Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

RobitTV

Falkland Islanders go to the polls today to vote on whether they want to stay British amid increasing tensions with Argentina over the sovereignty of the territory.

The tiny community is expected to overwhelmingly back retaining its status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.

Authorities in Port Stanley hope the result will send a clear message to Argentina as it ramps up its rhetoric over the islands it calls Las Malvinas. Outside observers are being brought in to monitor the referendum in order to prove it is free and fair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9920348/Falkland-Islanders-vote-on-staying-British-today.html

They have the legal rights of international law to choose their own future as citizens of these Islands. Argentina acts like they don't exist and makes the situation worse then it should be. Hopefully this vote will finally put this to rest one way or another!

Madam

Couldn't give a stuff really!!

Happyman42

Very interesting developments and interesting too that just like N.I. the problem won't go away for the British and the planted population.
The ramifications of colonialism eh? One wouldn't have thunk it, would one?

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

Very interesting developments and interesting too that just like N.I. the problem won't go away for the British and the planted population.
The ramifications of colonialism eh? One wouldn't have thunk it, would one?

Where do you think the Argentinians came from, or do you think Spanish was spoken there 1,000 years ago? :rolleyes:

Las Malivinas are a long way from Argentina and it would be like us claiming Iceland. What's your position on Cyprus btw? Should the Cypriots all piss off back to Greece and leave it to Turkey?

Manach

murphaph wrote: »

...and it would be like us claiming Iceland

Historically speaking there is an arguable case that the first discovery of Iceland were Irish monks, who were later displace/enslaved by Vikings. Hence I'd expect as a distraction from the current economic woes, Mr Gilmore et al to press our "right" to sovereignty over Iceland

RobitTV

Happyman42 wrote: »

Very interesting developments and interesting too that just like N.I. the problem won't go away for the British and the planted population.
The ramifications of colonialism eh? One wouldn't have thunk it, would one?

And what about the Native Americans in south America and argentina? Who were forced from their land and Raped and murdered by the invaders. The current population is nothing more then a planted population just like you think about the Falklands population. :rolleyes:

The current islanders had some 7/8 generations of ancestry on the islands and when Britain regained the islands in 1833 Argentina wasn't even a country and not even in existence. Also in the 1600s Britain was the first country to set foot on the islands.

Also what about our Spanish, French friends? They also owned the islands during the 1700s/1800s for a period of time. Heck! Infact Spain has more of a claim then Argentina.

Nobody seems to understand the true facts of the history and is brainwashed by the propaganda machine in Argentina. They constantly Lie and twist things around to their way of the story which is untrue.

With Hyper-Inflation and a corrupt government and a declining economy no wonder the government in Argentina is trying to get everyone onto the Falklands issue constantly and make it a Major issue.

Iwasfrozen

RobitTV wrote: »

And what about the Native Americans in south America and argentina? Who were forced from their land and Raped and murdered by the invaders. The current population is nothing more then a planted population just like you think about the Falklands population. :rolleyes:

The current islanders had some 7/8 generations of ancestry on the islands and when Britain regained the islands in 1833 Argentina wasn't even a country and not even in existence. Also in the 1600s Britain was the first country to set foot on the islands.

Also what about our Spanish, French friends? They also owned the islands during the 1700s/1800s for a period of time. Heck! Infact Spain has more of a claim then Argentina.

Nobody seems to understand the true facts of the history and is brainwashed by the propaganda machine in Argentina. They constantly Lie and twist things around to their way of the story which is untrue.

With Hyper-Inflation and a corrupt government and a declining economy no wonder the government in Argentina is trying to get everyone onto the Falklands issue constantly and make it a Major issue.

Hush Robit, don't you know it's only ever colonialism if Britain does it? Let's not pretend like we're actually interested in the Falklands over a bit of auld Brit bashing.

RobitTV

Argentina is having a internal crisis, Mass looting in December and Anti-government protests in recent months involving 100,000s of people. Eye-watering Inflation and 1 million a day is being moved out of argentine banks by the people into other countries banks.

No wonder the islanders don't want to be anywhere near them to be honest.

Argentina protests: up to half a million rally against Fernández de Kirchner

Argentina looting spreads into Buenos Aires

Mass looting in Argentina kills two

An estimated one million dollars ‘trickled’ per day from Argentina to Uruguayan banks

murphaph

RobitTV wrote: »

Argentina is having a internal crisis, Mass looting in December and Anti-government protests in recent months involving 100,000s of people. Eye-watering Inflation and 1 million a day is being moved out of argentine banks by the people into other countries banks.

No wonder the islanders don't want to be anywhere near them to be honest.

Argentina protests: up to half a million rally against Fernández de Kirchner

Argentina looting spreads into Buenos Aires

Mass looting in Argentina kills two

...but if the oul Brits would ever feck off out of it everything would be grand. Shur'n it's the same with Ireland. If they'd ever leave our island our economic woes would disappear as well :pac:

RobitTV

murphaph wrote: »

...but if the oul Brits would ever feck off out of it everything would be grand. Shur'n it's the same with Ireland. If they'd ever leave our island our economic woes would disappear as well :pac:

Yeah :pac: If the north was returned aswell we could easily expect a huge economic boost on a unprecented scale, lower unemployment figures, government popularity will rise to become the most popular government in history of the state. GDP will rise to atleast 3/4 trillion. :pac:

If Britain left we will immidatley see National debt fall to atleast 10 euro (yes it's true I know :eek:) also all of Ireland will become wealthy within 2 mins everybody will be driving BMW's and Bentleys.

I blame Britain for well everything that's currently happening to Ireland. :pac::pac: :rolleyes:

RobitTV

One thing I also found out the Falkland islands also had a referendum on their status in 1986. Could be interesting to compare results.

An unofficial status referendum was held in the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1986. The result was 96% in favour of continued British sovereignty, with 88% of registered voters taking part.

STATUS VOTE 1986 RESULTS

British sovereignty 869 96.45%
Independence 15 1.66%
Argentine sovereignty 3. 0.33%
United Nations Trust Territory 3 0.33%
Other 11 1.22%
Invalid/blank votes 11 –
Total 911 100%
Registered voters/turnout 1,033 88.19

COYW

RobitTV wrote: »

If Britain left we will immidatley see National debt fall to atleast 10 euro (yes it's true I know :eek:) also all of Ireland will become wealthy within 2 mins everybody will be driving BMW's and Bentleys.

€10!! There would be no national debt. We would have a surplus in the billions overnight, no more PAYE for those who earn less than €100,000 and the dole would be doubled, with a bonus for those who make the effort to go down to sign on in person. Free houses and healthcare for everyone, as well!!!

An extremely high turnout expected for this with a similar result to the unofficial poll taken in 1986. Whatever the result is, the politicking by Argentina will continue, with the aim of deflecting from the dreadful economic situation there.

RobitTV

COYW wrote: »

€10!! There would be no national debt. We would have a surplus in the billions overnight, no more PAYE for those who earn less than €100,000 and the dole would be doubled, with a bonus for those who make the effort to go down to sign on in person. Free houses and healthcare for everyone, as well!!!

An extremely high turnout expected for this with a similar result to the unofficial poll taken in 1986. No doubt whatever the result the politicking by Argentina will continue with the aim of deflecting from the our dreadful situation.

Yeah the government in Argentina will most certainly continue on their quest to isolate the islanders and blockade them in anyway they can think off.

But the economy of the islands shall continue to rise and boom in future years with the discovery of the Oil aswell which will help their economy signifcantly.

The Crackpot regime in charge of Argentina is falling day by day further into a black hole. They now resort to lying to the IMF about their economic situation because they know things are bad. With inflation running near 30% and rising unemployment and a declining economy as a whole. The government will pay for its actions in the near future, when the people learn they never sorted out the economy and brought in stupid economic policies.

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Where do you think the Argentinians came from, or do you think Spanish was spoken there 1,000 years ago? :rolleyes:

Las Malivinas are a long way from Argentina and it would be like us claiming Iceland. What's your position on Cyprus btw? Should the Cypriots all piss off back to Greece and leave it to Turkey?

RobitTV wrote: »

And what about the Native Americans in south America and argentina? Who were forced from their land and Raped and murdered by the invaders. The current population is nothing more then a planted population just like you think about the Falklands population. :rolleyes:

The current islanders had some 7/8 generations of ancestry on the islands and when Britain regained the islands in 1833 Argentina wasn't even a country and not even in existence. Also in the 1600s Britain was the first country to set foot on the islands.

Also what about our Spanish, French friends? They also owned the islands during the 1700s/1800s for a period of time. Heck! Infact Spain has more of a claim then Argentina.

Nobody seems to understand the true facts of the history and is brainwashed by the propaganda machine in Argentina. They constantly Lie and twist things around to their way of the story which is untrue.

With Hyper-Inflation and a corrupt government and a declining economy no wonder the government in Argentina is trying to get everyone onto the Falklands issue constantly and make it a Major issue.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Hush Robit, don't you know it's only ever colonialism if Britain does it? Let's not pretend like we're actually interested in the Falklands over a bit of auld Brit bashing.

Settle the head peoples, I was merely making the point that colonisers eventually get bitten and keep getting bitten, one way or another. Or am I reading world history wrong?

.jacksparrow.

Well this thread developed nicely into an Ireland bashing thread.

Some people just can't help themself.pathetic.

everdead.ie

I see the results are due tonight, I can't see anything but a vote to maintain the status quo as you have to be a British citizen to vote in this election.

junder

everdead.ie wrote: »

I see the results are due tonight, I can't see anything but a vote to maintain the status quo as you have to be a British citizen to vote in this election.

Which 99% of the population are, one thing about the subject of the Falklands is that it shows in the case of Irish republicans that they are only interested in democracy when it works in thier favour. Argentina is clearly the aggressor here but it seems some Irish republicans will still support it them just because they are anti British

Fratton Fred

everdead.ie wrote: »

I see the results are due tonight, I can't see anything but a vote to maintain the status quo as you have to be a British citizen to vote in this election.

No, you have to be a Falkland islander. Just like in Irish referendums you have to be Irish.

Or are you proposing they should let Argentinians vote?

everdead.ie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, you have to be a Falkland islander. Just like in Irish referendums you have to be Irish.

Or are you proposing they should let Argentinians vote?

Not at all it was a statement I never said it should be anything other than that(as it was my understanding Falkland Islanders are British Citizens ) it was stated that you had to be British in the Guardian below anyway.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/falklands-vote-no-purpose-referendum-malvinas

I think you are reading to much into my statement I simply don't expect their to be any change.

everdead.ie

junder wrote: »

Which 99% of the population are, one thing about the subject of the Falklands is that it shows in the case of Irish republicans that they are only interested in democracy when it works in thier favour. Argentina is clearly the aggressor here but it seems some Irish republicans will still support it them just because they are anti British

I believe in the right to self determination I don't think Argentina is in the right here and I have no issues with anyone being British that is a Human right in my opinion.

Happyman42

Nor am I, taking a side. The problem here is the direct result of colonisation. Argentina's claims on this terroritory do not originate in 1982, it has been an ongoing and regular dispute since Argentina was formed.
The Argentinians claim that Britian formally renounced their occupation and aboandoned the islands in 1776. They claim that the re-occupation of the islands was an 'act of force' and illegal under international law.
They also claim that the UN Convention On The Continental Shelf gives them sovereignty based on the islands location.
Populating the islands with colonists, expelling the Argentinian population, writing a constitution giving everybody British citizenship and then having a vote amongst them is hardly going to solve the dispute. Like in their other colonies they will have to face the 'real' issues here, sooner or later.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nor am I, taking a side. The problem here is the direct result of colonisation. Argentina's claims on this terroritory do not originate in 1982, it has been an ongoing and regular dispute since Argentina was formed.
The Argentinians claim that Britian formally renounced their occupation and aboandoned the islands in 1776. They claim that the re-occupation of the islands was an 'act of force' and illegal under international law.
They also claim that the UN Convention On The Continental Shelf gives them sovereignty based on the islands location.
Populating the islands with colonists, expelling the Argentinian population, writing a constitution giving everybody British citizenship and then having a vote amongst them is hardly going to solve the dispute. Like in their other colonies they will have to face the 'real' issues here, sooner or later.

Explane how they expelled the argentine population?

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Explane how they expelled the argentine population?

Read the history, as usual this point is disputed, all depends on who you believe or who has the track record of telling lies/covering up/fixing inquiries to suit their colonising agendas.

Manach

Happyman42 wrote: »

... illegal under international law. ...

Given that international law is quite fluid, made up of lots of interacting treaties, that the sovereign power at the time was Spain and is, at least according to the international law texts I'm aware of, non-retroactive - for the Argentines to claim would not stand up to much scrutiny.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Read the history, as usual this point is disputed, all depends on who you believe or who has the track record of telling lies/covering up/fixing inquiries to suit their colonising agendas.

It is really hard to tell, hang on a minute, was the Faulkland island not colonised by the British settlers long before Argentina came into existence? But then how could they have displaced argentine citizens as you said? There is somthing not right here, not right at all.

Also, could you make reference to which history book supports the clame that the British settlers displaced a native people?

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

It is really hard to tell, hang on a minute, was the Faulkland island not colonised by the British settlers long before Argentina came into existence? But then how could they have displaced argentine citizens as you said? There is somthing not right here, not right at all.

Also, could you make reference to which history book supports the clame that the British settlers displaced a native people?

Britian formally renounced it's claim in 1776. (Nootka Sound Convention)
Argentina declared independence in 1816
Britian retakes by force (Argentina claim) in 1833.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britian formally renounced it's claim in 1776. (Nootka Sound Convention)
Argentina declared independence in 1816
Britian retakes by force (Argentina claim) in 1833.

If formally renouncing means pull troops of due to war in other parts of the world but leaving a plaque and flag stating British territory and being used by British whalers then yes they did.

Again, I would love to read the book you are, can you link it? I am really interested in this "formally renouncing" bit especially.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

If formally renouncing means pull troops of due to war in other parts of the world but leaving a plaque and flag stating British territory and being used by British whalers then yes they did.

Again, I would love to read the book you are, can you link it? I am really interested in this "formally renouncing" bit especially.

I am merely quoting the Argentinian claims, easily accessed on independent sites free of self serving propaganda. It's a complex dispute, not a simple 'it's ours' debate.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am merely quoting the Argentinian claims, easily accessed on independent sites free of self serving propaganda. It's a complex dispute, not a simple 'it's ours' debate.

It's not 'ours' it belongs to the falkland islanders

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am merely quoting the Argentinian claims, easily accessed on independent sites free of self serving propaganda. It's a complex dispute, not a simple 'it's ours' debate.

Any link to these independent sites? You seem to have read them.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Any link to these independent sites? You seem to have read them.

Are you disputing that these are 'not' the claims made by Argentina?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am merely quoting the Argentinian claims, easily accessed on independent sites free of self serving propaganda. It's a complex dispute, not a simple 'it's ours' debate.

It is a complex dispute, but surely then the rights and wishes of the people that live there should be the ultimate deciding factor.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you disputing that these are 'not' the claims made by Argentina?

Am just asking for more info on these "independent" sites you got your info from.

BOHtox

Madam wrote: »

Couldn't give a stuff really!!

I rarely care about threads. In fact I care for or read less than 0.1% of new threads I'd imagine. Life must be hard for you having to post your disinterest in every thread about which you don't care. Unless of course you are showing faux-disinterest to seem cool.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Am just asking for more info on these "independent" sites you got your info from.

I have no interest in you dragging the thread off topic about the meaning of an 'independent site'. That has been attempted already by the usual suspects claiming, I and others are merely being 'anti British'.
I have stated the Argentinian claims, if you dispute that these are their claims, do so.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britian formally renounced it's claim in 1776. (Nootka Sound Convention)

Also if you have time could you expand on which part of the nootka sound convention you feel applies to the dispute over the Faulklands between Argentina and the Faulkland islanders?

I assume you are thinking of article VI" It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects."

1) It is debatable that it applies to the Falklands. It refers to adjacent islands. The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to Argentina.
2) It was suspended in 1795 due to war between the two countries. It may or may not have been renewed in 1814 after the war.
3) It's a reciprocal treaty. Both countries, Spain as well as Great Britain (the respective subjects), were forbidden to form establishments on the coasts mentioned. Spain, by forming settlements late 18th -early 19th century in what is now San Clemente del Tuyú (directly south of the Banda Oriental -now Uruguay), was in breach of the Convention
4) If it does apply to the Falklands, Argentina, by establishing a settlement on the Falklands in 1826 (subjects of any other power),rendered article 6 null and void as per the secret article:Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.(Argentine web pages on Nootka and the Falklands never mention the secret article)
5) New states do not inherit treaties without the consent of other signatories to those treaties.
6) Argentina did not inherit the Falklands so neither did she inherit any treaty Spain may have signed with any country regarding the Falklands

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have no interest in you dragging the thread off topic about the meaning of an 'independent site'. That has been attempted already by the usual suspects claiming, I and others are merely being 'anti British'.
I have stated the Argentinian claims, if you dispute that these are their claims, do so.

What absolute nonsense, you are making arguments that I am interested in reading more about like the British formally renouncing their clame to the Faulkland islands and you stated you got your info from independent sites, would it not be simpler to post a link than ranting about it?

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Also if you have time could you expand on which part of the nootka sound convention you feel applies to the dispute over the Faulklands between Argentina and the Faulkland islanders?

I assume you are thinking of article VI" It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects."

1) It is debatable that it applies to the Falklands. It refers to adjacent islands. The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to Argentina.
2) It was suspended in 1795 due to war between the two countries. It may or may not have been renewed in 1814 after the war.
3) It's a reciprocal treaty. Both countries, Spain as well as Great Britain (the respective subjects), were forbidden to form establishments on the coasts mentioned. Spain, by forming settlements late 18th -early 19th century in what is now San Clemente del Tuyú (directly south of the Banda Oriental -now Uruguay), was in breach of the Convention
4) If it does apply to the Falklands, Argentina, by establishing a settlement on the Falklands in 1826 (subjects of any other power),rendered article 6 null and void as per the secret article:Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.(Argentine web pages on Nootka and the Falklands never mention the secret article)
5) New states do not inherit treaties without the consent of other signatories to those treaties.
6) Argentina did not inherit the Falklands so neither did she inherit any treaty Spain may have signed with any country regarding the Falklands

You'll need to take that up with the Argentinian government. My point (without taking a side) is that the ramifications of colonisation will not go away, and self serving referendums like the one at the minute won't solve the issue either.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

What absolute nonsense, you are making arguments that I am interested in reading more about like the British formally renouncing their clame to the Faulkland islands and you stated you got your info from independent sites, would it not be simpler to post a link than ranting about it?

Try googling 'Argentina's claims to the Falklands' and avoid sites with www.thesun and www.dailymail in their addresses.

Lemming

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am merely quoting the Argentinian claims, easily accessed on independent sites free of self serving propaganda.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have no interest in you dragging the thread off topic about the meaning of an 'independent site'. That has been attempted already by the usual suspects claiming, I and others are merely being 'anti British'.
I have stated the Argentinian claims, if you dispute that these are their claims, do so.

If the sites are easily accessible well then you wont have any problems in posting specific links to back up your claims.

Tabnabs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a complex dispute, but surely then the rights and wishes of the people that live there should be the ultimate deciding factor.

A laudable, just and sensible viewpoint. Works wonderfully to advantage in the Falklands, and falls flat on its face for the Chagos Archipelago.

In either case, the UK Government has control of the land and associated assets. If the Falklands oil industry picks up, the UK State coffers will be a net benefactor. Lucky that.

The Corinthian

My understanding is that both the UK's and Argentina's claims are questionable and this is why neither country has opted for international arbitration as it could go either way legally.

Of course, such legal arguments ignore the wishes of the people actually living there today; it's easy enough to argue that "we were here first", but if that's the case the Palestinian Territories should probably revert in full to Israel, given that they were Jewish land two thousand years ago, or Catalonia should remain Spanish as it is legally Spanish and there is no legal provision that presently allows a unilateral declaration of independence, regardless of referenda or public support in Catalonia.

I have sympathy for both sides in this dispute, but at the end of the day it's really down to the will of the people themselves; what country they want to be a part of, if not independent. Try to impose something on them and you'll be forced to adopt tyranny or simply deport the entire population - neither of which should be open to any civilized society.

The problem I have with some in this debate is that they seem to cherry-pick where they stand. As much as they will argue a legal position, against the will of the people of the Falklands, they'll likely argue a democratic one for Catalonia, ignoring the legal situation.

And unfortunately, the question of whether the British get it in the neck seems to be a deciding factor where it comes to which cherry to pick.

Madam

BOHtox wrote: »

I rarely care about threads. In fact I care for or read less than 0.1% of new threads I'd imagine. Life must be hard for you having to post your disinterest in every thread about which you don't care. Unless of course you are showing faux-disinterest to seem cool.

That's me told then eh?:)

I would however like to pull you up on the 'every' thread, this is the only one I've ever not given a monkey's about as to me the election had been a complete waste of time and money for a foregone conclusion!

Busted Flat.

Madam wrote: »

That's me told then eh?:)

I would however like to pull you up on the 'every' thread, this is the only one I've ever not given a monkey's about as to me the election had been a complete waste of time and money for a foregone conclusion!

The silly little referendum, will have no bearing on matters in a future settlement. It is just saber rattling. Slightly over half of the population are entitled to vote in it, and to vote in it you must have a British passport.
Democracy at it's finest.

The Corinthian

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The silly little referendum, will have no bearing on matters in a future settlement. It is just saber rattling. Slightly over half of the population are entitled to vote in it, and to vote in it you must have a British passport.

Could you elaborate? Are you suggesting that almost half of the population, of voting age, is intentionally disenfranchised? If so, do you have a source for this?

Happyman42

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The silly little referendum, will have no bearing on matters in a future settlement. It is just saber rattling. Slightly over half of the population are entitled to vote in it, and to vote in it you must have a British passport.
Democracy at it's finest.

It's just the usual 'kick to touch' by everybody involved including the toothless UN.
It will be interesting to see what happens as the South Americas become stronger, given that most of them support the Argentinian claim, notably the Brazilians.

RobitTV

The isles have been conquered, abandoned, reconquered and envied in successive occupations by the French, Spanish, and English up to the war of 1982.

They were discovered by the English navigator, John Davis in 1592 but not explored until 1690 by another Englishman, John Strong. The isles were not inhabited until 1764 when some French sailors from St-Malo first colonised them, hence the French name of “Malouines”.

They were thrown out of the islands in 1766 by the Spanish who were already masters of most of South America. In addition to the Spanish implantation, a British colony had already been established on part of the western isle in 1765 without suspecting that the French were living on the eastern isle.

In 1774 the English left the islands, for financial reasons, to the Spanish who were in charge of the archipelago until 1811 which was the beginning of the revolution of South America countries.

At this agitated time Spain left the Isles which became then officially no man's land. In 1820 Argentina, no longer under Spanish domination set up a garrison on the islands.

On 2nd April 1982, Argentina took back possession of the Isles. This action was supported by the majority of Latin-American states in spite of their opposition to the regime of the Argentinian junta. The geography seemed to play a role in this.

Britain, thanks to the determination of its government and the capacity of its armed forces, managed to reconquer the Isles in two months with the support of the United Nation Security Council. On the 14th June the Argentinians were defeated after violent fighting on land, sea and in the air.

These islands are British and Argentina needs to back down and read up the truth of the situation. Argentina has never even legally owned these islands meaning you cant have something you never owned in the first place.

And i look foward to see the results.

gallag

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The silly little referendum, will have no bearing on matters in a future settlement. It is just saber rattling. Slightly over half of the population are entitled to vote in it, and to vote in it you must have a British passport.
Democracy at it's finest.

And I assume everone who votes in the Scottish independence referendum will all hold British passports also? Its a fix!

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

And I assume everone who votes in the Scottish independence referendum will all hold British passports also? Its a fix!

Not the point and no comparison as this referendum does not address the issue of 'sovereignty'

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not the point and no comparison as this referendum does not address the issue of 'sovereignty'

An independence referendum pretty much does address the issue of sovereignty.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An independence referendum pretty much does address the issue of sovereignty.

Two parties involved in the Scottish referendum, both stating their cases at canvass, the Argentinians aren't involved or canvassing in the Falklands as far as I am aware, maybe I missed that bit?