Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

getz

argentina are also in disputed claims to the south atlantic islands,and part of antarctica, there are also 26 cases pending against argentina lodged with the UN,more than any other country,the country is the loose cannon in south america,so why would anyone with half a brain wish them on the falkland islanders ?

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

there are also 26 cases pending against argentina lodged with the UN,

Shure, they can just ignore them. Nudge nudge, wink, wink.

Bertie Woot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Falkland islanders have offered to negotiate. The only intransigence is from Argentina.

It is Argentina that is not talking, they are just show boating to detract attention from a failing government.

Are you sure that the Falklanders' have "offered to negotiate"? From what I've made of their stance thus far, they view the referendum result as a confirmation and validation of the island's status as a British OST, and look upon Argentina's territorial claim as illegitimate, just as Argentina views British claims to ownership of the islands as illegitimate.

Fratton Fred

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Are you sure that the Falklanders' have "offered to negotiate"? From what I've made of their stance thus far, they view the referendum result as a confirmation and validation of the island's status as a British OST, and look upon Argentina's territorial claim as illegitimate, just as Argentina views British claims to ownership of the islands as illegitimate.

They have offered to meet and discuss cooperation on several areas, such as fishing and hydrocarbon exploration, licences for both of these are issued by the islanders themselves.

Argentina will not meet with them, I guess because that would imply that the Falkland's are self governing and not a colony, therefore no longer subject to the terms of the decolonization committee.

Incidentally, the islanders pay no tax to London, nor do they receive any benefits or subsidies. The only cost to the UK is the defence which, if the oil starts rolling, they will pay for themselves.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They have offered to meet and discuss cooperation on several areas, such as fishing and hydrocarbon exploration, licences for both of these are issued by the islanders themselves.

Argentina will not meet with them, I guess because that would imply that the Falkland's are self governing and not a colony, therefore no longer subject to the terms of the decolonization committee.

Incidentally, the islanders pay no tax to London, nor do they receive any benefits or subsidies. The only cost to the UK is the defence which, if the oil starts rolling, they will pay for themselves.

All of which means nothing and hasn't seen the suspension or even dilution of the resolutions.
The British tried to have The Falklands removed from the Decolonisation list but failed because Mrs Windsor still has the option of direct rule and can over-rule anything the islanders decide, just like she did in Turks and Caicos and Anguila, also still seen as 'colonies'.
A child would realise that the islanders have no real autonomy or self realisation and that they are actually pawns playing along in an imperialist game.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

Mrs Windsor....

Oh dear oh dear.

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear.

Sense of humour deficit Hunterbiker? Or am I about to 'analysed' again?:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

All of which means nothing and hasn't seen the suspension or even dilution of the resolutions.
The British tried to have The Falklands removed from the Decolonisation list but failed because Mrs Windsor still has the option of direct rule and can over-rule anything the islanders decide, just like she did in Turks and Caicos and Anguila, also still seen as 'colonies'.
A child would realise that the islanders have no real autonomy or self realisation and that they are actually pawns playing along in an imperialist game.

in theory she can do that in Canada and Australia as well. Are they colonies?

the islanders have pretty much full autonomy, please read my thread again. They receive no support from the UK other than in foreign affairs and defence.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sense of humour deficit Hunterbiker? Or am I about to 'analysed' again?:rolleyes:

I was just lamenting about the lack of originality

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

All of which means nothing and hasn't seen the suspension or even dilution of the resolutions.
The British tried to have The Falklands removed from the Decolonisation list but failed because Mrs Windsor still has the option of direct rule and can over-rule anything the islanders decide, just like she did in Turks and Caicos and Anguila, also still seen as 'colonies'.
A child would realise that the islanders have no real autonomy or self realisation and that they are actually pawns playing along in an imperialist game.

By your logic the Isle of Mann is a colony as well because ultimately Westminster reserves the right to legislate for the island.

Happyman42

What is the point of making comparisons with those countries, there is no territorial integrity issue there and they are not designated 'colonies' in the eyes of the UN.

cyberhog

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Britain is not in the wrong. Argentina is the one thats in the wrong, demanding something that doesn't belong to them and that they have no legitimate claim over.

Britain does not need to negotiate because there is nothing to negotiate about. The Falklands are British and that's that.

When it comes to sovereignty disputes, nothing is ever that clear cut. According to Dr Marko Milanovic, of the University of Nottingham's School of Law:

"International law does not overwhelmingly favour either Argentina or the UK. That is, among other reasons, why neither state is willing to submit the case to adjudication and bear the risk of losing it."

...

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."

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