Falkland islands - British or Argentine?

zimmermania

gigino wrote: »

If the Falklands belong to Argentina, then the Canaries belong to Morocco. And so on.

All of the people who live on the Falklands are loyal to Britain.

People have the right to self determination.If the people who reside in the falklands wish to ally themselves to GB thats ok,equally if they decide to become part of argentina thats also ok.

gigino

zimmermania wrote: »

People have the right to self determination.If the people who reside in the falklands wish to ally themselves to GB thats ok,equally if they decide to become part of argentina thats also ok.

Exactly. And they are loyal to the UK, wish to ally themselves with the UK.

Manic Moran

The timeline is ridiculously complex for such an insignificant piece of land.

http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html

It doesn't get off to a great start:

1493 Pope Alexander VI issues a papal bull which draws a line north to south down the Atlantic 100 leagues west of the Azores, granting everything East of the line to Portugal and everything west of the line to Spain

Skipping here and there, looking at only the pertinent excerpts.

1592 First confirmed sighting of the Islands by English navigator John Davis of Desire

1690 First landing at Bold Cove, Port Howard by British captain John Strong of Welfare whilst sailing to Chile who names Falkland Sound after Lord Falkland, Treasurer to the Navy

1713 Intense trade rivalry between Spain, Britain and France leads to Treaty of Utrecht which confirms Spain's control of South American territories

(Obviously not thought to extend to islands off South America as evidenced by...)

1764 French colony at Fort St. Louis on East Falkland established by Louis Antoine de Bougainville, who claims the Islands for French King Louis XV

1765 Captain John Byron of Tamar, sent to survey the Islands, lands at Port Egmont on Saunders Island in West Falkland which he names for the Earl of Egmont, First Lord of the Admiralty, and claims the Islands for King George III;
The surgeon of Tamar plants a vegetable garden at Port Egmont

1766 Captain John McBride of Jason establishes a naval garrison called Fort George and a settlement called Jason's Town (after his ship) at Port Egmont in January, and in December discovers the French settlement at Fort St. Louis

1767 French colony at Fort St. Louis is transferred to Spain upon payment of £25,000 compensation to de Bougainville, and renamed Puerto Soledad;
Don Felipe Ruiz Puente appointed first Spanish Governor of Islas Malvinas

1769 English and Spanish ships meet while surveying the Islands and exchange letters each accusing the other of being in the Islands unlawfully

1770 5 Spanish ships with 1,400 men commanded by General Madariaga force surrender of British naval vessel Favourite and British withdrawal from Port Egmont

1771 A joint declaration is negotiated between the British and Spanish Governments to avert war, and the Spanish make restitution for confiscated goods to the British who re-occupy Port Egmont

1776 British led by Governor Samuel Clayton withdraw their naval garrison from Port Egmont (They need the forces to fight the American War of Independence), but leave a lead plaque claiming British sovereignty over all the Islands; Viceroyalty of Buenos Aries is established, with jurisdiction over the Islands

1790 Spain and Britain sign Nootka Sound Convention in which Britain formally renounces 'all colonial ambition' in South America and adjacent islands

1806 Spanish Governor Juan Crisostomo Martinez withdraws from Puerto Soledad, but leaves a plaque claiming Spanish sovereignty over all the Islas Malvinas; Buenos Aries is captured by a British expeditionary force

1811 The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata withdraw all settlers from Puerto Soledad

1820 The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata claim sovereignty over Islas Malvinas and send American mercenary Daniel Jewitt of Heroina to visit the Islands, assert their sovereignty and warn off whalers and sealers

1828 The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata grant Vernet all of East Falkland and its fishing and sealing resources, and exempts him from taxation if he forms a colony within three years; Vernet acknowledges the primacy of the British sovereignty claim and lodges with the British Consul General a request that his colony be taken under British protection; Vernet returns to the Islands accompanied by his own family, Dutch and German families as prospective colonists, and his new British deputy Matthew Brisbane

1829 The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata appoint Vernet Governor of East Falkland; Britain formally protests Vernet's appointment and reiterates its sovereignty claim

1831 Vernet arrests 3 American boats Harriet, Superior and Breakwater for illegal sealing and confiscates their cargo of skins; In Vernet's absence and in retaliation for the arrest of the American sealers, Captain Silas Duncan of the American warship Lexington, on the instructions of the American consul in Buenos Aires, sacks Port Louis and declares the Islands free from all government; Vernet's deputy Matthew Brisbane is arrested by the Americans and taken to Montevideo while storekeeper William Dickson takes charge of the colony

1832 The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata appoints Don Juan Esteban Mestivier governor of Islas Malvinas but he is murdered by mutineers shortly after his arrival; Don Jose Maria Pinedo of United Provinces warship Sarandi takes charge of the colony; British warships HMS Clio under the command of Captain James Onslow and HMS Tyne visit the Islands and reiterate the British claim to sovereignty

1833 British warships force departure of Don Pinedo and warship Sarandi, then depart leaving William Dickson in charge until Matthew Brisbane's return;
Penal settlement at San Carlos operated by United Provinces of Rio de la Plata closes; Gaucho gang led by Antonio Rivero and armed by American sealers murder Brisbane, Dickson and 4 other colonists; British sealer Hopeful under Lt Rea rescues the surviving colonists; Naturalist Charles Darwin visits the Islands aboard Beagle and names the Islands' longest stone run 'Princes Street' after his hometown of Edinburgh

1834 British warships HMS Challenger and HMS Hopeful arrive at Port Louis;
Lt Henry Smith supported by a boat crew is left in charge as British military administrator; Antonio Rivero and his gaucho gang are arrested and taken to England for trial; Colony at Port Louis re-established and re-named Anson's Harbour; Naturalist Charles Darwin's second visit

From that point on, it's the British all the way.

NTM

Seanchai

The Malvinas are Argentinian, of course.

If you have any doubt, just look at the politics of the sort of people who are trying to say the British have a legitimate claim to this remnant of their empire 13,000km beyond Britain. The very idea is risible. They are all of the "Britannia rules the waves" mentality, always on the anti-Irish side of debates here regarding Ireland's British problem, eurosceptic if not europhobic and generally finding it impossible to get adjusted to the decline of British imperial power. It really really bothers them.

The has-beens of online political discussion forums screeching the dying laments of the has-been world power status of Britain.

Seanchai

By the way, the idea that the British, of all people, could lay a claim to land beyond Britain based on "self-determination" is hilarious, given that the British ignored the self-determination of the majority in Ireland in 1920, overthrew democracy here and created a brand new state with its own gerrymandered majority walking roughshod over the self-determination rights of majority nationalist counties like Tyrone and Fermanagh simply because unionists wanted as much land as possible without challenging their "majority".

For that matter, if the British were so keen on "self-determination" back in 1920, why didn't they allow the part of Liverpool which then, and for generations before voted for Irish Home Rule candidates, to remove the land they lived upon from the British state just as they allowed British settlers in Ireland to remove themselves from the Irish state?


The ignorance of some posters here when it comes to Britain's rather ignominious relationship with the concepts of self-determination and democracy - yes, the same Britain which "sold out" the "majority" in Hong Kong back in 1997, remember, rather than use that "self-determination" malarkey against the massive power of China - is depressing.

WolfForager

Seanchai wrote: »

By the way, the idea that the British, of all people, could lay a claim to land beyond Britain based on "self-determination" is hilarious, given that the British ignored the self-determination of the majority in Ireland in 1920, overthrew democracy here and created a brand new state with its own gerrymandered majority walking roughshod over the self-determination rights of majority nationalist counties like Tyrone and Fermanagh simply because unionists wanted as much land as possible without challenging their "majority".

For that matter, if the British were so keen on "self-determination" back in 1920, why didn't they allow the part of Liverpool which then, and for generations before voted for Irish Home Rule candidates, to remove the land they lived upon from the British state just as they allowed British settlers in Ireland to remove themselves from the Irish state?


The ignorance of some posters here when it comes to Britain's rather ignominious relationship with the concepts of self-determination and democracy - yes, the same Britain which "sold out" the "majority" in Hong Kong back in 1997, remember, rather than use that "self-determination" malarkey against the massive power of China - is depressing.

What in the name of god are you talking about?

ejmaztec

WolfForager wrote: »

What in the name of god are you talking about?

What he's always talking about.:pac:

Seanchai

WolfForager wrote: »

What in the name of god are you talking about?

Something which, while being remedial to most in the comprehension stakes, is still apparently beyond the intelligence of some.

whubee

Hey guys, nice day, what you all talking about?

LondonIrish90

Seanchai wrote: »

By the way, the idea that the British, of all people, could lay a claim to land beyond Britain based on "self-determination" is hilarious, given that the British ignored the self-determination of the majority in Ireland in 1920, overthrew democracy here and created a brand new state with its own gerrymandered majority walking roughshod over the self-determination rights of majority nationalist counties like Tyrone and Fermanagh simply because unionists wanted as much land as possible without challenging their "majority".

For that matter, if the British were so keen on "self-determination" back in 1920, why didn't they allow the part of Liverpool which then, and for generations before voted for Irish Home Rule candidates, to remove the land they lived upon from the British state just as they allowed British settlers in Ireland to remove themselves from the Irish state?


The ignorance of some posters here when it comes to Britain's rather ignominious relationship with the concepts of self-determination and democracy - yes, the same Britain which "sold out" the "majority" in Hong Kong back in 1997, remember, rather than use that "self-determination" malarkey against the massive power of China - is depressing.

What's your point? I'm sure its in there somewhere but it doesn't jump out. Some people have a right to self determination whereas others don't, is that it?

Anyway, this argument is flawed. Those of you who are saying that the Falklands are Argentinian are most likely overlooking the fact that the union flag flies in Port Stanley, Typhoons patrol the airspace and British nuclear submarines come and go as well. Puts a bit of clout behind the British argument imo

ejmaztec

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

What's your point? I'm sure its in there somewhere but it doesn't jump out. Some people have a right to self determination whereas others don't, is that it?

Anyway, this argument is flawed. Those of you who are saying that the Falklands are Argentinian are most likely overlooking the fact that the union flag flies in Port Stanley, Typhoons patrol the airspace and British nuclear submarines come and go as well. Puts a bit of clout behind the British argument imo

But that doesn't tie up with Biased History Module 1.

44leto

Just looking at the BeeB news, Argentina have blew a gasket over the stationing or Willy Wales on the Island which coincides with the 30th anniversary of the war.

westendgirlie

44leto wrote: »

Just looking at the BeeB news, Argentina have blew a gasket over the stationing or Willy Wales on the Island which coincides with the 30th anniversary of the war.

Blimey, it's been 40 years since your previous post. Time sure flies

kevmol88

Willy has arrived


By Associated Press,

LONDON — Prince William arrived in the Falkland Islands on Thursday for a six-week deployment as a search and rescue helicopter pilot, British officials said, amid an escalating sovereignty dispute with Argentina over the territory.

The Ministry of Defense confirmed that William, known in the service as Flight Lt. Wales, landed on the British outpost as part of a four-member Royal Air Force crew.

Capt'n Midnight

44leto wrote: »

Just looking at the BeeB news, Argentina have blew a gasket ...

What does the Argentinian news say ?

44leto

westendgirlie wrote: »

Blimey, it's been 40 years since your previous post. Time sure flies

I thought it worth a mention, its as if they stationed a superhero on the Island but its only Willy Wales.

But I didn't want to start another Irish/British thread. Hopilly it will die a quick death.

getz

Seanchai wrote: »

By the way, the idea that the British, of all people, could lay a claim to land beyond Britain based on "self-determination" is hilarious, given that the British ignored the self-determination of the majority in Ireland in 1920, overthrew democracy here and created a brand new state with its own gerrymandered majority walking roughshod over the self-determination rights of majority nationalist counties like Tyrone and Fermanagh simply because unionists wanted as much land as possible without challenging their "majority".

For that matter, if the British were so keen on "self-determination" back in 1920, why didn't they allow the part of Liverpool which then, and for generations before voted for Irish Home Rule candidates, to remove the land they lived upon from the British state just as they allowed British settlers in Ireland to remove themselves from the Irish state?


The ignorance of some posters here when it comes to Britain's rather ignominious relationship with the concepts of self-determination and democracy - yes, the same Britain which "sold out" the "majority" in Hong Kong back in 1997, remember, rather than use that "self-determination" malarkey against the massive power of China - is depressing.

there was never a problem about hong kong it was seeded to britain on a 99 year lease,britain honoured that lease,that is why it reverted back to china,you have a problem with that,

44leto

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What does the Argentinian news say ?

Something in Spanish.

The Brits are allowing oil exploration which is the main provocation, it maybe a pretty big reserve, which Argentina feels should be theirs. By putting Willy there the British are saying the Islands and the oil is theirs.

WolfForager

Hmmmm oil....

westendgirlie

44leto wrote: »

I thought it worth a mention, its as if they stationed a superhero on the Island but its only Willy Wales.

But I didn't want to start another Irish/British thread. Hopilly it will die a quick death.

I was referring to your username change! N'ermind, you've aged well

shanered

50/50!
No wait, ask a friend!

44leto

westendgirlie wrote: »

I was referring to your username change! N'ermind, you've aged well

LOL
4leto, I don't really know him, he was very good looking but a complete arsehole, this forum is a better place without him, it also has to be mentioned he was a wanker in bed, but a good one.

af_thefragile

I couldn't give a rihno's bollocks so to even the pole results, I voted British... :pac:

LordSutch

Argies beware, HMS Dauntless is on her way . . .

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/03/article-1233054-07765B07000005DC-928_964x752.jpg

getz

WolfForager wrote: »

Hmmmm oil....

yes i read someplace that the oil drilling is over 250 miles out at sea north of the falklands,isnt that international waters ?

Capt'n Midnight

getz wrote: »

yes i read someplace that the oil drilling is over 250 miles out at sea north of the falklands,isnt that international waters ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Exclusion_Zone
the Exclusion Zone was 200 Nautical miles

Ghost Buster

RobitTV wrote: »

The Falkland Islands (pronounced Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, located about 250 nautical miles - 460 km from the coast of mainland South America. The archipelago consists of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands. The capital, Stanley, is on East Falkland. It is an internally self-governing British Overseas Territory.

On 2 April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and other British territories in the South Atlantic. The military junta which had ruled Argentina since 1976 sought to maintain power by diverting public attention from the nation's poor economic performance and exploiting the long-standing feelings of the Argentines towards the islands. The war ended in British victory!

Read about the ongoing dispute - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

So in your opinion - British or argentine islands?

Theres your answer

Benny_Cake

getz wrote: »

there was never a problem about hong kong it was seeded to britain on a 99 year lease,britain honoured that lease,that is why it reverted back to china,you have a problem with that,

Actually the lease only covered the New Territories and parts of Kowloon, the rest of Hong Kong wasn't covered, but it would have been next to impossible to separate the two.

An example of Britain paying no heed to self-determination would be the fate of the Chagos Islanders, who were forcibly removed from their homeland of Diego Garcia in the late 1960s to make way for an American base and have been forbidden from returning ever since. That isn't to say that the British position on the Falklands Islands isn't correct, I think it is, but it is inconsistent. I think some unsettling conclusions can be drawn from the media attention paid to the Falkland Islanders compared to the Chagossians.

44leto

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Actually the lease only covered the New Territories and parts of Kowloon, the rest of Hong Kong wasn't covered, but it would have been next to impossible to separate the two.

An example of Britain paying no heed to self-determination would be the fate of the Chagos Islanders, who were forcibly removed from their homeland of Diego Garcia in the late 1960s to make way for an American base and have been forbidden from returning ever since. That isn't to say that the British position on the Falklands Islands isn't correct, I think it is, but it is inconsistent. I think some unsettling conclusions can be drawn from the media attention paid to the Falkland Islanders compared to the Chagossians.

There claim on the Islands is dodgy, behind closed doors in whitehall this is well known. The legality would not stand up in international court.

Although the Islanders claim to be British that does not really effect the legality of the claim. For instance just suppose people on the Aran Islands voted over whelming to become part of the USA, they still would not be allowed to under international law.

I have no opinion on it, but I feel they should at least share the oil reserve with Argentina.

KeithAFC

44leto wrote: »

Just looking at the BeeB news, Argentina have blew a gasket over the stationing or Willy Wales on the Island which coincides with the 30th anniversary of the war.

I think it is important our future King does his job. Argentina should shut up and accept it. The Falkands don't belong to them.