Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

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?

? So you need to canvass to be part of a referendum now? If there was only one box on the ballot paper you might have a point. The Argentinians are free to canvass to their hearts content. Not that anyone will take any notice.

walshb

A bit like Hong Kong. Had there been a referendum there to allow Britain to "hold" onto it it would have passed. But, China would have kicked Britain out. Argentina don't have that luxury.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

? So you need to canvass to be part of a referendum now? If there was only one box on the ballot paper you might have a point. The Argentinians are free to canvass to their hearts content. Not that anyone will take any notice.

The Argentinians aren't involved and it is they who dispute the claim and claim sovereignty. It's akin to solving the 'Irish problem' without involving the Irish, we all know how that ended up.

RobitTV

Hong kong is different, Britain and china signed a 100 year lease deal.

Fratton Fred

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.

Why is it silly, because you know what the outcome will be and you dont like it?

Can you give us some understanding on the demographics of the Falklands maybe? For starters, what percentage of the population are old enough to vote?

Fratton Fred

walshb wrote: »

A bit like Hong Kong. Had there been a referendum there to allow Britain to "hold" onto it it would have passed. But, China would have kicked Britain out. Argentina don't have that luxury.

Britain doesn't have a lease on the Falklands like it did Hong Kong. There was never any doubt about the sovereignty.

walshb

RobitTV wrote: »

Hong kong is different, Britain and china signed a 100 year lease deal.

I know, but if China were a lot weaker that deal/lease would never have been honoured. Britain had no option but to honour it.

RobitTV

Also there is a small Chilean community on the islands who also have the ability to vote in these elections. And there may be even an argentine, who knows!

All I know is some foreigners on the island have voting rights and they will be voting and it's a further step in showing the legality of this vote on the future of the islands.

The people who live on these islands will choose to be British Overseas Citizens and if they want to be that and they will get it.

Let them choose and move on.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Argentinians aren't involved and it is they who dispute the claim and claim sovereignty. It's akin to solving the 'Irish problem' without involving the Irish, we all know how that ended up.

I would say it is more like holding a referendum on the future of northern Ireland and including the English, Welsh and Scots.

Fratton Fred

walshb wrote: »

I know, but if China were a lot weaker that deal/lease would never have been honoured. Britain had no option but to honour it.

You know that for a fact do you? Did Britain stop Trinidad or Jamaica becoming independent?

The Corinthian

The purpose of this referendum is political rather than legal - legally it is not worth a lot, as it's neither recognised by international nor Argentine law. Politically, it does strengthen the UK claim on the islands, because it lends weight to the UK case for self determination.

Now, there's been a number of rather appalling arguments arguing that this referendum was undemocratic. Firstly was the lack of campaigning on the Argentine side (or for independence or any of the other options). The Argentines could have done so - it would not have been the first time they'd have sought to appeal to the islanders directly - but they chose to not recognise it at all and effectively boycotted it.

Or then the inferred claim that it was being fixed by defining who could vote - I sought clarification on this, which I've yet to receive, so until then, I'll be forgiven for discounting this.

Now, I'm hearing that Argentina should get to vote too? Does this mean that if the Falklands vote against, but Argentina for, that the islanders have to accept this? And should the UK not get to vote too - I really can't see why one involved nation should and another should not in a sovereignty dispute, unless you've already decided on that question of sovereignty.

But all this aside, does anyone here seriously think that a majority the islanders themselves really want to be Argentine?

There are legal cases on both sides in this dispute, to the point that neither wants to risk legal arbitration, but the only thing that is clear is that the islanders are pretty against being taken over by Argentina.

Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, in which case, I'm all ears.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would say it is more like holding a referendum on the future of northern Ireland and including the English, Welsh and Scots.

And that would solve the problem?
The referendum will achieve diddly squat, the problem remains and will have to be faced. The Falklands are strategically important to the Argentinians which is the reason the British came there in the first place. If the British want it to become about 'who has the biggest gun', then they are going the right way about it, AGAIN. There is a reason the UN set up a Decolonisation Committee, to avoid the inevitable decline into bloodshed that this process will always create if one side refuses to address the issues. The whole Falklands issue is clouded by Britians behaviour of beefing up the population to support their claim. Here is one submission to the that UN Committee;

Another petitioner, ALEJANDRO JACOBO BETTS, a former resident of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said that he was a fourth-generation Malvinas Islander, who had been raised and educated in that Territory. However, due to his unconditional support for the Argentine position, it had become impossible for him to remain on the Islands. Non-compliance by a founding member of the Organization, with veto power in the Security Council, compelled the Special Committee to have before it a resolution asking both parties to come to a definitive solution to the dispute about the Territory. Unfortunately, such a solution had not been reached due to the non-compliance with international mandates by one of the two parties to the dispute, the United Kingdom.

There were only two sides to the debate, he stressed, adding that no event or circumstantial situation had changed the bilateral nature of the dispute. The United Kingdom, with its long history of subjugating peoples, was now seeking to manipulate the principle of self-determination, with the objective of continuing to subjugate the people of the Falkland Islands. Moreover, “the right to self-determination was not created […] to further the results of military conquests”.

He said that the continued colonization in the Malvinas had become more obvious since 1982. Some 37 per cent of the population, when queried, had reported that they were born outside the Islands. Indeed, the increase in the colonial population since 1982 had been due, in large part, to the policy of contracting labour from the United Kingdom. Those facts were important to bear in mind when considering the evolutionary process of the United Kingdom’s colonization of the Malvinas. On that Territory, there was no possibility for Argentine settlers to become citizens or landowners or to vote, whereas a British subject, born in London, could participate in local elections after only a few years of residence.

As of the mid-1970s, he continued, influential community voices had insisted on absolute subordination to the “pro-British posture”. In contrast, any native-born Malvinas Islander who had chosen to pursue a future on the Argentine mainland was considered a full Argentine citizen. Anyone that expressed his or her disapproval with the vertical pro-British system was a target for psychological persecution and discrimination. It should be clear that there was no independent government in the Malvinas; in fact, it was headed by a non-elected governor, who was appointed by the British crown. Eight of the current 13 members of the Assembly were United Kingdom citizens, born in that country.

“It is obvious that the division of powers and independence in the Islands is non-existent”, he continued in that vein. “Under no concept or form can this group of people be considered a people with the right to self-determination”, he said. In that respect, the referendum slated to be held “would bring nothing to the table” in terms of helping to find a solution to the dispute. It was simply an anecdotal vote, and the results were well known ahead of time.

Based on what had been said so far, it was clear that only United Kingdom’s military power was maintaining the “unfair and distorted situation” in the South Atlantic. That country knew well that it had no legal standing for its illegitimate claims, but it did have the advantage of force. The issue affected not only Argentina, but also other countries in the region, which had joined in rejecting the British maritime prevalence. Moreover, the United Kingdom was using the unfounded excuse of self-determination to establish a powerful military base, which was used to maintain absolute control over the region. The few renewable resources there belonged to the three archipelagos, and not to the British. “There is an ongoing illegitimate occupation taking place in the Malvinas”, he concluded, as well as in the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding territory. An unfair situation existed that required reparations.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Argentinians aren't involved and it is they who dispute the claim and claim sovereignty.

The Argentinians choose to boycott the referendum.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's akin to solving the 'Irish problem' without involving the Irish, we all know how that ended up.

Except the Falklanders are not Argentinian and this is not an Argentinian problem. As this referendum will prove.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

If the British want it to become about 'who has the biggest gun', then they are going the right way about it, AGAIN.

Again? Maybe I missed something, but last time I checked it was Argentina that resorted to military means first, not the UK.

RobitTV

The Corinthian wrote: »

The purpose of this referendum is political rather than legal - legally it is not worth a lot, as it's neither recognised by international nor Argentine law. Politically, it does strengthen the UK claim on the islands, because it lends weight to the UK case for self determination.

Now, there's been a number of rather appalling arguments arguing that this referendum was undemocratic. Firstly was the lack of campaigning on the Argentine side (or for independence or any of the other options). The Argentines could have done so - it would not have been the first time they'd have sought to appeal to the islanders directly - but they chose to not recognise it at all and effectively boycotted it.

Or then the inferred claim that it was being fixed by defining who could vote - I sought clarification on this, which I've yet to receive, so until then, I'll be forgiven for discounting this.

Now, I'm hearing that Argentina should get to vote too? Does this mean that if the Falklands vote against, but Argentina for, that the islanders have to accept this? And should the UK not get to vote too - I really can't see why one involved nation should and another should not in a sovereignty dispute, unless you've already decided on that question of sovereignty.

But all this aside, does anyone here seriously think that a majority the islanders themselves really want to be Argentine?

There are legal cases on both sides in this dispute, to the point that neither wants to risk legal arbitration, but the only thing that is clear is that the islanders are pretty against being taken over by Argentina.

Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, in which case, I'm all ears.

It's most certainly true the Islanders do not want to be apart of Argentina and I can see why to be honest.

Also Argentina will be getting No vote on this. This is a choice for the population of the islands only and nobody else has the right to be involved on what they choose.

This Vote is to verify to the international community the islanders choice to be British and not wanting to be with Argentina.

The Argentine governments sabre-rattling and propaganda is pathetic. They refuse to recognise Self-determination which is the centre piece of International law in the United Nations. Many countries were born out of Freedom and Self-determination. Argentina is living in a false world on another side of the universe.

In the 21st century not to give the islanders a choice would be highly condemned by the international community. Argentina would also try and twist the story and condemn it. They also even refuse to recognise the islanders themselves. The foreign minister of Argentina is a total moron and is beyond deluded.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again? Maybe I missed something, but last time I checked it was Argentina that resorted to military means first, not the UK.

If you believe the issue started in 1982 then yes you are correct.

The Corinthian

I am not unsympathetic to Argentina's position.

However, there are three possible approaches to this. Legal, which both the UK and Argentina have effectively rejected because neither of their legal claims are particularly stronger than the other. Self determination, which it pretty clear would not go the Argentine way.

And finally conflict; be it economic or military. Economic conflict we've already seen, in terms of sanctions. Meanwhile in 1982, the military option occurred largely as a means to distract the Argentine population from domestic economic problems, which naturally they don't suffer from today...

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you believe the issue started in 1982 then yes you are correct.

So the most recent and largest historical example of aggression has been Argentinian, 31 years ago, yet you decided to underline British aggression, which apparently took place about 180 years ago. Any more cherry picking you'd like to do, to support your position?

Jonny7

Happyman42 wrote: »

And that would solve the problem?
The referendum will achieve diddly squat, the problem remains and will have to be faced. The Falklands are strategically important to the Argentinians which is the reason the British came there in the first place. If the British want it to become about 'who has the biggest gun', then they are going the right way about it, AGAIN. There is a reason the UN set up a Decolonisation Committee, to avoid the inevitable decline into bloodshed that this process will always create if one side refuses to address the issues. The whole Falklands issue is clouded by Britians behaviour of beefing up the population to support their claim. Here is one submission to the that UN Committee;

The islanders voted to remain part of Britain.

The islands have been under British rule for longer than any other country.

In common sense terms, the Argentinians really don't have a foot to stand on.

RobitTV

The Corinthian wrote: »

I am not unsympathetic to Argentina's position.

However, there are three possible approaches to this. Legal, which both the UK and Argentina have effectively rejected because neither of their legal claims are particularly stronger than the other. Self determination, which it pretty clear would not go the Argentine way.

And finally conflict; be it economic or military. Economic conflict we've already seen, in terms of sanctions. Meanwhile in 1982, the military option occurred largely as a means to distract the Argentine population from domestic economic problems, which naturally they don't suffer from today...

So the most recent and largest historical example of aggression has been Argentinian, 31 years ago, yet you decided to underline British aggression, which apparently took place about 180 years ago. Any more cherry picking you'd like to do, to support your position?

There was no aggression by Britain in 1833. Argentina set up a military garrison on the islands with a few people and decided the islands were there's despite the fact Argentina was only a new nation then. Britain only wanted to make sure it's claim was alive and sailed down to the islands to clarify who owns the islands. But Britain let the people who were already on the islands live there but the islands were under British control.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

So the most recent and largest historical example of aggression has been Argentinian, 31 years ago, yet you decided to underline British aggression, which apparently took place about 180 years ago. Any more cherry picking you'd like to do, to support your position?

Cherry picking?
I just stated the fact that if you believe that the issue only arose in 1982 then yes the Argentinians are the only aggressors.
I haven't as yet stated a 'position' on who is right or wrong. Only that sooner or later the British and Argentinians will have to sit down together to resolve this.
Please stop trying to turn the thread into a pro British, anti British one.

The Corinthian

RobitTV wrote: »

There was no aggression by Britain in 1833. Argentina set up a military garrison on the islands with a few people and decided the islands were there's despite the fact Argentina was only a new nation then. Britain only wanted to make sure it's claim was alive and sailed down to the islands to clarify who owns the islands. But Britain let the people who were already on the islands live there but the islands were under British control.

Was there not some enforced expulsion at some point? Nonetheless, even if there was to cite that and ignore a full invasion only thirty odd years ago instead screams of irrational bias.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Cherry picking?
I just stated the fact that if you believe that the issue only arose in 1982 then yes the Argentinians are the only aggressors.

Why did you ignore the most recent and by far larger aggression, instead attempting to paint the British as the only aggressors then? That's what you did and to deny this would be disingenuous.

I haven't as yet stated a 'position' on who is right or wrong.

That's also disingenuous. You have not attempted to give any kind of neutral argument, you've not even attempted to show any sympathy for the British position. You've only given the Argentine arguments throughout and attacked British ones. So please try not to pretend you've not clearly chosen which is right and which is wrong in your eyes.

Only that sooner or later the British and Argentinians will have to sit down together to resolve this.

Hopefully.

Please stop trying to turn the thread into a pro British, anti British one.

You did that the moment that you laid the blame on British colonialism, despite the irony that Argentina is herself a colonial nation and that either country laying claim on the islands was in itself a colonial act.

Please stop being so intentionally misleading in this discussion.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why did you ignore the most recent and by far larger aggression, instead attempting to paint the British as the only aggressors then? That's what you did and to deny this would be disingenuous.

I didn't ignore anything of the sort, you are betraying your own agenda here and attempting to pull the thread off topic. Here is what I said;

If the British want it to become about 'who has the biggest gun', then they are going the right way about it, AGAIN.

...meaning, that by ignoring the issue,(which is tacitly what they have been doing with the aid of the toothless UN) it will come down to aggression.
They have done it before in their colonies, and that is the point I have been making, this is an issue about the ramifications of colonisalism. It won't go away until that colonisation is dealt with.

That's also disingenuous. You have not attempted to give any kind of neutral argument, you've not even attempted to show any sympathy for the British position. You've only given the Argentine arguments throughout and attacked British ones. So please try not to pretend you've not clearly chosen which is right and which is wrong in your eyes.

I'm not neutral, I am anti colonialism. The British are still doing it, so in this instance, yes, I would be critical of them and have little sympathy. The referendum is a classic stroke of colonialism and it is also inflamatory in the region and misjudged. It already looks counterproductive as it has produced a reaction from the Argentinians.

You did that the moment that you laid the blame on British colonialism, despite the irony that Argentina is herself a colonial nation and that either country laying claim on the islands was in itself a colonial act.

Please stop being so intentionally misleading in this discussion.

It has been caused by something, would you not agree? It isn't a new problem, it is a very old one, which the Argentinians have been contesting since the mid 1800's.
Who has left the most problems in the world because of their colonialism and who has consistently refused to face up to that until they are forced to?

COYW

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.

Afraid not there Busted. There are 2,563 inhabitants on the island. The referendum has been organised by the inhabitants themselves. Those who are temporary workers on the island are not allowed to vote which is fair, in my opinion. That amounts to 1,672 people who are eligible to vote.

gallag wrote: »

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

It's all a plot by the nasty British to keep a hold of their empire!! As was said earlier, if they gave it to Argentina, the looting in Argentina would stop, they would be able to pay off the IMF (which they have stooped to lying to lately) and everything would be peachy rosy!!

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't ignore anything of the sort, you are betraying your own agenda here and attempting to pull the thread off topic. Here is what I said;

What you did is is accuse the British of militarism, 'again' - even though the most obvious and recent example of this has been by Argentina - ignored by you.

I'm not neutral, I am anti colonialism. The British are still doing it, so in this instance, yes, I would be critical of them and have little sympathy.

You appear anti-colonialism, as long as it's British colonialism. Or had you forgotten that this entire dispute is over who got to colonize the Falklands?

It has been caused by something, would you not agree? It isn't a new problem, it is a very old one, which the Argentinians have been contesting since the mid 1800's.

At it's core it is a problem that began with colonialism; Argentine and British. What it is today, is a convenient patriotic distraction.

Who has left the most problems in the world because of their colonialism and who has consistently refused to face up to that until they are forced to?

France, I would have thought - certainly they've have far less success leaving or maintaining good relations with their former colonies. Would you like to dispute that?

But, wait; you only seem to dislike colonialism when it's British.

Basil Fawlty

The islanders are the only ones who matter in this debate, they have to live and work there, they have lived through a war for their country. I cant understand how anyone can argue against their wishes over a who did what hundreds of years ago. The only reason there is so much military presence is to ensure their wishes.

RobitTV

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't ignore anything of the sort, you are betraying your own agenda here and attempting to pull the thread off topic. Here is what

It has been caused by something, would you not agree? It isn't a new problem, it is a very old one, which the Argentinians have been contesting since the mid 1800's.
Who has left the most problems in the world because of their colonialism and who has consistently refused to face up to that until they are forced to?

I nearly collapsed when you said "The British are still at it" you seem to be another anti-brit dare I say it.

Funny its not ok when it's British colonialism, a course nothing about France or Spain who still have overseas territories.

You act like Britain is the cause of everything and dislike colonialism only when it's British.

Do you know Spain and France also owned the Falkland islands?

Or will you continue to ignore that fact and attack Britain at every angle? It's not a colony you know it's a island where the people choose what they want. "British Colonialism" is dead well since the the early 1900s and up to WW2.

If you have nothing credible to add to the disscusion your not welcome.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

What you did is is accuse the British of militarism, 'again' - even though the most obvious and recent example of this has been by Argentina - ignored by you.

I'm sorry, I won't be told by you what I mean.
I didn't accuse the British of militarism, I SAID;

If the British want it to become about 'who has the biggest gun', then they are going the right way about it, AGAIN.

The Falklands war was about 'who had the biggest gun', they are going the right way about things to precipitate that again by ignoring the issue and engaging in stupid and misjudged inflamatory acts like this referendum.

You appear anti-colonialism, as long as it's British colonialism. Or had you forgotten that this entire dispute is over who got to colonize the Falklands?

I haven't forgotten anything and I am not clouded by propoganda either. There are issues to be addressed and they are not being addressed at an international level. My suspicions are that the Argentinians have a case and a point and are left with little options to do anything about it by a toothless UN, (curiously toothless yet again when it comes to sanctioning it's veto holding members or calling them to account, which is what needs to be done here first.)

France, I would have thought - certainly they've have far less success leaving or maintaining good relations with their former colonies. Would you like to dispute that?

Yes, France would be just as guilty in that respect.
I got sideswiped defending the pathetic, off topic, anti-British for the sake of it, accusations. like the one below.

But, wait; you only seem to dislike colonialism when it's British.

Busted Flat.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

? So you need to canvass to be part of a referendum now? If there was only one box on the ballot paper you might have a point. The Argentinians are free to canvass to their hearts content. Not that anyone will take any notice.

That sir is a good example of British democracy.

Busted Flat.

RobitTV wrote: »

Hong kong is different, Britain and china signed a 100 year lease deal.

Lease or no, the brits never honored any agreement, unless forced to at the point of a gun.

RobitTV

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Lease or no, the brits never honored any agreement, unless forced to at the point of a gun.

Errrrr..... Well I can confirm they did honor the agreement on Hong kong so they have honoured a agreement. :rolleyes:

Busted Flat.

RobitTV wrote: »

Errrrr..... Well I can confirm they did honor the agreement on Hong kong so they have honoured a agreement. :rolleyes:

Errrr, they were $hit scared of China, that's the difference. :cool:

Busted Flat.

Just to add to my previous post, Chris Patton as Governor, spent a few years trying to get an extension on the lease, he eventually returned with his tail between his legs.

Hunterbiker

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Errrr, they were $hit scared of China, that's the difference. :cool:

And that shows how shrewd they are...

Hunterbiker

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Just to add to my previous post, Chris Patton as Governor, spent a few years trying to get an extension on the lease, he eventually returned with his tail between his legs.

I don't think that's strictly true. By the time Chris Patten was appointed the idea of an extension to the lease was beyond possible.
Chris Patten did introduce democratic reforms that upset the Chinese.

I would say the comparison between HK and the Falklands is like comparing apples and pears. They are very different situations really.

Happyman42

RobitTV wrote: »

Or will you continue to ignore that fact and attack Britain at every angle? It's not a colony you know it's a island where the people choose what they want. "British Colonialism" is dead well since the the early 1900s and up to WW2.

If you have nothing credible to add to the disscusion your not welcome.

Instead of the trite and by now boring calls of 'anti-British for the sake of it' perhaps you might want to inform yourself. The UN sees it as a colony and it is one of the 16 territories being dealt with by it's DeCOLONISATION Committee...or not being dealt with, depending on your point of view.

Have a read;
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gacol3245.doc.htm

Secretary-General, at Opening Meeting of Special Committee on Decolonization,


Urges ‘Fresh and Creative’ Approach to Ending Colonialism

Members Elect Bureau, Approve Holding Regional Seminar in Ecuador, 25-31 May

Opening the 2013 substantive session of the Special Committee on Decolonization, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called on that body to devise “fresh and creative” approaches in mobilizing the political will needed to eradicate colonialism, saying it had no place in the modern world.

“It is time for a new kind of fully inclusive dialogue about decolonization,” he said, adding: “We no longer have the luxury of indulging in rhetoric and rituals.” The risk of movement, while sometimes frightening, was preferable to the stagnation of the status quo.

Urging the Special Committee to review its practices so as to “maximize its effectiveness”, the Secretary-General said the common endeavour of eradicating colonialism required its “constructive involvement” with the Non-Self Governing Territories under its purview and with their respective administering Powers.

The Special Committee reviews the political, social and economic conditions in the 16 United Nations-listed Non-Self Governing Territories, organizes regional seminars to discuss the challenges of decolonization and works to ensure that the United Nations aids their development.

Echoing the Secretary-General, Special Committee Chair Diego Morejón (Ecuador) said that, well into the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, the body must create a “new momentum” and review each Territory to determine which should remain on its list and which should be removed.

Direct, constructive contact must be maintained with New Caledonia, which would enter a critical phase of self-determination in 2014, Mr. Morejón said. He noted that the General Assembly had commended the positive steps taken by New Caledonian and French authorities since their signing of the 1998 Nouméa Accord giving the Territory transitional status until the holding of a referendum between 2014 and 2018.

Similarly, Papua New Guinea’s representative praised the active involvement of the Melanesian Spearhead Group and all parties under the Nouméa Accord. Urging the Special Committee to break from “business as usual”, he called for concrete ways to help the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories achieve their respective aspirations, and for the Special Committee to liaise closely with each of the administering Powers in a holistic manner. In that regard, he applauded the cooperation between Tokelau and New Zealand.

Mr. Morejón spoke after having been elected by acclamation as Chair for the current session. Also elected were Rodolfo Reyes Rodríguez (Cuba) and Shekou M. Touray (Sierra Leone) as Vice-Chairs, and Bashar Ja’afari (Syria) as Rapporteur.

The Chair proposed that the Special Committee’s annual seminar, scheduled for Latin America this year, be held in Ecuador during the last week of May, to coincide with the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self Governing Territories (25-31 May).

Cuba’s representative thanked Ecuador for its commitment to the Special Committee’s work.

The Special Committee approved the Chair’s proposal, as well as its proposed organization of work for 2013 (document A/AC.109/2013/L.2). It invited Argentina, Costa Rica, Spain, Cyprus, Ghana, Mauritania, Namibia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates to participate in the session as observers.

Remaining on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories are the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, New Caledonia and Western Sahara, as well as American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands.

The Special Committee will reconvene at a date and time to be announced.

Busted Flat.

Hunterbiker wrote: »

I don't think that's strictly true. By the time Chris Patten was appointed the idea of an extension to the lease was beyond possible.
Chris Patten did introduce democratic reforms that upset the Chinese.

I would say the comparison between HK and the Falklands is like comparing apples and pears. They are very different situations really.

I was not making a comparison, the point I was making is when it is put up to the British, when facing a foe,that is equal in strength, or see no way of bullying them into comprise, they agree to come to the conference table to talk. Remember the Lancaster talks, remember NI, when faced with a situation beyond their control, they will settle.

RobitTV

Sky news live from Falkland islands counting underway now and results expected soon.

Hunterbiker

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I was not making a comparison, the point I was making is when it is put up to the British, when facing a foe,that is equal in strength, or see no way of bullying them into comprise, they agree to come to the conference table to talk. Remember the Lancaster talks, remember NI, when faced with a situation beyond their control, they will settle.

But that's the basis of diplomacy and you can apply that to any country surely?

Hunterbiker

RobitTV wrote: »

Sky news live from Falkland islands counting underway now and results expected soon.

Is the result in doubt

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

Instead of the trite and by now boring calls of 'anti-British for the sake of it' perhaps you might want to inform yourself. The UN sees it as a colony and it is one of the 16 territories being dealt with by it's DeCOLONISATION Committee...or not being dealt with, depending on your point of view.

Have a read;
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gacol3245.doc.htm

The UN Decolonization Committee is a complete red herring. Their aim is to make sure people have the right to self determination (Falklanders do - hence this referendum) and self governance (which they do bar defence and foreign affairs, as is their wish). And yet they allow CFdK to grandstand on the 'Malvinas' issue under the UN banner to give the impression the UN cares.

While the committee may have been a noble idea when created no one seems to pay it any notice anymore. Quite rightly too, I don't think the UK needs lessons on human rights from the likes of Iran, China, Indonesia and many of the other members.

LordSutch

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Lease or no, the brits never honored any agreement, unless forced to at the point of a gun.

No FT, no comment :rolleyes:

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

The UN Decolonization Committee is a complete red herring. Their aim is to make sure people have the right to self determination (Falklanders do - hence this referendum) and self governance (which they do bar defence and foreign affairs, as is their wish). And yet they allow CFdK to grandstand on the 'Malvinas' issue under the UN banner to give the impression the UN cares.

While the committee may have been a noble idea when created no one seems to pay it any notice anymore. Quite rightly too, I don't think the UK needs lessons on human rights from the likes of Iran, China, Indonesia and many of the other members.

Doesn't take away from the classification and status of the Malvinas/Falklands which is what I was pointing out.
You'll get no argument from me on the pointlessness of a lot of what the UN does.

RobitTV

Vote result expected within the hour. Should be interesting to see the percentage of who voted yes.

RobitTV

Breaking first results:

A 92% turnout for this vote

Rascasse

RobitTV wrote: »

Breaking first results:

A 92% turnout for this vote

Bigger turnout than 1986 which was 88% (when the invasion was fresh in the mind). Results then were;

96.45% 'yes' (continue British sovereignty)
1.66% Independence
0.33% Argentinian sovereignty
0.33% UN Trust
1.22% spoiled

A 'No' vote is not a vote for Argentina, but more likely a vote for independence. Will be interesting if that has gained ground.

dickwod1

So the people who were planted there by the Brits voted to stay with the Brits, that's surprising :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

dickwod1 wrote: »

So the people who were planted there by the Brits voted to stay with the Brits, that's surprising :rolleyes:

No it isn't but judging by some of the Brit bashers here you'd think the Falklands were inhabited my Argentinians.

dickwod1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it isn't but judging by some of the Brit bashers here you'd think the Falklands were inhabited my Argentinians.

Maybe the islands would have been inhabited by Argentinians if the Brits weren't there ocupying it

RobitTV

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it isn't but judging by some of the Brit bashers here you'd think the Falklands were inhabited my Argentinians.

I'm disgusted by some of the people on here living in the past still it really is shameful. :cool: