Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Falkland islands - British or Argentine?

1679111240

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    I'm curious as to what basis the British empire could claim the flaklands other then their oft used habit of "this is ours because we say so"

    Also, there have also been claims of sovereignty by Argentina and the Spanish as well as France and the British - if you're going to try and buff that you know anything about what you post, at least try and put some effort in.

    I'm curious to know why you think they shouldn't and why Argentina should.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Given the spanish invaders reputation for bloodthirsty slaughter, enslavement and exploitation of the native populations of south america, And their ongoing legacy of leaving stable democracies in their wake(!), I dont see why anyone would be keen on having them around.

    And on another note how far off shore do you have to be to escape the reaches (and claims of ownership) of these tinpot countries?

    Its a good job the US hasnt claimed Bermuda.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,619 ✭✭✭LaVail


    Ken Burton shares his views and says back off or "We'll **** you up"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,076 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    The Falkland islands are British, and will remain British, end of . . . .

    And no amount of Pro-Argie polling here will change that fact.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,724 ✭✭✭The Scientician


    Yeah what the hell is with people voting for Argentina? We might as well claim the Faroe Islands.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Some people really need to read a book, or Wikipedia or something. The level of ignorance is amazing.

    Batsy wrote: »
    Because the British discovered the the islands.

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Batsy wrote: »
    I'm proud to be from the Falklands - and proud to be British

    As Argentina cranks up the pressure over the Falklands, the Daily Mirror's Rob Burnett - a proud Falkland islander - explains what rule Britannia means to the inhabitants


    By Rob Burnett
    9th February 2012
    The Daily Mirror



    CS16741235Rob+Burnett+at+welcom.jpgBack home: Rob returns to the Falkland Islands

    The Falkland Islands is a remote, windswept archipelago 8,000 miles from Britain but, to me, it will always be home.

    And the ultimate sacrifice made by hundreds of brave men and women to defend them 30 years ago is one reason the Islanders are determined to remain British – despite the threats from the Argentine government.

    The past few months have seen an escalation in sabre-rattling by Argentine president Cristina Kirchner, who pressured South American countries into banning Falklands flagged vessels from their ports and branded Britain “a crude colonial power in decline”.

    She is also complaining to the United Nations about Britain “militarising” the situation after it sent destroyer HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic.

    falkland-islands-satellite-image-596250261.jpgSatellite image: The Falkland Islands

    Tensions were further ratcheted up by the deployment of Prince William on a six-week tour of duty as a helicopter rescue pilot to the Islands, with Argentine officials declaring he had arrived in the “uniform of a conqueror”.

    I know what it’s like to live under a cloud of constant intimidation from neighbours 300 miles away who have never dropped their claim to “Las Malvinas”.

    My parents first moved to the Falklands in 1976, when my dad became book-keeper and storekeeper on a sheep farm on West Falkland called Port Howard. Population: 35.

    My mum worked as the farm’s teacher and for the next five years they lived there with no telephone or television... but all the mutton they could eat.

    After 10 years back in the UK, they returned to the Islands in 1991 with my younger brother Matthew and I now in tow. I immediately took to the way of life.

    At that time we relied on a peat stove for all our cooking, heating and hot water, and my job was bringing the peat in from the shed. My brother fed our hens, while Dad kept a vegetable garden.

    I went back to visit over Christmas, after nearly five years away.

    What+Rule+Britannia+means+to+the+IslandsWingman: A RAF Typhoon jetfighter escorting a passenger airliner out of Falkland Islands airspace

    What+Rule+Britannia+means+to+the+IslandsGovernment: Gilbert House, Office of the Legislative Assembly

    What+Rule+Britannia+means+to+the+IslandsFront page: Rob Burnett outside office of local newspaper Penguin News

    What+Rule+Britannia+means+to+the+IslandsThe local: Globe Tavern in Stanley

    What+Rule+Britannia+means+to+the+IslandsRun aground: Wreck of the Lady Eli

    What+Rule+Britannia+means+to+the+IslandsLook-out: Rob admires blue waters at Gypsy Cove

    One of my best friends is Nick Rendell, 29, who now works for the Falkland Islands Government as its Environmental Officer.

    Nick says the Islanders greatly appreciate the support shown by Britain, particularly David Cameron’s reassurances in the Commons last month when he told MPs: “As long as they want to remain part of the UK and be British, they should be able to do so.”

    Nick says: “It’s very reassuring to have that from the very top of the British Government. It makes people feel a lot more secure.”

    What+Rule+Britannia+means+to+the+IslandsFalklanders: (L-R) Pippa Lang, Rob Burnett, Dan Fowler and Nick Rendell on Bleaker Island

    Nick studied at Sheffield University before returning to the Islands. “I love the community spirit here,” he says. “We all pitch in helping out on farms at busy times. Having been away studying overseas you really do understand how lucky you are to live in the Falklands.”

    Dan Fowler, who survived his house being shelled in 1982, when he was just weeks old, is another close friend. He works as a conservationist in the Islands after studying at Edinburgh University.

    “There’s nowhere else I would want to live,” he says. “From the sense of freedom to the amazing nature on your doorstep... it’s just a great life. As 12-year-olds we were going off on our bikes for a day at the beach, or going fishing, and our parents had no worries about us being out on our own all day. The freedom was amazing.”

    Nick and Dan reflect the large number of young Islanders who, having been educated abroad, return to make their lives – and insist that their beloved home remains British.

    And like the rest of the Islanders, their determination to stay British has nothing to do with the potential for a massive cash windfall from oil reserves beneath the South Atlantic waters that lap the coast.

    While the economies of European countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy have been collap­sing, the Falklands is a vibrant, prosperous and small democratic nation with full employment, mass­­ively improved infrastructure and a rising population – up to nearly 3,000 from less than 2,000 in 1982.

    Around 85% of them live in Stanley, which has a dozen or so pubs, bars and restaurants – with the rest spread across an area about half the size of Wales.

    The Islands are financially self-sufficient, except for defence costs, and entirely self-governing. They have a future that looks bright, apart from the dark cloud of Argentine aggression hanging over the population.

    Banning Falklands ships from South American ports is branded as “economic warfare” by one of the Islands’ eight elected leaders, Mike Summers. The Argentine government has also threatened to stop the crucial weekly flights to Chile, has banned charter flights, and Argentine ships have harassed Falklands fishing vessels.

    It is all designed to make life increasingly difficult for Islanders and to try to force the UK to negotiate sovereignty. But local politician Jan Cheek says the residents will not be bullied. “We will not bow to Argentina in their attempts to undermine our home and our way of life,” she vows.

    But how far will Argentina push the situation and could it really lead to another military conflict?

    A major deterrent to a second Argentine invasion is how much better the Islands are defended now, compared to 1982. Then, there was a tiny detachment of around 60 Royal Marines, overwhelmingly outnumbered by the invading Argentine forces.

    Now there is a permanent RAF base with some 1,500 troops and four Typhoon jet fighters, a Royal Navy frigate and, from time to time, a nuclear submarine. Dan insists it is vital these defences are maintained.

    “The presence of the military is comforting,” he says. “And the fact our situation has been discussed in the National Security Council tells me they are taking our defence seriously.”

    Dan and Nick are both members of the volunteer Falkland Islands Defence Force. “I did feel a sense of duty to join,” says Dan. “I don’t think there’ll be an invasion but it’s good to know we are well trained and capable of playing a meaningful role if it came to it.”

    He is unequivocal in the Islanders right to continue their way of life.

    “We’re so sure of our right to be here and be British,” he says. “And we are determined not to be bullied by Argentina.”

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/falkland-islands-population-determined-to-remain-678754

    Oh, great. A walking British nationalist tabloid. Just what Boards.ie needs. :o


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭discus


    I don't mind if the Argies make a stab at invading the falklands. I've always wanted to see Port Stanley...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    discus wrote: »
    I don't mind if the Argies make a stab at invading the falklands. I've always wanted to see Port Stanley...



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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    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.

    Ooh look, the Irish nationalist criticising the British.

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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    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.
    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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭NinjaK


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 MR KALASHNIKOV


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok



    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.
    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."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 630 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 127 ✭✭Jorah


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,983 ✭✭✭Red Hand


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 853 ✭✭✭toexpress


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


Advertisement