absolutely right that we protect the constitutional status of the people that currently live there instead of trying to re-draw lines over the last few hundred years.

Self-Determination should be prioritised over everything else. It's what we used in Northern Ireland to prevent bloodshed and it's what we are trying to do in the Falklands.

And for your information, the United Kingdom offered Argentina countless opportunities to take this claim to the United Nations before 1982. They refused each time. Instead, they attempted to invade the islands against the will of the people.

Argentina has no claim in this matter. Other than it was passed down from a country to another country (not recognised by the British) to another country (not recognised by the British...before they became Argentina, another country).

The only reason the average Argie gives a **** about this problem is because their government insists on making it school policy for their children to sing songs about the islands. That's the mentality we are dealing with here. Want to know how much they really care? Take note of the Falklands veterans protesting in Argentina this week for their pensions they're being robbed of. Shows how much they're valued.

44leto

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=legal%20case%20for%20the%20falklands&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepicaproject.org%2F%3Fpage_id%3D750&ei=xPo_T6axGoeFhQfDlYTOBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhhcG9SBISj-Hj7UNpvMcQCtv6zA&cad=rja

Britain, alternatively, bases its claim on discovery; on prescription, having continued the possession of the islands for 150 years; and on self- determination, the fact that the islanders clearly wish to remain British” (Bluth, 1987, p1). Moreover, Britain maintains that it never recognized Spain’s claim to the islands, that it never renounced its claim in 1765, and then when it occupied the Falklands in 1833 its rights to the islands were clearly recognized.
This leads to the argument that the first state to exercise sovereignty over the Falklands thus gained a legal title because until then the islands were terra nullius. (Bluth, 87, p.6) According to Bluth it is agreed upon that the French were the first to settle the islands in 1764, carrying out a ceremony of possession they were the first to exercise sovereignty and thus could claim to legally hold the title (Bluth, 87, p.6). As soon as they ceded it to Spain, however, the latter became the legitimate sovereign owner of the land.
The arrival of the British Captain John Byron on 12th January 1765, confused matters with his claiming of the islands in the name of George III and establishment of a settlement on Saunders Island named Port Egmont. The British settlement must be considered as illegal since the islands were terra nullius before the French settled there. (Bluth, 87, p.6).The French, however, proved incapable of exercising effective control over all the islands, which weakened their case, but was arguably nonetheless stronger than that of the British, and the French claim was then ceded to the Spanish.
In 1770 when the Spanish enforced their claim to sovereignty over the islands by evicting the British from Port Egmont, war seemed imminent until Spain surrendered. On 22 January 1771 the kings of Spain and Great Britain signed two declarations in which Spain renounced the attack on the Port Egmont settlement, agreed to restore the settlement to Britain but this was not to say that Spain’s rights to the sovereignty over the Falklands were affected by this declaration (Bluth, 87, p6). The declaration restricted restoration to Port Egmont only.

By international law PROBABLY Argentina has the legitimate claim. Just because the people of the Islands want to be British that does not make the Islands British.

I am not giving an opinion here, I just read up on it, I myself couldn't care less. I am not anti British, I would be the opposite, I am very much pro british in most things.

Jorah

44leto wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=legal%20case%20for%20the%20falklands&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepicaproject.org%2F%3Fpage_id%3D750&ei=xPo_T6axGoeFhQfDlYTOBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhhcG9SBISj-Hj7UNpvMcQCtv6zA&cad=rja



By international law PROBABLY Argentina has the legitimate claim. Just because the people of the Islands want to be British that does not make the Islands British.

I am not giving an opinion here, I just read up on it, I myself couldn't care less. I am not anti British, I would be the opposite, I am very much pro british in most things.

Yes you made this same post a few posts ago. I still don't understand how it legally belongs to Argentina?

gurramok

Jorah wrote: »

Yes you made this same post a few posts ago. I still don't understand how it legally belongs to Argentina?

Possibly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

44leto

Jorah wrote: »

Yes you made this same post a few posts ago. I still don't understand how it legally belongs to Argentina?

It doesn't but they do have a legal claim to it. France first claimed the \island then abandoned them, then Spain and they claimed them as part of their colony of Argentina, but they abandoned them also. Then the British claimed the Islands as well as south Georgia and used them as Whaling bases.

But Spain had already the legal claim. So when Spain granted Argentina independence that claim to the Islands was still legitimate. There was never a treaty signed with the British that gave up that claim. But the British claim they never recognized Spain's claim, but that is not really a case for a defense, because Spain never recognized the British claim.

It is complicated but experts agree Argentina probably have legally the stronger case.

There is all sorts of international law governing territory, take rockall it is close to Britain then to Ireland, but nobody occupies it BUT it is on our continental plate, so it is ours. And there may be oil there as well.

dxhound2005

44leto wrote: »

It doesn't but they do have a legal claim to it. France first claimed the \island then abandoned them, then Spain and they claimed them as part of their colony of Argentina, but they abandoned them also. Then the British claimed the Islands as well as south Georgia and used them as Whaling bases.

But Spain had already the legal claim. So when Spain granted Argentina independence that claim to the Islands was still legitimate. There was never a treaty signed with the British that gave up that claim. But the British claim they never recognized Spain's claim, but that is not really a case for a defense, because Spain never recognized the British claim.

It is complicated but experts agree Argentina probably have legally the stronger case.

There is all sorts of international law governing territory, take rockall it is close to Britain then to Ireland, but nobody occupies it BUT it is on our continental plate, so it is ours. And there may be oil there as well.

If you writing about experts in international law I would think when it comes to disputed territories the experts would not always agree. Experts from the Peoples Republic of China would no doubt say Taiwan was their territory and those from the Republic of China would dispute that. And so with Argentinian and British experts. Rockall would be the subject for another thread but I read that it is actually situated on the North American continental plate.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Thank god not all English share your opinion.

My opinion on what? That Seanchai is an Irish nationalist who jates everyone and everything British?

Its more than opinion I'd say. As is my opinion that the Falklands is British.

What is your view on Gaudelupe and Martinique btw, or do you only have an opinion where Britain is concerned.

dublincelt

Jorah wrote: »

It's British. It's very British. That will continue for as long as the Falkland Islanders wish it to be so.

They are not British, they are not even remotely British. Las Malvinas are part of Argentina. A forced plantation can never change that fact. Just look to the north of this island for proof.

Fratton Fred

dublincelt wrote: »

They are not British, they are not even remotely British. Las Malvinas are part of Argentina. A forced plantation can never change that fact. Just look to the north of this island for proof.

Oh please, go read a history book before posting crap like that.

bnt

If the history of the British Empire teaches people anything, it's that change doesn't come as a direct result of taking up arms against the British. South Africa is a great example: Britain was not going to lose the 2nd Boer War (1899-1902), no matter what it took - and it took a helluva lot of people and money - and casualties - to win, but they did.

Only after the fighting stopped did they seriously question whether it was worth hanging on to that Colony - and by 1910 they'd negotiated the Union of South Africa, which was essentially self-governing ("Home Rule"). (If only certain parties in Ireland had learned that lesson by 1916, and negotiated instead of rebelling.) India is another example - Gandhi's strategy of non-violence worked where violence had failed.

My advice to Argentina: negotiate, in good faith, and you might be surprised at what you get. But try taking the "Malvinas" by force, you'll get stomped on. Again. :cool:

Agent J

If there was a native population which had been displaced then maybe Argentina would have a point.

There wasn't. The UK held them for about 100 years before Argentina even existed. When Argentina tried to take them in the early 19th century the British showed up and booted them off. There has been a permanent presence since.

The only relevant point is self determination. The people had a vote in '94 and it was something in high 80% aganist any talk of soverginity. Their elected officials since have been aganist it ever since

Until that changes those Islands arent going anywhere. That is the only way soverginity can be changed theseday


Also the real interest is the potential oil & gas reserves within the ocean area around the Islands.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My opinion on what? That Seanchai is an Irish nationalist who jates everyone and everything British?

Its more than opinion I'd say. As is my opinion that the Falklands is British.

What is your view on Gaudelupe and Martinique btw, or do you only have an opinion where Britain is concerned.

And you're an English Nationalist? Have you assimilated into Irish society yet?

mercenary2

all british lands or a result of greed and brutality as when they took ireland

if i beat u up and take ur car does that mean its mine legally

bwatson

mercenary2 wrote: »

all british lands or a result of greed and brutality as when they took ireland

if i beat u up and take ur car does that mean its mine legally

Is this English or some form of Elvish?

Manic Moran

mercenary2 wrote: »

all british lands or a result of greed and brutality as when they took ireland

if i beat u up and take ur car does that mean its mine legally

There's a reason behind the phrase "possession is nine tenths of the law."

At what stage did the UK beat up the owner of the islands in order to obtain possession? I'm not seeing it on the timeline

NTM

Seanchai

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My opinion on what? That Seanchai is an Irish nationalist who jates everyone and everything British?

No, just the flag-waving John Bull irredentist tabloid-reading Europhobic "British Isles" apologists for British colonialism such as you. Indeed, the educated section of British society would share this abhorrence of the above (embarrassing, as far as they're concerned) people.

There is a connection between lack of education and support for these British nationalist campaigns, be they the freeing of Lee Clegg, support for the Parachute Regiment, hatred of the EU, support for Thatcher, support for Pinochet, support for apartheid, support for the Indonesian genocide in East Timor, support for the remnants of British colonial communities abroad, be they in the north of Ireland, Apartheid South Africa, Gibraltar or the Malvinas.

Their views, and their socio-economic and educational status make them all so utterly predictable.

The very fact that the John Bulls in this thread are so upset at opposition to their British colonial escapades 12,700km away from Britain is proof enough that we're on the right course opposing it, and their endemic sense of cultural entitlement to rule other people's land - be it in Ireland, Iraq, the Malvinas or 25% of the world again.

Malvinas Para Siempre!

Seanchai

bnt wrote: »

If the history of the British Empire teaches people anything, it's that change doesn't come as a direct result of taking up arms against the British.

This would be a very convenient myth for our patriotically-minded British to propagate. To take one of very many examples based in real history, however, I'm sure that there are many people in the United States who would say otherwise about the value of taking up guns against a bunch of upstart shopkeepers who had pretensions to rule the world.

Fratton Fred

Seanchai wrote: »

No, just the flag-waving John Bull irredentist tabloid-reading Europhobic "British Isles" apologists for British colonialism such as you. Indeed, the educated section of British society would share this abhorrence of the above (embarrassing, as far as they're concerned) people.

There is a connection between lack of education and support for these British nationalist campaigns, be they the freeing of Lee Clegg, support for the Parachute Regiment, hatred of the EU, support for Thatcher, support for Pinochet, support for apartheid, support for the Indonesian genocide in East Timor, support for the remnants of British colonial communities abroad, be they in the north of Ireland, Apartheid South Africa, Gibraltar or the Malvinas.

Their views, and their socio-economic and educational status make them all so utterly predictable.

The very fact that the John Bulls in this thread are so upset at opposition to their British colonial escapades 12,700km away from Britain is proof enough that we're on the right course opposing it, and their endemic sense of cultural entitlement to rule other people's land - be it in Ireland, Iraq, the Malvinas or 25% of the world again.

Malvinas Para Siempre!

Who is John Bull? I remember the beer, brewed in Romford iirc.

You really do have an unfortunately large chip. You also have an amazing ability to pre-judge people and make completely wrong assumptions about them.

You also have the ability to look at a situation such as the Falklands issue and get the whole entire thing completely and utterly wrong.

Whilst you are singing the praises of Argentina and championing their cause, you might want to enquire as to the indigenous population and what happened to their lands.

But no, that doesn't matter does it, because as we know, your hatred is blind and irrational.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

And you're an English Nationalist? Have you assimilated into Irish society yet?

Assimilated? You make Ireland sound like the Borg!

I'm not sure what assimilating into Ireland and being an English nationalist have to do with each other. Some of the most vocal Irish nationalists on here live in parts of Britain, such as Glasgow, London and D4!!

Manic Moran

Who is John Bull?

British version of Uncle Sam. Usually depicted as wearing a top hat and wearing a waistcoat in the colours of the Union Flag. Call it "The UK Personified" without the political liability of caricaturing the Royal Family.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

British version of Uncle Sam. Usually depicted as wearing a top hat and wearing a waistcoat in the colours of the Union Flag. Call it "The UK Personified" without the political liability of caricaturing the Royal Family.

NTM

He seems to be a lot more popular over here than in England.

Batsy

The very fact that the John Bulls in this thread are so upset at opposition to their British colonial escapades 12,700km away from Britain is proof enough that we're on the right course opposing it, and their endemic sense of cultural entitlement to rule other people's land - be it in Ireland, Iraq, the Malvinas or 25% of the world again.

Yet, despite saying all that, you seem to have no problem in supporting the Argentine government's attempt to rule other people's land.

The "Malvinas" - which is actually the SPANISH word for the islands, not the English word for them, which the islands acquired BEFORE they acquired their Spanish name - belong to the Falkland Islanders. They do not belong to the Argentinians and never have done, save for a brief period in 1833 (long after the British claimed the islands) and when they illegally invaded the islands in 1982. And the Falkland islanders want to be British, not Argentinian.

The islands are not ruled by the British. They are an independent, sovereign state, with Britain responsible only for their defence and their foreign affairs.

The Falkland Islanders want to be British and for as long as they want to be British then they WILL be British, no matter how much ignorant whingeing goes on on this forum. And, in my view, the more than the Argies sabre-rattle and keep acting aggressively towards the Falkland Islands and their people, the LESS and LESS likely it will become that the Falkland Islanders will ever want to become Argentinian.

Also, the "proximity" of the islands to Argentina (the islands are 300 miles from Argentina, so they aren't that close to it) should not play any part in who owns the islands. Because if that was the case, then the UK would be able to claim the Republic of Ireland (the only country which the UK shares a land border with), the US would be able to claim the Bahamas (which are just 50 miles from Florida and therefore 6 miles closer to the US than the Falklands are to Argentina) and China could probably lay claim to Japan.

And all those on here who have no problem with the idea of Argentina laying claim to a sovereign state "because the Falklands are near to Argentina" would be up in arms if the Americans suddenly lay claim to the sovereign state known as the Bahamas, and would start crying that the Americans are being "greedy imperialists".

So the argument that Argentina should own the Falklands "because the islands are near to Argentina" is a very dubious and bizarre one.

Precious flower

I don't understand why they can't just let the people who are living on the island decide who they wish to stay with. Wouldn't that be the fairest why to do it, have a vote, majority rules?

Batsy

Precious flower wrote: »

I don't understand why they can't just let the people who are living on the island decide who they wish to stay with. Wouldn't that be the fairest why to do it, have a vote, majority rules?

What would be the point? It would be nothing more than a token referendum and a waste of money. That's because we all know what the answer to the referendum will be: the vast, vast majority of the islanders - who are of British descent - wanting to be British rather than becoming under the ownership of a hostile and belligerent Argentina that cares nothing about the Falkland Islanders.

Batsy

That legally does not make them British, Argentina has the legal claim to the Islands and Britain know this.

Under UN laws of self-determination, the islands are legally British.

bwatson

Seanchai wrote: »

a bunch of upstart shopkeepers who had pretensions to rule the world.

I know you mean this as an insult, but I think this is fantastic. Proud to be British.

It was Napoleon who originally described the English as a nation of shopkeepers, wasn't it? No problems with aggressive French expansionism then if it puts the British in their place?

No problem with Argentine expansionism either? Your support for their claim to the "malvinas" is a source of much enjoyment too. The fact that you are still so riled up is fantastic.

By the way - this topic was summed up fantastically on BBC Radio 5 earlier, which I'm sure most of you listen to anway:

Argentina attempting to colonize a British colony on the basis that colonization is completely wrong

You certainly appear confused about your views on many issues, with Britain being an obvious exception. Don't worry though, its not mutual - for the most part you aren't hated at all, but are liked (I mean that in a general sense as a people, you as a person is another matter).

Batsy

By international law PROBABLY Argentina has the legitimate claim.

Wrong.

Just because the people of the Islands want to be British that does not make the Islands British

Under UN laws of self-determination it does.

44leto

Batsy wrote: »

Yet, despite saying all that, you seem to have no problem in supporting the Argentine government's attempt to rule other people's land.

The "Malvinas" - which is actually the SPANISH word for the islands, not the English word for them, which the islands acquired BEFORE they acquired their Spanish name - belong to the Falkland Islanders. They do not belong to the Argentinians and never have done, save for a brief period in 1833 (long after the British claimed the islands) and when they illegally invaded the islands in 1982. And the Falkland islanders want to be British, not Argentinian.

The islands are not ruled by the British. They are an independent, sovereign state, with Britain responsible only for their defence and their foreign affairs.

The Falkland Islanders want to be British and for as long as they want to be British then they WILL be British, no matter how much ignorant whingeing goes on on this forum. And, in my view, the more than the Argies sabre-rattle and keep acting aggressively towards the Falkland Islands and their people, the LESS and LESS likely it will become that the Falkland Islanders will ever want to become Argentinian.

Also, the "proximity" of the islands to Argentina (the islands are 300 miles from Argentina, so they aren't that close to it) should not play any part in who owns the islands. Because if that was the case, then the UK would be able to claim the Republic of Ireland (the only country which the UK shares a land border with), the US would be able to claim the Bahamas (which are just 50 miles from Florida and therefore 6 miles closer to the US than the Falklands are to Argentina) and China could probably lay claim to Japan.

So the argument that Argentina should own the Falklands "because the islands are near to Argentina" is a very dubious and bizarre one.

But when Argentina got its independence from Spain they inherited the Spanish claim. The Island were actually first settled or used by the French.

Britain claims they never recognized the Spanish claim which is a weak defense. You are right proximity does not make for ownership BUT neither does the will of the people. Suppose Galway or the Aran Island decided in a plebiscite that won a 100% majority that they wanted to be part of the USA. The USA would still not have a legal claim to those places.

International law is complex, but behind closed doors in Whitehall they know their claim on the Falklands is tenuous and legally not a strong case.

As I posted before I am far from anti British, I love the place to be honest. I don't give a toss who gets the Islands.

Mike 1972

HavingCrack wrote: »

Would you accept Kalingrad as part of Russia?

Dont you mean Königsberg :pac:

HavingCrack

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Dont you mean Königsberg :pac:

I was actually really curious to see how many people would pick up on that . I wonder does Germany have the right to claim that as part of their territory...