Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

I am pie

Strange one this, for all the posturing of the current lunatic fringe in government over here they are anti military and have very little capability left. Less than 20% of military planes are in working order, recently a frigate sank in port. The military have been run down and minimised, they are associated with the previous regimes. I have more chance of swimming home to Ireland this summer than there is a chance of a new invasion. That is all posturing for the daily mail readersd back home on the part of Cameron and his floundering goverment.

I cannot see any real way that Argentina will ever have possession of las malvinas, no british govt will give them up, no Argentine govt will ever invade again and no international body will ever intervene in a serious manner. Local solidarity (all Mercosur countries will 100% side with Arg claims in this matter, take that as a cast iron fact) will make if difficult for the falklanders to service and develop their oil resources. If the kirchner govt gets booted out some form of resource sharing may be reinstated.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never said that they were 'told', I did say that the UN was toothless though, in this regard. The British have ignored that call, most recently made on 14th June 2012.

Britain offered talks to Argentina last month but the Argies rejected them..... Purely because a representative from the Falklands would be present.....

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never said that they were 'told', I did say that the UN was toothless though, in this regard. The British have ignored that call, most recently made on 14th June 2012.

Here is the British governments reasoning (from 2012).

The Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands or South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and their surrounding maritime areas. The principle of selfdetermination, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, underlies our position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. There can and will be no negotiation on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such time as the Falkland Islanders so wish. There is no doubt that the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British and do not want the United Kingdom Government to enter into any negotiations with Argentina about their status.

The Republic of Argentina has enshrined within its own Constitution that the
only acceptable future is full Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The Republic of Argentina does not seek genuine dialogue, but simply wishes to discuss the terms for a transfer of sovereignty. But neither the United Kingdom nor the Republic of Argentina can negotiate away the principle and right of selfdetermination for the Falkland Islands people. We should like to remind the Republic of Argentina of their international legal obligations to respect the principle and right of self-determination for all peoples, as respectively set out under the United Nations Charter (Article 1.2), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (common article 1).

And last month when Timmerman decided was over he refused to meet with Hague as there were Falklands Islands government officials there too. Rather petulant, no?

I am pie

Happyman42 wrote: »

South America has strongly backed Argentina as pointed out, and you try to imply that Argentina has :

Brazil. - mercorsur and 100 % supportive ideologically of Argentina's claims. Vocal about it too.

Uruguay - dependent on Argentina rich hiding their money in local investment, left wing govt, 100% supportive. Recently some local politician spoke out of lin and was admonished. Mercosur country.

Venezuela - strongest ally

Paraguay - post 'coup' , no longer supportive. Landlocked country so hard to see how much real support they offer.

Bolivia - much the same as venezuela, geographically removed.

Chile (associate member) - relations are on an even keel currently, unlikely to provoke dispute, however if they offered support i don't know what use it would be in terms of assisting oil field development and no logistical support on offer in terms of port cities.

Colombia - much the same as Chile, both strong US partners in the region but geographically removed in terms of oil field development.

I am having a hard time working out how the islanders and the uk plan to develop these oil fields, refine the oil and dock tankers at refineries without brazilian/argentine support. I am no oil expert but I would imagine large scale, networked refineries are required?

Logically, no on wins in the curren stalemate. Cooperation is the only real solution, som sort of joint sovereignty? People can all be british, argentina maintains joint sov and oil income shared with british?

Busted Flat.

mcc1 wrote: »

You assume the whole population of the Falklands are off voting age? lol

Around about 1,672 were eligible to vote......therefore turnout was over 90%.

And its not just British people on the Falklands, heres some proud Chileans who live there defending the Falklands aswell - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=031_1355521173

Only british planters were allowed to vote. Makes the claim of a referendum void. I will repeat myself, a two headed coin. That is the way the world will see it.

I am pie

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Only british planters were allowed to vote. Makes the claim of a referendum void. I will repeat myself, a two headed coin. That is the way the world will see it.

Who wasnt allowed to vote? Even the Argentine press hasnt drummed up any poor disenfranchised locals? You just mudslinging in blind hope here arent you?

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Britain offered talks to Argentina last month but the Argies rejected them..... Purely because a representative from the Falklands would be present.....

Yes, the British ambassador did.... to discuss anything but sovereignty!

Hilary agrees with me here,:) http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100028048/hillary-clinton-slaps-britain-in-the-face-over-the-falklands/

Read the full article to see the remnants of Maggies gung ho press in full flow!

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

1517 valid votes out of a population of 2563, voted, as I said earlier a referendum like that, compares to tossing a two headed coin. That seems to be a drop in the population of 320.

Ok, so let's presume one in four are under eighteen, so that leaves 1922 people. Presuming the 405 remaining people all voted against remaining British, that is still 80% in favour.

Even of everyone, babes in arms and people on a work permit voted and those that couldn't vote were all pro Argentina, it still works out 60% in favour of staying British.

Where is the problem?

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Only british planters were allowed to vote. Makes the claim of a referendum void. I will repeat myself, a two headed coin. That is the way the world will see it.

Only British people were allowed to vote? You have a link to prove that....

Around about 10% of the population of the Falklands have no links to Britain, they include Chilean, Spanish, Japanese and even the odd Argentine..... Clearly they are happy being in a British overseas territory.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, the British ambassador did.... to discuss anything but sovereignty!

Hilary agrees with me here,:) http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100028048/hillary-clinton-slaps-britain-in-the-face-over-the-falklands/

Read the full article to see the remnants of Maggies gung ho press in full flow!

America has been saying for a while now there should be negotiations, yet privately they couldn't gave a damn.. Likewise their South American "allies"...

There's nothing to negotiate at the end of the day. The Islanders have made their voice heard now. Unless your in support of going against the wishes of of Falkland Islands population... Now that would be interesting as your a Republican.. Going against the wishes of the majority population, you would have made a very good Unionist politician 100 years.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

America did it's best to get the British to find a way out other than war, of course the Americans backed them when Thatcher gave into the Navy and her worst gung ho impulses, which always caused problems. Witness her tenure over N.I.

The tail doesn't wag the dog. To suggest that the decision to retake the Islands was decided by the RN is laughable.

As for her tenure over NI all political groups didn't do a great job and I'd say she was a little peeved at being targeted by certain paramilitary groups...


I never said that they were 'told', I did say that the UN was toothless though, in this regard. The British have ignored that call, most recently made on 14th June 2012.

You implied it and you certainly didn't suggest that those UN resolutions were aimed as much to Argentina as they were to The UK. That's being quite selective.

South America has strongly backed Argentina as pointed out, and you try to imply that Argentina has destabilised it?

Destabalised as in repeatedly making economic decisions that have drawn the wroth of other Countries notably Spain. Threats to escalate the argument by Argentina destabalise the region because of the worry it causes.


Yes, and the founding members perserved an all emcompassing veto to favour themselves in this 'democratic' organisation. :rolleyes

As I said...once the UN argunent is called out you rubbish the UN:

I hope that comes out okay and that you are clear on what I am trying to say here..

Busted Flat.

mcc1 wrote: »

You assume the whole population of the Falklands are off voting age? lol

Around about 1,672 were eligible to vote......therefore turnout was over 90%.

And its not just British people on the Falklands, heres some proud Chileans who live there defending the Falklands aswell - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=031_1355521173

Some 1,672 British citizens - out of a population of about 2,900 - can vote.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=who+has+the+right+to+vote+in+the+falklands+referendum&source=newssearch&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQqQIoADAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-21731760&ei=_V0_UcHUL7Sw7Ab4-4CoCw&usg=AFQjCNHD_8azh11VvsiXzONGIIln4crj6A

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Some 1,672 British citizens - out of a population of about 2,900 - can vote.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=who+has+the+right+to+vote+in+the+falklands+referendum&source=newssearch&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQqQIoADAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-21731760&ei=_V0_UcHUL7Sw7Ab4-4CoCw&usg=AFQjCNHD_8azh11VvsiXzONGIIln4crj6A

You do understand that you don't have to be born in Britain to be a British Citizen???.. Most if not all foreigners living/working in the Falklands will have British citizenship.....

Again you make it sound as if over 1000 didn't get the chance to vote...... Has it occurred to you that there are Children for example on the Islands? They are unable to vote..

Busted Flat.

mcc1 wrote: »

You do understand that you don't have to be born in Britain to be a British Citizen???..

Most if not all foreigners living/working in the Falklands will have British citizenship.....

Again you make it sound as if over 1000 didn't get the chance to vote...... Has it occurred to you that there are Children for example on the Islands? They are unable to vote..

Do you have a link for that, do you know how many children live there.

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Do you have a link for that, do you know how many children live there.

Your the one thats making a big deal about over 1000 people not voting, surely you have all the relevant data their to prove me wrong? Or are you making it all up as you go along without any facts?

Just to help you though, Children/under 18's make up about 20% of the population going by the last census, you do the maths to work our how many that is :pac:

The census data tells us everything we need to know, about 10% of the population are foreign, the rest consider themselves Falkland Islanders/British.....

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

America has been saying for a while now there should be negotiations, yet privately they couldn't gave a damn.. Likewise their South American "allies"...

You have sources for that? I find it hard to believe the Americans, 'don't give a damm'.

There's nothing to negotiate at the end of the day. The Islanders have made their voice heard now. Unless your in support of going against the wishes of of Falkland Islands population... Now that would be interesting as your a Republican.. Going against the wishes of the majority population, you would have made a very good Unionist politician 100 years.

You can have closed and predictable referendums until the cows come home but sooner or later Britian will have to negotiate, as somebody pointed out, they can't exploit the region (the real reason they are sticking in there) if there is a constant security threat and an ever more hostile alliance.

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

I hope that comes out okay and that you are clear on what I am trying to say here..

You are engaging in the same twisting of words that Corinthian was at.
I never said they were 'told', I said that numerous resolutions implored them to get involved in negotiations on sovereignty. Then I named the dates that they refused to take part, and pointed to an official objection to the UN by Argentina on the issue.
If the UN had any teeth, they would be 'told' but we know that won't happen and why.

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Some 1,672 British citizens - out of a population of about 2,900 - can vote.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=who+has+the+right+to+vote+in+the+falklands+referendum&source=newssearch&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQqQIoADAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-21731760&ei=_V0_UcHUL7Sw7Ab4-4CoCw&usg=AFQjCNHD_8azh11VvsiXzONGIIln4crj6A

And as I have already pointed out, 60% of the population voted I'm favour of staying British.

Busted Flat.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And as I have already pointed out, 60% of the population voted I'm favour of staying British.

Not looking good when back tracking, what about the 99% ?.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's funny how you uphold International Law on one thread and ignore many UN resolutions on another because it is the British ignoring them. And I'm the rabid Irish republican with an agenda?

Except that I have already said that arbitration under international law is the best option that neither party is willing to enter into. Funny how you can't bother to read, or if you can, can't tell the truth.

Nobody is denying that Argentina was the aggressor in 1982, despite your repeated attempts to spin my words.

This is the first time you've admitted it in this entire discussion - well done. Up until now, you've been going through hoops to avoid such an admission, instead going out of your way to paint the UK as such.

It is a dispute/conflict that has been ongoing for over a century, that it spins out of control again and again, is no suprise to an Irishman/woman with their eyes open.

No surprise to an Irishman/woman with their eyes open? LOL. Can you see anything standing behind the man behind the wire, or is his arse blocking your view?

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are engaging in the same twisting of words that Corinthian was at.
I never said they were 'told', I said that numerous resolutions implored them to get involved in negotiations on sovereignty. Then I named the dates that they refused to take part, and pointed to an official objection to the UN by Argentina on the issue.
If the UN had any teeth, they would be 'told' but we know that won't happen and why.

The point I'm making here is that the UN resolutions are generally aimed at both The UK and Argentina not just the UK.

I got the impression you were implying that they were all aimed at Britain.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have sources for that? I find it hard to believe the Americans, 'don't give a damm'.



You can have closed and predictable referendums until the cows come home but sooner or later Britian will have to negotiate, as somebody pointed out, they can't exploit the region (the real reason they are sticking in there) if there is a constant security threat and an ever more hostile alliance.

Why would/should the Americans give a damn?. If they did, they would on no uncertain terms tell Britain to negotiate. This way by asking both sides to negotiate and by not being forceful they don't upset either country.... Quite simple really. The don't care, about a small island in the South Atlantic

Oil/gas exploration has been going on for a few years now, what has Argentina done to stop it??

They were offered 50% of the share of any oil/gas finds over a decade ago and rejected it.... Only themselves to blame.

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Not looking good when back tracking, what about the 99% ?.

Are you really that thick or just trolling?

Busted Flat.

mcc1 wrote: »

Are you really that thick or just trolling?

Not my numbers, it looks good though to pump up the numbers for tossing a two headed coin.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Falklands+islands+referendum&hl=es&rlz=1D3DLUK_en-GBIE357IE357&biw=1280&bih=675&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=hWk_UfDOBKa47Ab94oDwBQ&ved=0CDUQqAI

Noticias sobre Falklands islands referendum

The Guardian
99.8 percent of Falkland Islanders vote to keep British rule

EITB ‎- hace 6 horas
Falkland Islands referendum: Residents of the Falkland Islands voted almost unanimously to stay under British rule in a referendum aimed at ...

I am pie

mcc1 wrote: »

Are you really that thick or just trolling?

Again, not even the local press here are claiming this was not democratic, they are just basically saying 'whatever, you are planters and the islands are ours'

Sound familiar

Meanwhile, I still dont see how the uk or islanders can service their oil fields without one local friend on the eastern coast of south america, which right now they are completely lacking.

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Not looking good when back tracking, what about the 99% ?.

What?

Ive made this as simple as possible for you.

Using your ludicrous statement about a lack of democracy, at the very very worst, the majority of people want to remain British.

Using the rules in place (which ate the same rules as in Ireland) 99% want to stay British.

Now, can you please explain why it is you feel this is not democratic.

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Not my numbers, it looks good though to pump up the numbers for tossing a two headed coin.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Falklands+islands+referendum&hl=es&rlz=1D3DLUK_en-GBIE357IE357&biw=1280&bih=675&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=hWk_UfDOBKa47Ab94oDwBQ&ved=0CDUQqAI

Noticias sobre Falklands islands referendum

The Guardian
99.8 percent of Falkland Islanders vote to keep British rule

EITB ‎- hace 6 horas
Falkland Islands referendum: Residents of the Falkland Islands voted almost unanimously to stay under British rule in a referendum aimed at ...

They are reporting the truth.... Over 99% eligible voted to remain British....

Your obsessed with this whole thing about nearly 1000 people not voting. while ignoring the most simple of facts that nearly 20% of the Falklands population are under voting age for example...:D.

20% of about 2800 = 560. Thats were the majority of your 1000 people come from lol..... Your making yourself look like an idiot.

Fratton Fred

I am pie wrote: »

Again, not even the local press here are claiming this was not democratic, they are just basically saying 'whatever, you are planters and the islands are ours'

Sound familiar

Meanwhile, I still dont see how the uk or islanders can service their oil fields without one local friend on the eastern coast of south america, which right now they are completely lacking.

Which is why Argentina are being stupid, because if there is oil, then they will just bypass Argentina completely.

mcc1

=

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except that I have already said that arbitration under international law is the best option that neither party is willing to enter into. Funny how you can't bother to read, or if you can, can't tell the truth.

And when was the last attempt at arbitration? 1955. The Argentinians do not recognise the dubious right to self determination that the British hide their self interests (oil and resources) behind, so court arbitration is a non starter, that is why it is so long ago since it was attempted. It has since been superseded by by the UN ratification of The Falklands/Malvinas as a 'colony' and have said again and again that Britian and Argentina must negotiate the future, Britian is the one refusing to do this.

This is the first time you've admitted it in this entire discussion - well done. Up until now, you've been going through hoops to avoid such an admission, instead going out of your way to paint the UK as such.

How can you infer something I never said and then hang your whole argument on that? Pathetic and ridiculous. Ah I know, you use words like 'admitted' and 'avoid'.
You misunderstood something I wrote, get over it.

No surprise to an Irishman/woman with their eyes open? LOL. Can you see anything standing behind the man behind the wire, or is his arse blocking your view?

That says more about you than me.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Why would/should the Americans give a damn?. If they did, they would on no uncertain terms tell Britain to negotiate. This way by asking both sides to negotiate and by not being forceful they don't upset either country.... Quite simple really. The don't care, about a small island in the South Atlantic

Sorry, I misunderstood, it's just your opinion, you have no source for the claim.
I disagree, I think the Americans care deeply about what is going on in South America, the prospect of an alliance, growing in strenght would be a big worry in Washington, small wonder that Hilary was sent to cozy up to them.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

. The Argentinians do not recognise the dubious right to self determination that the British hide their self interests (oil and gas).

They wouldn't as by doing so they admit that the Islanders have rights...

Just to clarify you think this is a plot by The (Evil) Brits to crush the hopes of Argentina (The Victim) by cleverly planting people there 9 generatiins ago (before Argentina existed).

I know it sounds laughable doesn't it...

gallag

Argentina offers to drop all clame on the faulklands in 1843 for £1m.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/falklanders-vote-170-years-after-argentina-offer.html

Interesting article.

I am pie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which is why Argentina are being stupid, because if there is oil, then they will just bypass Argentina completely.

How?

With who?

I think there are 3 stupid parties involved here.

The technology or local relationship for your bypass option doesnt exist as far as I know?

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

And when was the last attempt at arbitration? 1955. The Argentinians do not recognise the dubious right to self determination that the British hide their self interests (oil and resources) behind, so court arbitration is a non starter, that is why it is so long ago since it was attempted. It has since been superseded by by the UN ratification of The Falklands/Malvinas as a 'colony' and have said again and again that Britian and Argentina must negotiate the future, Britian is the one refusing to do this.



How can you infer something I never said and then hang your whole argument on that? Pathetic and ridiculous. Ah I know, you use words like 'admitted' and 'avoid'.
You misunderstood something I wrote, get over it.


That says more about you than me.

Where has the UN ratified the Falklands as a colony? It has described it as non self governing due to the sovereignty dispute. If the sovereignty dispute was resolved (in either way) it would cease to be considered non self governing. Same deal with Gibraltar.

You can blame the British all you want about refusing to talk, but there is no point. They have no mandate from the people and it would be futile anyway while the Argentine constitution states the only acceptable solution is Argentinian sovereignty.

As for the resources, I'll believe when I see it. Talk of hydrocarbons has been going on for must be 20 years with nothing of note found.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sorry, I misunderstood, it's just your opinion, you have no source for the claim.
I disagree, I think the Americans care deeply about what is going on in South America, the prospect of an alliance, growing in strenght would be a big worry in Washington, small wonder that Hilary was sent to cozy up to them.

And in doing so made an ass of herself trying to appease a Country with an snti US stance. I think her stance backfired. If it came down to it US would stick with
The UK in Public regardless. It depends on the UK far to much (use of airbases around the world etc).

As I said Argentina is one step away from melt down. The ecomomy is at head**** stage and the decions regarding it are getting more and more outlandish and making it a place where foreign investment won't go. Its recently been humbled by an American hedgefund over past debts. It's fast becoming a joke.

I am pie

I am pie wrote: »

How?

With who?

I think there are 3 stupid parties involved here.

The technology or local relationship for your bypass option doesnt exist as far as I know?

I read that a floating oilfield is the solution, still wonder about economic viability, will they ship back to the uk/europe or go north to the us? Who will service the oilfield (surely they wont be shipping supplies from uk?)

Could all be so much easier without 3 flavours of silly flag waving.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

And when was the last attempt at arbitration? 1955.

What's that got to do with you accusing me of flip-flopping on the question of international law? Want to avoid admitting that you made a false accusation?

The Argentinians do not recognise the dubious right to self determination that the British hide their self interests (oil and resources) behind, so court arbitration is a non starter, that is why it is so long ago since it was attempted. It has since been superseded by by the UN ratification of The Falklands/Malvinas as a 'colony' and have said again and again that Britian and Argentina must negotiate the future, Britian is the one refusing to do this.

As has been pointed out to you, Argentina has also refused to do so because of their preconditions - or do you only accept Argentine preconditions?

How can you infer something I never said and then hang your whole argument on that? Pathetic and ridiculous. Ah I know, you use words like 'admitted' and 'avoid'.
You misunderstood something I wrote, get over it.

No I did not, you never at any point suggested culpability on the Argentine side. I challenge you to prove your claim that you did. If you cannot, or refuse, then I will take it that you have simply be lying here.

That says more about you than me.

Yes, that my patience with fanatics is not infinite.

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

Where has the UN ratified the Falklands as a colony? It has described it as non self governing due to the sovereignty dispute. If the sovereignty dispute was resolved (in either way) it would cease to be considered non self governing. Same deal with Gibraltar.

From here; http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gacol3238.doc.htm

the Special Committee on Decolonization today reiterated that ending the “special and particular” colonial situation relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)* required a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

You can blame the British all you want about refusing to talk, but there is no point. They have no mandate from the people and it would be futile anyway while the Argentine constitution states the only acceptable solution is Argentinian sovereignty.

The British, more than most, should know just what can be achieved when you negotiate and reach a fair and equitable solution. Constitutions can even get changed.

As for the resources, I'll believe when I see it. Talk of hydrocarbons has been going on for must be 20 years with nothing of note found.

Funny that this all ramped up again when exploration licences where handed out. Somebody may be better informed.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

What's that got to do with you accusing me of flip-flopping on the question of international law? Want to avoid admitting that you made a false accusation?

As has been pointed out to you, Argentina has also refused to do so because of their preconditions - or do you only accept Argentine preconditions?

Second question first: What preconditions did Argentina set when attending the last convening of the Decolonisation Committee? The one that Cameron snubbed? The committee that issued the resolutions?

First question: You where the one shouting about the sanctity of UN resolutions and law on the thread you abandoned, (about Ireland sending troops to the border) yet here is a cut and dried case of Britian willfully ignoring resolution after resolution and you are defending them?
40 UN resolutions since 1965.

No I did not, you never at any point suggested culpability on the Argentine side. I challenge you to prove your claim that you did. If you cannot, or refuse, then I will take it that you have simply be lying here.

We were not discussing Argentine culability or indeed British culpability at the time. You misread my statement, what I said was, 'Britian, by it's actions would ensure that this would be about 'who has the biggest gun'.

Where is the the acusation that they where the aggressor or culpable for the outbreak of the Falklands war? Their intransigence will spark off aggression towards them, that is their history and in this case will probably be their future.
My entire argument is based on Britian's inability to accept historical wrongdoing on their part, until they are forced to do it, unfortunately, that is usually at gunpoint or after needless bloodshed.

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

From here; http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gacol3238.doc.htm

That is not ratification of the Falklands being a colony. That is a statement from the the Chilean representative that was adopted by the special committee (half of whose members are South American or Caribbean). Means nothing.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The British, more than most, should know just what can be achieved when you negotiate and reach a fair and equitable solution. Constitutions can even get changed.

Yes, provided the people who the issue effects have their say. Timmerman's refusal to meet with Hague and the elected representative of the Falklanders shows that the Argentinian's aren't interested in the people, just the rocks. It is 2013 and people matter more than rocks.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Funny that this all ramped up again when exploration licences where handed out. Somebody may be better informed.

But has it? they've been drilling there for decades. Maybe CFdK is regretting he husband tearing up the oil sharing agreement.

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

That is not ratification of the Falklands being a colony. That is a statement from the the Chilean representative that was adopted by the special committee (half of whose members are South American or Caribbean). Means nothing.

The Falklands/Malvinas are one of the 16 territories still being dealt with by the UN Decolonisation Committee.

Yes, provided the people who the issue effects have their say. Timmerman's refusal to meet with Hague and the elected representative of the Falklanders shows that the Argentinian's aren't interested in the people, just the rocks. It is 2013 and people matter more than rocks.

The Argentinians have said they respect the right of the islanders to be British, but that the territory belongs to them.
They say, that there are 250,000 British living on the Argentinian mainland, and they are not been discriminated or being treated unfairly.
The Argentinians say that the right to self determination doesn't have a bearing on the substantive dispute.
There in lies the problem.

But has it? they've been drilling there for decades. Maybe CFdK is regretting he husband tearing up the oil sharing agreement.

I have no idea if there is oil or not.

Busted Flat.

Rascasse wrote: »

That is not ratification of the Falklands being a colony. That is a statement from the the Chilean representative that was adopted by the special committee (half of whose members are South American or Caribbean). Means nothing.


Yes, provided the people who the issue effects have their say. Timmerman's refusal to meet with Hague and the elected representative of the Falklanders shows that the Argentinian's aren't interested in the people, just the rocks. It is 2013 and people matter more than rocks.


But has it? they've been drilling there for decades. Maybe CFdK is regretting he husband tearing up the oil sharing agreement.

I can understand why Timmerman refused to meet Hague. Hague reminds me of a spoiled child, acts like one, and speaks like one, how he got the job as Foreign Secretary, shows you what Cameron's strength is as leader.
One more point someone made some comment about Argentina's economy, would that be like a triple dip recession.

Einhard

Man it's kind of disturbing to see how easily one's politial prejudices can so dement one's critical faculties. People who claim to be for republicanism and self-determination in Ireland, arguing against the latter right for other people, simply because they don't agree with the choice they make? That's pretty astounding. Some people need to grow up. You can have issues with Britain and especially her role in Ireland, without letting it infect your most basic cognitive functions.

Busted Flat.

Einhard wrote: »

Man it's kind of disturbing to see how easily one's politial prejudices can so dement one's critical faculties. People who claim to be for republicanism and self-determination in Ireland, arguing against the latter right for other people, simply because they don't agree with the choice they make? That's pretty astounding. Some people need to grow up. You can have issues with Britain and especially her role in Ireland, without letting it infect your most basic cognitive functions.

Do you not understand, it is all down to occupation of someone else's land, and installing planters. Simple. The British have done that for centuries, plundered and pillaged the world over. If they did not do that their museums would be empty, and so would their banks.

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Do you not understand, it is all down to occupation of someone else's land, and installing planters. Simple. The British have done that for centuries, plundered and pillaged the world over. If they did not do that their museums would be empty, and so would their banks.

Stole someone else's land?!?! Why do you believe it is Argentine land?? It was British land long before Argentina even existed as a country... The whole its closer to Argentina argument is pointless and means nothing.

Busted Flat.

mcc1 wrote: »

Stole someone else's land?!?! Why do you believe it is Argentine land??

It was British land

long before Argentina even existed as a country... The whole its closer to Argentina argument is pointless and means nothing.

So was India, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Ireland, several parts of Africa, parts of the middle east, and many more, until they were run out of these countries. The world changed and is still changing, the bully is getting it's true deserts.
With a triple dip recession coming down the tracks, savings have to be made.

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

So was India, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Ireland, several parts of Africa, parts of the middle east, and many more, until they were run out of these countries. The world changed and is still changing, the bully is getting it's true deserts.
With a triple dip recession coming down the tracks, savings have to be made.

You didn't answer my question. Why is it Argentine land? Only ones acting like bullies are Argentina. And don't start talking about recessions and economic problems, especially where Argentina is concerned. Just shows your real lack of knowledge.

And Britain wasn't "forced" out of India..... Neither was it forced out of Hong Kong and it still has a presence in Ireland...

I suggest you go read some history books.

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

Man it's kind of disturbing to see how easily one's politial prejudices can so dement one's critical faculties. People who claim to be for republicanism and self-determination in Ireland, arguing against the latter right for other people, simply because they don't agree with the choice they make? That's pretty astounding. Some people need to grow up. You can have issues with Britain and especially her role in Ireland, without letting it infect your most basic cognitive functions.

Prejudices, you say? The thread is full of people who won't admit Britian is in the wrong here in case it might be seen as, perish the thought, support for republicanism.
I have issues with Britian, never hid or denied that fact, I also have issues with most of the powers of the world who bullied themselves into positions of wealth and power and who continue to exploit those gains made in less advanced times. I respect the right of dispossessed people to have a say about that, just as I have advocated the rights of Irish people who came up against the same bullying imperialist British and all the problems they left in their wake.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Prejudices, you say? The thread is full of people who won't admit Britian is in the wrong here in case it might be seen as, perish the thought, support for republicanism.

Why is Britain in the wrong here though regarding the Falklands, I've yet to see one decent argument from you as to why it should be Argentine.