Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

Basil Fawlty

If the people on Hong Kong had been asked they would have stayed British. The lease was on the New Territories only. China refused to renew, HK wouldn't have worked without the much need space of the NTs. The solution of semi-autonomy was the only peaceful way to avoid a war.


Oh and with the location of all the British Overseas Territories the sun still doesn't set on the empire.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

The Security council does matter on this issue, because any resolution that trys to enforce something on another country has to be passed by them, as it could damage peace and security….. Hence why there is no resolution that DEMANDS TALKS but only ask for talks between the UK and Argentina. Its not hard to understand……

This may help you - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768

Stop changing the goalposts to try an win your pathetic victory. NOBODY ever said they where enforcable or rules. You are proving my point here. If the Security Council is what YOU SAY where is the RESOLUTION stating that Self Determination trumps any claim of Sovereignty?????
The only time the Security Council intervened was when there was a threat to SECURITY..i.e. A WAR, which is what the Security Council does.
Here is the text of the Resolution...http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/435/26/IMG/NR043526.pdf?OpenElement you'll notice it is laid out exactly the same as the other Resolutions YOU CLAIM are not from the UN itself.
You will NOTICE that BOTH countries ignored this one as well as all the Resolutions from the General Assembly.
The Argentinians by NOT withdrawing and the British by ignoring a peace deal brokered by Chile and not seeking a diplomatic solution.
AND YET YOU CLAIM THAT THESE ARE ENFORCABLE.

* Francis Pym was sacked as Foreign Minister by Thatcher for not being belligerent enough on the Falklands and Hong Kong, he attempted to seek a resolution by negotiation.

Your “40 resolutions” from the Decolonisation commitee (they aren’t new) are just rehashes of the original General Assembly Resolution from decades ago that asked for talks, which need a simple majority to pass every year, . Every year the decolonisation committee (which the UK and quite a few others don't even take part in) just repeat the calls for talks that are passed by a majority...


So Il repeat again - The Assembly has not considered the “Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question” nor adopted any resolution on the question since 1988. !!

This is getting ridiculous and pathetic, the text of the resolutions has changed significantly over the years and it is customary NOT to rehash but to renew Resolutions that haven't been addressed, which the British REFUSE TO DO.You have seen and read (allegedly) all the documents I have posted from the UN which show disussion year after year AT THE UN. It doesn't make them any less as Resolutions. The UK do participate, read the actual UN documents (stop depending on partisan sites for your info, stick to primary sources that are freely available. You will NOTICE I am not posting Argentinian biased sites to support my point) I posted earlier and every one of them are addressed a UK representative.

Turning round like Argentina has done many time and stating that the Falkland Islanders have no rights and essentially dont exist goes against "world harmony" as you put it..... Britain states that they do exist and have rights as by International Law..... Argentina are in the wrong there not Britain...

At the end of the day Britain hasn’t been demanded to do anything therefore they don’t have to do anything…. If someone asks me to do something I can turn round and say no…. If I was demanded to do something then that’s a different story..

Britain has maintained and always maintained that they will hold new talks when Argentina accept the Falklanders exist and have a right to self determination. Britain deem the Law and peoples rights more important than talks with a country that ignore those rights.

There is no need for any Resolutions regarding right to self determination regarding the Falklands because UN LAW/INTERNATIONAL Law clearly states that EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION…..

I’ve asked you this many times before to show me any UN LAW that states some people arent entitled to rights to self determination and im still waiting……….

And, again I ask you the question about the problem any schoolkid could recognise and The UN recognises
HOW DO YOU CONFER A RIGHT YOU MIGHT VERY WELL HAVE TO TAKE AWAY IF IT IS PROVED ARGENTINA HAVE SOVEREIGNTY?
How does that make any sense? Please answer the simple questions I'm asking you.
To ignore this SIMPLE paradox is to side with the British, who have raised it to stall the inevitable, therefore the main issue cannot be solved or addressed and Resolution after Resolution is ignored. Doesn't matter if there is 1 Resolution or 40, by ignoring the one made in 1965 it is they BRITAIN who are at fault here.
And you accuse me of being biased?

* I have no doubt everyone is bored rigid by this back and forth nonsense about the UN, so lets agree to disagree. Just try and answer the SIMPLE questions above.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

They had a 99 year lease which ran out and was rightly handed over.. They were legally obliged to hand it over and could do nothing about it.... Hardly mind blowing stuff lol....

Make no mistake, the British were desparate to hold onto Hong Kong. Thatcher tried to pull the 'international law' stunt when she was humiliated on her 1982 visit to China.
She went there on the back of winning The Falklands war, thinking she could dictate terms to the Chinese on Hong Kong and got roundly told where to go.
She got out manouvered by the stronger nation and shortly thereafter signed the document handing back what wasn't theirs to keep.
That's what it all boiled down to, 'the stronger nation'.
The same will happen with The Falklands/Malvinas as South America strengtens and Britain continues to weaken. Just as they tried to hide behind their own made up 'international law' on Hong Kong, they will eventually not be able to do it on the Falklands.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Make no mistake, the British were desparate to hold onto Hong Kong. Thatcher tried to pull the 'international law' stunt when she was humiliated on her 1982 visit to China.
She went there on the back of winning The Falklands war, thinking she could dictate terms to the Chinese on Hong Kong and got roundly told where to go.
She got out manouvered by the stronger nation and shortly thereafter signed the document handing back what wasn't theirs to keep.
That's what it all boiled down to, 'the stronger nation'.
The same will happen with The Falklands/Malvinas as South America strengtens and Britain continues to weaken. Just as they tried to hide behind their own made up 'international law' on Hong Kong, they will eventually not be able to do it on the Falklands.

So that's what international law boils down to for you? Who has the biggest stick wins. Ignoring the moral implications of that I assume you take the same stance on Northern Ireland? It's British and that's it because the UK is bigger then us, ignoring the democratic will of the people.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

NOBODY ever said they where enforcable or rules. You are proving my point here.

Er you did…….

Happyman42 wrote: »

Since resolution 2065 by the UN, asserting the Falklands/Malvinas as a 'colony' the British offered to give up sovereignty and since then have consistently refused to enter sovereignty talks as mandated by the UN.

Happyman42 wrote: »

They have been repeatedly told by the UN to negotiate sovereignty with the Argentinians

You claimed they have been mandated to enter talks and TOLD to enter talks by the UN, when in fact they have only been asked to…….
You now accept you were wrong?

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous and pathetic, the text of the resolutions has changed significantly over the years and it is customary NOT to rehash but to renew Resolutions that haven't been addressed, which the British REFUSE TO DO.

Back to this again, Britain haven't been TOLD to do anything, they are under no obligation to do anything by a certain date. They have always said they will enter talks though when Argentina accept the Falklanders have rights as by UN LAW.

Happyman42 wrote: »

HOW DO YOU CONFER A RIGHT YOU MIGHT VERY WELL HAVE TO TAKE AWAY IF IT IS PROVED ARGENTINA HAVE SOVEREIGNTY? .

IF?!? if my Granny had balls, she'd be my Grandad, stick to facts please. Argentina DOSEN'T have Sovereignty over the Falklands thats what matters here.
Again I see you have failed to show me that piece off Law that states the Falklanders have no rights to self determination, even though UN Law states everyone does... Think that’s the 6th time of asking you have ignored that question. Funny that eh?

mcc1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So that's what international law boils down to for you? Who has the biggest stick wins. Ignoring the moral implications of that I assume you take the same stance on Northern Ireland? It's British and that's it because the UK is bigger then us, ignoring the democratic will of the people.

For a so called Republican his views are Identical to that of a Loyalist in N.Ireland. Funny how hatred can change someone views.

Jonny7

Kirchner raising the issue with the new pope.

Astonishing populist measures

Iwasfrozen

mcc1 wrote: »

For a so called Republican his views are Identical to that of a Loyalist in N.Ireland. Funny how hatred can change someone views.

Usually I would point out that this is just another example of the mental gymnastics characteristic of a nationalist. But this isn't even nationalism it's the illogical hatred of a foreign country. Or is hatred of the British a unique aspect of Irish nationalism in particular. I know he'll probably come back and say he's not anti British but honestly why else would he be so venomously opposed to Britain holding onto islands on the other side of the world. It has nothing to do with him personally so something must be motivating him and it certainly isn't a respect for democracy.

Sunnyisland

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK.

Visiting the Vatican, Ms Fernandez said she had asked the Pope to promote dialogue between the two sides.

Argentine Pope Francis was elected last week and will be formally installed as pontiff at a Mass on Tuesday.

In the past he has said the Falkland Islands, a UK overseas territory, belong to Argentina.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363

Wonder will he have any Influence in this dispute, If I remember correctly Pope john paul had a direct influence in the Polish Solidarity fight against Communism,And although the issues are quite different there could be interesting times ahead re the Falklands Islands.

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's what it all boiled down to, 'the stronger nation'.
The same will happen with The Falklands/Malvinas as South America strengtens and Britain continues to weaken. Just as they tried to hide behind their own made up 'international law' on Hong Kong, they will eventually not be able to do it on the Falklands.

Your fake position of neutrality is clear for all to see here. You don't care one iota about the islanders of the barren rocks down there. You just want to see someone "getting one over on the Brits".

Argentina is not getting stronger btw. Its economy is in trouble (again). Perhaps you're confusing it with Brazil, but Brazil has no claim on the islands and although it supports Argentina's position, it is not about to go to war in support.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So that's what international law boils down to for you? Who has the biggest stick wins. Ignoring the moral implications of that I assume you take the same stance on Northern Ireland? It's British and that's it because the UK is bigger then us, ignoring the democratic will of the people.

Stating the facts are not the same thing as taking a moral stance.
The moral thing for Britain to do is have the discussion about who has sovereignty of the islands to avoid further bloodshed and loss of life.
They will hide behind bull**** notions and lipservice to 'honourable statesmanship' while all the while seeking to benefit as much as possible from their colonial past.

mcc1 wrote: »

Er you did…….


You claimed they have been mandated to enter talks and TOLD to enter talks by the UN, when in fact they have only been asked to…….
You now accept you were wrong?

No I didn't say they were 'enforcable or rules'. You are twisting again.
See these sentences, work the difference in meaning out yourself.
'His mother told him to wash the dishes'
'His mother ordered him to wash the dishes'

And btw, when they set up the UN the British agreed that 'it was to be expected' that member states would comply with resolutions, somebody is having their cake and eating it here.

Back to this again, Britain haven't been TOLD to do anything, they are under no obligation to do anything by a certain date. They have always said they will enter talks though when Argentina accept the Falklanders have rights as by UN LAW.

Yes they have been told, specifically; to enter negoiations to resolve the dispute over sovereignty.

IF?!? if my Granny had balls, she'd be my Grandad, stick to facts please. Argentina DOSEN'T have Sovereignty over the Falklands thats what matters here.

NOBODY HAS in the eyes of the UN and it wants it sorted.

Again I see you have failed to show me that piece off Law that states the Falklanders have no rights to self determination, even though UN Law states everyone does... Think that’s the 6th time of asking you have ignored that question. Funny that eh?

And you have not shown in any of the 40 resolutions where it states that the islanders have the right to self determination, when it is explictly referred to in other resolutions about former colonies and you have also again and again, avoided answering how anybody can concede a point and then enter negotiations about that point, instead of the other way around.
That is the anomoly the UN clearly sees and therefore does not accord the right of self determination to a territory where sovereignty is disputed.
The Islanders are NOT viewed as a 'people' with that right at the UN, that is why they have not and will not recognise the stupid publicity stunt of a referendum.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

And btw, when they set up the UN the British agreed that 'it was to be expected' that member states would comply with resolutions, somebody is having their cake and eating it here.

And they will once Argentina respect the Falkland Islanders rights.....

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes they have been told, specifically; to enter negoiations to resolve the dispute over sovereignty.

They have been asked to.......

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is the anomoly the UN clearly sees and therefore does not accord the right of self determination to a territory where sovereignty is disputed.
The Islanders are NOT viewed as a 'people' with that right at the UN, that is why they have not and will not recognise the stupid publicity stunt of a referendum.

ALL people have the right to self determination. THAT IS UN LAW...... Show me the piece of Law that states "The people of the Falkland Island have no rights to self determination"....

7th time of asking now.... Show me the paper with that law.

mcc1

*accidental repost*

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Stating the facts are not the same thing as taking a moral stance.
The moral thing for Britain to do is have the discussion about who has sovereignty of the islands to avoid further bloodshed and loss of life.
They will hide behind bull**** notions and lipservice to 'honourable statesmanship' while all the while seeking to benefit as much as possible from their colonial past.

I notice you didn't answer my question. If the most powerful country should always win when a territory is disputed then why does this not apply to Northern Ireland? You dismiss the democratic will of the majority in the Falklands yet call for it to be respected in this country. Just be honest with us, stop trying to pass off a hatred of Britain as anti imperialism. If you were anti imperialist you'd respect the right of self determination.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

And they will once Argentina respect the Falkland Islanders rights.....


They have been asked to.......



ALL people have the right to self determination. THAT IS UN LAW...... Show me the piece of Law that states "The people of the Falkland Island have no rights to self determination"....

7th time of asking now.... Show me the paper with that law.

And you have been told again and again, that it doesn't exist because it has no relevance to this conflict. Just like it had no relevance in the Western Sahara case.
It does have a relevance in other colonial situations and is referred to. Simple english here, why would you refer to something that has NO RELEVANCE?
And again you display your comprehension difficulties with simple english.
The UN law refers to self determination for 'peoples' (not people) and 'nations'
In the eyes of the UN, the Falkland islanders are neither because there is a sovereignty dispute that hasn't been resolved, they are a population.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I notice you didn't answer my question. If the most powerful country should always win when a territory is disputed then why does this not apply to Northern Ireland? You dismiss the democratic will of the majority in the Falklands yet call for it to be respected in this country. Just be honest with us, stop trying to pass off a hatred of Britain as anti imperialism. If you were anti imperialist you'd respect the right of self determination.

I fully respect the right to self-determination, what is wrong with you people?
Self determination cannot apply in a situation where sovereignty is disputed or there is no territorial integrity.

Forgive me, as an Irishman, if the remmants and detritus and ramifications of Britain's colonial past interests me above all others.
As I said before, just because I hate the government here doesn't mean I hate the Irish. Get over yourself.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

And you have been told again and again, that it doesn't exist because it has no relevance to this conflict.
.

UN LAW quite clearly states that EVERYONE is entitled to self determination.. THAT IS LAW. You can try and worm your way out of it all you want. Won't work.

If your so confident show me the piece of LAW that quite clearly States the people of the Falklands Islands arent entitled to it. 8th time of asking.. When will you finally admit no such law exists?

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

I fully respect the right to self-determination, what is wrong with you people?

Quite clearly you don't, otherwise you would respect the Falkland Islanders wishes.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

UN LAW quite clearly states that EVERYONE is entitled to self determination.. THAT IS LAW. You can try and worm your way out of it all you want. Won't work.

If your so confident show me the piece of LAW that quite clearly States the people of the Falklands Islands arent entitled to it. 8th time of asking.. When will you finally admit no such law exists?

You clearly have a problem with comprehension,
There isn't a law that states Falkland Islanders aren't entitled to it.
Just as there isn't a law that states 'everyone' is entitled to self determination.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

You clearly have a problem with comprehension,
There isn't a law that states Falkland Islanders aren't entitled to it.
Just as there isn't a law that states 'everyone' is entitled to self determination.

Finally, ALERT the police everyone!!!! We are getting somewhere!!!!!! If there no law then you argument is completely pointless. Took 8 times I believe but we finally got there. Hallelujah!!!!

I repeat myself yet again -

There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination. Within both United Nations General Assembly resolutions and international law, it is explicit that the right of self-determination applies to ALL peoples. It does not say SOME peoples, or even ALL peoples except those involved in a sovereignty dispute, as Argentina would like you to think. Argentina tried to insert that exact language in a General Assembly resolution in 2008 and failed, with the General Assembly re-iterating that self-determination applied to ALL peoples, with no pre-conditions. Argentina has consistently attempted and, quite rightly failed to dilute the principle of self-determination under the United Nations Charter.

Now back to what ive always said. Until Argentina accept the Falklanders rights to self determination, there will be no talks.


Heres an article that was taken from a leading Brazilian newspaper. http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/14/falkland-islands-referendum-argentina-should-yield-to-reality-and-peoples-self-determination-says-brazilian-daily

Looks like the so called worthless referendum is starting to have an affect and is finally opening other peoples eyes now. Its done its job and give the Falklanders a voice.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Finally, ALERT the police everyone!!!! We are getting somewhere!!!!!! If there no law then you argument is completely pointless. Took 8 times I believe but we finally got there. Hallelujah!!!!

I repeat myself yet again -

There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination. Within both United Nations General Assembly resolutions and international law, it is explicit that the right of self-determination applies to ALL peoples. It does not say SOME peoples, or even ALL peoples except those involved in a sovereignty dispute, as Argentina would like you to think. Argentina tried to insert that exact language in a General Assembly resolution in 2008 and failed, with the General Assembly re-iterating that self-determination applied to ALL peoples, with no pre-conditions. Argentina has consistently attempted and, quite rightly failed to dilute the principle of self-determination under the United Nations Charter.

Now back to what ive always said. Until Argentina accept the Falklanders rights to self determination, there will be now talks.

I think the problem you are having is your understanding of what is being referred to by the UN as 'peoples'.
'Peoples' are not EVERYONE.
'Peoples' are not referred to by a name (the Falklands/Malvinas) that carefully underscores it's territorial dispute. A 'people' would have it's referendum monitored and accepted as a 'self determination' at the UN.
Read the documents, it's all there in what is written as much as it's in what is not written. University depts do not to my knowledge publish papers on things that are not issues.
If you or anybody else still labour under the illusion that the UN sees The Falklands/Malvinas population as a 'people' or 'nation', prehaps you should read this and try to understand it.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=ilj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DTerritorial%2BClaims%2Bas%2Ba%2BLimitation%2Bto%2Bthe%2BRight%2Bof%2BSelf-Determina%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCsQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fir.lawnet.fordham.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1073%2526context%253Dilj%26ei%3DOgxCUdOkE-er7AaC9oGoDg%26usg%3DAFQjCNG890shoBd1nOd9FpeYWaxIkSQu-g%26bvm%3Dbv.43287494%2Cd.ZG4#search=%22Territorial%20Claims%20as%20Limitation%20Right%20Self-Determina%22

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

I fully respect the right to self-determination, what is wrong with you people?
Self determination cannot apply in a situation where sovereignty is disputed or there is no territorial integrity.

I disagree. Self determination always matters. In fact self determination is all that ever matters.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Forgive me, as an Irishman, if the remmants and detritus and ramifications of Britain's colonial past interests me above all others.
As I said before, just because I hate the government here doesn't mean I hate the Irish. Get over yourself.

I'm sorry I can't forgive you. Not when you're advocating an Argentine imperialist agenda. I look forward to your defense of partitionism in the next Northern Ireland thread. After all that since "self determination cannot apply when a territory is disputed." Which pretty much renders the GFA void in your view.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think the problem you are having is your understanding of what is being referred to by the UN as 'peoples'.
'Peoples' are not EVERYONE.

There is no Law that states the Falkands have no rights to self determination, you have just admitted it yourself after being asked numerous times.

Argentinas argument/your argument is based on trying to view the wording of the law differently to try and back their/your view nothing more and nothing less. And its been like that for 3 decades.

Il repeat -

There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination. Within both United Nations General Assembly resolutions and international law, it is explicit that the right of self-determination applies to ALL peoples. It does not say SOME peoples, or even ALL peoples except those involved in a sovereignty dispute, as Argentina would like you to think. Argentina tried to insert that exact language in a General Assembly resolution in 2008 and failed, with the General Assembly re-iterating that self-determination applied to ALL peoples, with no pre-conditions. Argentina has consistently attempted and, quite rightly failed to dilute the principle of self-determination under the United Nations Charter.



You have no argument whatsoever that overrides their right to self determination and never will.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

There is no Law that states the Falkands have no rights to self determination, you have just admitted it yourself after being asked numerous times.

Argentinas argument/your argument is based on trying to view the wording of the law differently to try and back their/your view nothing more and nothing less. And its been like that for 3 decades.

Il repeat -

There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination. Within both United Nations General Assembly resolutions and international law, it is explicit that the right of self-determination applies to ALL peoples. It does not say SOME peoples, or even ALL peoples except those involved in a sovereignty dispute, as Argentina would like you to think. Argentina tried to insert that exact language in a General Assembly resolution in 2008 and failed, with the General Assembly re-iterating that self-determination applied to ALL peoples, with no pre-conditions. Argentina has consistently attempted and, quite rightly failed to dilute the principle of self-determination under the United Nations Charter.



You have no argument whatsoever that overrides their right to self determination and never will.

Yes I and many others do have an argument, they are not a 'people. If they had the right, where is the resolution saying that from the UN, which would end any legitimate claim from Argentina? Where is the mention of it in 40 resolutions from the UN while every other resolution dealing with territories with no sovereignty dispute explicitly mentions it?
How do you stop Yorkshire from demanding self determination, that is why the UN are so careful not to confer the 'right' on everyone because it is about safeguarding the future as much as dealing with the past.

These issues won't go away just because you quote interpretations from biased and partisan websites that takes actions by Argentina out of context. The 2008 resolution referred to in your 'quote' was dealing with 11 of the 16 territories that do not have a 'sovereignty' issue. I debunked that before, please stop.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree. Self determination always matters. In fact self determination is all that ever matters.


I'm sorry I can't forgive you. Not when you're advocating an Argentine imperialist agenda. I look forward to your defense of partitionism in the next Northern Ireland thread. After all that since "self determination cannot apply when a territory is disputed." Which pretty much renders the GFA void in your view.

I have not sided with the Argentinians on the sovereignty issue, but I do side with them on having it negotiated and sorted out. It took us long enough to get the British to the negotiating table, is it wrong that I emphatise with them?
And again, I too think self determination is of paramount importance, but it cannot be conferred where there is a sovereignty dispute. That is just not feasible and the UN agrees.

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think the problem you are having is your understanding of what is being referred to by the UN as 'peoples'.
'Peoples' are not EVERYONE.
'Peoples' are not referred to by a name (the Falklands/Malvinas) that carefully underscores it's territorial dispute. A 'people' would have it's referendum monitored and accepted as a 'self determination' at the UN.
Read the documents, it's all there in what is written as much as it's in what is not written. University depts do not to my knowledge publish papers on things that are not issues.
If you or anybody else still labour under the illusion that the UN sees The Falklands/Malvinas population as a 'people' or 'nation', prehaps you should read this and try to understand it.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=ilj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DTerritorial%2BClaims%2Bas%2Ba%2BLimitation%2Bto%2Bthe%2BRight%2Bof%2BSelf-Determina%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCsQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fir.lawnet.fordham.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1073%2526context%253Dilj%26ei%3DOgxCUdOkE-er7AaC9oGoDg%26usg%3DAFQjCNG890shoBd1nOd9FpeYWaxIkSQu-g%26bvm%3Dbv.43287494%2Cd.ZG4#search=%22Territorial%20Claims%20as%20Limitation%20Right%20Self-Determina%22

1. That was not published by a university department. It was published in a student edited journal.

2. As you may guess from 1, it was written by a student (2nd year) as, I assume, it was topical at the time (it was written in 1982, I'm guessing before the British liberated them)

3. A quick Google leads me to believe the author is Venezuelan or of Venezuelan descent. This may or may not have have coloured his view at the time.

4. Things change. His using Western Sahara as an example supporting the Argentine position doesn't work today as the UN is supporting their rights for self determination (see MINURSO).

Either you are deliberately misrepresenting this paper as something it's not, or you fell into the trap of finding something on Google to support your argument without knowing what you found.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes I and many others do have an argument, they are not a 'people. If they had the right, where is the resolution saying that from the UN, which would end any legitimate claim from Argentina

They dont need a bloody Resolution, its the LAW!!!! LOL

Il keep repeating this because for some reason even after you FINALLY admitting to there being no law stopping the Falkland Islanders have a right to self to determination, you still keep trying to saying they dont have any rights......

SO I REPEAT -

There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination. Within both United Nations General Assembly resolutions and international law, it is explicit that the right of self-determination applies to ALL peoples. It does not say SOME peoples, or even ALL peoples except those involved in a sovereignty dispute, as Argentina would like you to think. Argentina tried to insert that exact language in a General Assembly resolution in 2008 and failed, with the General Assembly re-iterating that self-determination applied to ALL peoples, with no pre-conditions. Argentina has consistently attempted and, quite rightly failed to dilute the principle of self-determination under the United Nations Charter.

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

1. That was not published by a university department. It was published in a student edited journal.

2. As you may guess from 1, it was written by a student (2nd year) as, I assume, it was topical at the time (it was written in 1982, I'm guessing before the British liberated them)

3. A quick Google leads me to believe the author is Venezuelan or of Venezuelan descent. This may or may not have have coloured his view at the time.

4. Things change. His using Western Sahara as an example supporting the Argentine position doesn't work today as the UN is supporting their rights for self determination (see MINURSO).

Either you are deliberately misrepresenting this paper as something it's not, or you fell into the trap of finding something on Google to support your argument without knowing what you found.

1. Fair enough, point accepted. I don't see how it dilutes the questions he raise or the fact that there are issues about the right to self determination and who it applies to.
2. The UN position on the sovereignty issue didn't change because of the war.
3. Are Venezeulans automatically wrong or biased just like Irish republicans because they have a contrary view to the British?
4. A 'Settlement' was reached FIRST and The UN sent a large delegation to monitor the referendum.

I merely presented it as proof that there are very complex issues around who is entitled to 'self-determination, a quick google will find many more.
There are a deluded few on here that think it is a simple cut and dried law that applies to 'everyone'. It simply doesn't.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

They dont need a bloody Resolution, its the LAW!!!! LOL

Il keep repeating this because for some reason even after you FINALLY admitting to there being no law stopping the Falkland Islanders have a right to self to determination, you still keep trying to saying they dont have any rights......

SO I REPEAT -

There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination. Within both United Nations General Assembly resolutions and international law, it is explicit that the right of self-determination applies to ALL peoples. It does not say SOME peoples, or even ALL peoples except those involved in a sovereignty dispute, as Argentina would like you to think. Argentina tried to insert that exact language in a General Assembly resolution in 2008 and failed, with the General Assembly re-iterating that self-determination applied to ALL peoples, with no pre-conditions. Argentina has consistently attempted and, quite rightly failed to dilute the principle of self-determination under the United Nations Charter.

Why didn't the UN recognise the Referendum or assist it or monitor it?
You must know the answer to this and you have to start answering the simple questions.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why didn't the UN recognise the Referendum or assist it or monitor it?
You must know the answer to this and you have to start answering the simple questions.

Have the UN come out and rejected it? Link please.

They have a right to self determination and they showed the world how they felt which was the reason why the held it in the first place. They haven't demanded the UN recognise it, they only call on people to respect it..

And going by the media in Brazil for example it looks like their message is finally getting out.

So I repeat -

There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination. Within both United Nations General Assembly resolutions and international law, it is explicit that the right of self-determination applies to ALL peoples. It does not say SOME peoples, or even ALL peoples except those involved in a sovereignty dispute, as Argentina would like you to think. Argentina tried to insert that exact language in a General Assembly resolution in 2008 and failed, with the General Assembly re-iterating that self-determination applied to ALL peoples, with no pre-conditions. Argentina has consistently attempted and, quite rightly failed to dilute the principle of self-determination under the United Nations Charter.

mcc1

-

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Have the UN come out and rejected it? Link please.

They have a right to self determination and they showed the world how they felt which was the reason why the held it in the first place. They haven't demanded the UN recognise it, they only call on people to respect it..

And going by the media in Brazil for example it looks like their message is finally getting out.

Keep deflecting as best you can.
Cameron called on the UN to recognise it as have falklanders, they've called on the whole world to recognise it. :rolleyes:

Which doesn't get you off the hook, why haven't the UN recognised this act of 'self determination'? Are you afraid of the answer to this too?

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Keep deflecting as best you can.
Cameron called on the UN to recognise it as have falklanders, they've called on the whole world to recognise it. :rolleyes:

Which doesn't get you off the hook, why haven't the UN recognised this act of 'self determination'? Are you afraid of the answer to this too?

Have you got a link to Cameron calling for the UN to recognise it, So I can have a read?

I've only seen him call on Argentina to respect it.

What was the UN's response, I assume by the way your talking they rejected it? Link.....

murphaph

Happyman....
Just tell me one thing. What do you think should ultimately happen after all the discussions etc? What should become of the Falklands and more specifically what should happen to the people there?

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Have you got a link to Cameron calling for the UN to recognise it, So I can have a read?

I've only seen him call on Argentina to respect it.

What was the UN's response, I assume by the way your talking they rejected it? Link.....

Cameron called on 'everyone' to recognise it. You are the one who seems to know what 'everyone' means.

But stop deflecting, tell us the possible reasons why the UN has not recognised this referendum while holding it up as the way to go for every other colony and actively assisting and monitoring them.

Busted Flat.

mcc1 wrote: »

Have you got a link to Cameron calling for the UN to recognise it, So I can have a read?

I've only seen him call on Argentina to respect it.

What was the UN's response, I assume by the way your talking they rejected it? Link.....

Not one country or the UN outside the UK have recognized the squatters referendum. It is a joke and the world sees it as such.

"It's like a consortium of squatters voting on whether they're going to continue illegally occupying a building or not."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cameron+calls+on+the+un+to+recognize+referendum&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworldnews%2Fsouthamerica%2Ffalklandislands%2F9926291%2FArgentine-president-calls-Falklands-referendum-a-parody.html&ei=45lHUaTFNsPb7AaU8oCgDg&usg=AFQjCNHzrSG8JQbYh-NNbYgSZs3id8-pUw

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Happyman....
Just tell me one thing. What do you think should ultimately happen after all the discussions etc? What should become of the Falklands and more specifically what should happen to the people there?

I think that fair and equal negotiations are the only way here. I don't have access to debunk one claim or the other, but I think that some sort of shared future is the only way to ensure that instability isn't the future for the entire region. As more and more resources are uncovered (some say vast quantities are involve) then bitterness and resentment will only grow as an imperialist bully is seen to extract and profit from them.
As to the people, I think they always knew that one day they would have to make a choice, there is an element of desperation in what they are now doing. What happened all the other die-hard British in other colonies, they either put-up with the new arrangement or got out. I pity them in their insecurity to be honest but understand how they might not want my pity.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Cameron called on 'everyone' to recognise it. You are the one who seems to know what 'everyone' means.

I see, so your your trying to twist his words just like you have been doing regarding UN Law to suit your argument.. So he hasnt called on the UN to recognise it. He's just called on everyone ie the general public and politicians from other countries to respect their wishes, and by looking at Brazilian media etc the message is getting through. Job done I reckon.

Happyman42 wrote: »

But stop deflecting, tell us the possible reasons why the UN has not recognised this referendum while holding it up as the way to go for every other colony and actively assisting and monitoring them.

The Falklands never asked for the UN to recognise it, so why would the UN get involved?. This vote was all about showing the world how they felt...

Im pretty sure they have said they will present the result to the UN this Summer so lets wait and see, it could put pressure on Argentina to accept their rights, which they LEGALLY have..

Tragedy

Happyman42 wrote: »

Cameron called on 'everyone' to recognise it. You are the one who seems to know what 'everyone' means.

This is one of the most dishonest posts I've seen on boards in a very long time.

From:

where is the resolution saying that from the UN,

To

Why didn't the UN recognise the Referendum or assist it or monitor it?

To

Cameron called on the UN to recognise it as have falklanders

To

Cameron called on 'everyone' to recognise it. You are the one who seems to know what 'everyone' means.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for twisting words to a degree that would embarrass even seasoned Irish politicians.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

I see your your trying to twist his words just like you did with UN Law regarding rights to self determination to suit your argument.. So he hasnt called on the UN to recognise it. He's just called on everyone to respect their wishes, and by look at Brazilian media the message is getting through. Job done I reckon.

One newspaper is not Brazilian media and Brazilian media is not Brazilian government.

The Falklands never asked for the UN to recognise it, so why would the UN get involved?. This vote was all about showing the world how they felt...

Im pretty sure they have said they will present the result to the UN this Summer so lets wait and see, it could put pressure on Argentina to accept their rights, which they LEGALLY have..

The world was pretty sure how they felt, as are the UN. Seems to me if 'self determination was of primary importance here the UN would have been behind it from the start. Lets ask Ban-Qi-Moon, shall we?
http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=2738

That's the answer the Islanders will get if they go to the UN with their results. Sovereignty sorted between the 2 governments first, all else follows from that.

Happyman42

Tragedy wrote: »

This is one of the most dishonest posts I've seen on boards in a very long time.

From:

To

To

To


You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for twisting words to a degree that would embarrass even seasoned Irish politicians.

Cameron did say 'everyone', are the UN not part of 'everyone'?:D

I couldn't resist getting the thread's primary twister to fall into the 'everyone' trap. So shoot me.

Tragedy

Happyman42 wrote: »

So shoot me.

If I but could.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

The world was pretty sure how they felt, as are the UN. Seems to me if 'self determination was of primary importance here the UN would have been behind it from the start. Lets ask Ban-Qi-Moon, shall we?
http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=2738

Nobody knew how they really felt, the only ones that have been talking for decades have been the UK and Argentina. This is the first time the whole world could see how they really felt on the matter. It has started to change opinions thats for sure.

Good to see he took note of the referendum. He didn't reject it. Hopefully that puts pressure on Argentina to accept the Falklanders rights and then talks can be held...

Busted Flat.

Is this a slip up by the ambassador," two sovereign states."

The UK ambassador to the Vatican, Nigel Baker, said: "The Holy See's position on the Falkland Islands has for some time been that it is a matter between two sovereign states and that the Holy See does not have a role to play. We expect that position to continue."

http://t.co/ET0FwotKdU

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think that fair and equal negotiations are the only way here. I don't have access to debunk one claim or the other, but I think that some sort of shared future is the only way to ensure that instability isn't the future for the entire region. As more and more resources are uncovered (some say vast quantities are involve) then bitterness and resentment will only grow as an imperialist bully is seen to extract and profit from them.
As to the people, I think they always knew that one day they would have to make a choice, there is an element of desperation in what they are now doing. What happened all the other die-hard British in other colonies, they either put-up with the new arrangement or got out. I pity them in their insecurity to be honest but understand how they might not want my pity.

So you think there should be joint sovereignty?

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

So you think there should be joint sovereignty?

Well I don't know who has the greater claim, but joint sovereignty would be a workable solution and reduce tensions significantly.

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well I don't know who has the greater claim, but joint sovereignty would be a workable solution and reduce tensions significantly.

Do you think Argentina would accept only joint sovereignty?

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Nobody knew how they really felt, the only ones that have been talking for decades have been the UK and Argentina. This is the first time the whole world could see how they really felt on the matter. It has started to change opinions thats for sure.

Good to see he took note of the referendum. He didn't reject it. Hopefully that puts pressure on Argentina to accept the Falklanders rights and then talks can be held...

How would the secretary-general holding to the line of 40 previous resolutions put pressure on the Argentinians?
Only an idiot would have predicted anything other than the what the result was. 'Nobody knew how they really felt', gimme me a break!
I cannot find an english translation of that brazilian newspaper article you referred to. I wanted to examine their previous article on the Falklands for a bias similar to the Daily Mail etc. So lets not get too excited by 'opinions changing'! Bang-Qi's hasn't and that's the important one.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Bang-Qi's hasn't and that's the important one.

His views are the same as most . That it will only end after both countries talk and agree to something, christ even I don deny that...

But talks can and will only happen as ive always said when Argentina accept the Islanders have a right to self determination and try and improve relations.

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Do you think Argentina would accept only joint sovereignty?

Yes, absolutely. I think that could be what is behind the Latin American support actually.
Two interesting articles here (for their facts, not the rethoric) that might show mmc1 that Britain's intentions may not be all that 'honourable'.
As I said a few times...the unfortunate Falklanders are caught as pawns in a much much bigger game.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/scramble-for-world-resources-battle-for-antarctica/13639


http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2010/03/07/the-falklands-the-european-unions-antarctic-key/