Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

stoneill

Jasus - everywhere belongs to Spain!

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

It calls on Britian and Argentina to commence negotitations on Sovereignty 'bearing in mind' the population of the Malvinas/Falklands. It does not say that they should be 'present'.
Note it say 'population' too and not 'citizens'.

But talks were held on the years on the run up the the war...... They failed to agree on anything regarding sovereignty.

What makes you think anything will change now.. Argentina want full control of the Falkland nothing more nothing less, and they have to accept that that isnt gonna happen unless the majority of the Islanders want it to happen...

Its a fair solution, Argentina instead of trying to intimidate the Falklands all the time need to stop acting like bullies and improve relations. They might just might start getting somewhere.

The moment Argentina invaded the Islands was the moment the British earned the right to tell them to get stuffed. You can mention UN resolutions all you want, won't make one bit of difference until Argentina accept the Islanders do exist and have rights.


Here are the found online that both sides makes -

Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims:

-That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence, a principle known as uti possidetis juris.
-That Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands, even when a British settlement existed.
-That Great Britain abandoned its settlement in 1776, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention. Argentina has always claimed the Falklands, and never renounced its claim.
That the British dropped their claim by acquiescence by not protesting the many years of pacific and effective Spanish occupation, after the abandonment of Port Egmont.[57][58]
-That the re-establishment of British rule on the Falklands (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina since 17 June 1833.[59]
-That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below).[60]
-That the Argentine population was expelled by an "act of force" in 1833.[60]
-That the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.[61]
-That Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.[62]


United Kingdom position -

-That the British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.
-That the British both claimed the islands and settled in them before Argentina existed.[71]
-That the islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of "2 months of illegal occupation" by Argentina.
-That Argentina's attempts to colonise the islands in 1820–33 were "sporadic and ineffectual".
-That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.
-That the Arana-Southern Treaty of 1850 (the 'Convention of Settlement'), ended all possible claims by Argentina on the Falkland Islands.
-That in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances, preferring to remain British,[72] a view repeated by their elected leaders in 2012.[73][74]
-That the principle of uti possidetis juris "is not accepted as a general principle of international law".
-That the title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 would have reverted by Fundamental breach when the Spanish breached the agreement to maintain a colony at Port Louis to prevent the British gaining title.[75]
-That the UN Special Committee on Decolonization resolutions calling for negotiations "are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future".[76]
-The European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain.[69]


British claim far outweigh the Argentines by some distance. Get over it and move on from you Anti British stance you pretend not to have.

Its also important to note -

Since 1964, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute. The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the issue. In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514.[80]
The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty;[81][79] however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. The Commonwealth of Nations lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory.[82] At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders right to self-determination.[83]

The UN general assembly themselves have said the the Falkland Islanders should be respected....... They wish to remain an overseas British territory, so respect that....

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

how does one negotiate over the sovereignty of the islands when one of the parties has already decided the outcome, come on happyman you tell me.

You negotiate for constitutional change, you don't have to look to far to see that is possible.
Critically...you negotiate.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

British claim far outweigh the Argentines by some distance. Get over it and move on from you Anti British stance you pretend not to have.

As I told you earlier, run that by the Argentinians, I'm sure you have the conflict/dispute solved.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I told you earlier, run that by the Argentinians, I'm sure you have the conflict/dispute solved.

Was hoping for a bit more than that, your too easy.:D Anyone who truly believes the Argentines will accept anything other thanfull control over the Falklands is in cloud cuckoo land.

Lemming

Happyman42 wrote: »

You negotiate for constitutional change, you don't have to look to far to see that is possible.
Critically...you negotiate.

But how do you "negotiate" when one party's stance is that there is nothing to discuss other than the complete and unconditional handover of sovereignty. That's not negotiation. That's not even a stance with which to negotiate, only either refuse or capitulate.

mcc1

Lemming wrote: »

But how do you "negotiate" when one party's stance is that there is nothing to discuss other than the complete and unconditional handover of sovereignty. That's not negotiation. That's not even a stance with which to negotiate, only either refuse or capitulate.

He'd agree on any other occasion but in this instance his anti-British stance prevents him from doing that. It just wont process through his brain.

Playboy

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

Slightly OT but but I dont think the Palestinian example is a valid one. The Jews that emigrated to and eventually formed the State of Israel are not proven in the majority to be direct descendents of the people who lived there originally. Many of them are later converts to Judaism and it is likely that the current Palestinian population are likely to be the original inhabitants only now they are Muslim. Sharing the religion of the original inhabitants does not mean they were there first in any way.

Happyman42

Lemming wrote: »

But how do you "negotiate" when one party's stance is that there is nothing to discuss other than the complete and unconditional handover of sovereignty. That's not negotiation. That's not even a stance with which to negotiate, only either refuse or capitulate.

Neither party goes into the discussions with preconditions, the discussions are about sovereignty. That is what the UN has issued resolutions calling on both governments to do.
Argentina attended the last meeting of the Decolonisation Committee (the UN body which has issued 40 Resolutions) and Britian didn't.
What does that say to you?

Southern Wagon.

The referendum tells you all you need to know. Well done to them. I am happy for them. Lets just hope Argentina aggression will simmer down now. The patriotic Falkland Islanders have spoken.

Congratulations from Ulster.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Neither party goes into the discussions with preconditions, the discussions are about sovereignty. That is what the UN has issued resolutions calling on both governments to do.
Argentina attended the last meeting of the Decolonisation Committee (the UN body which has issued 40 Resolutions) and Britian didn't.
What does that say to you?

Again they did meet quite a few times in the 1970's but no deal could be done as Argentina wanted full control and nothing else. Nothing has changed, since then. Other than the fact the the Argentines took military action to try and grab full control which failed..

And with that Britain now holds the pair the Aces wereas Argentina has the pair of jokers.

Until Argentina actually accept that the people who live on the Islands have a legal to right live there and respect them then there can rightly be no meetings no matter how much they or even you protest.

The fact they cant even sit face to face with a Falkland Islander tells you everything you need to know. If they could manage that then there would have been meetings over recent years without a doubt. (Even though we know they would be pointless).

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, I have said why, using the 'right to self determination' is a kick to touch. and as such is a dubious clause, as the British know that as long as they put that condition on negotiations then they can avoid talks on sovereignty. Talks that the UN say must happen to resolve the dispute. Sovereignty, right of title, negotiations have to happen first, then the citizenship discussion, it's kinda stupid to get the horse before the cart here. If right of title is with the British then 'the right to self determination' is already enshrined in the UN, it isn't a problem. If you really have the will to resolve the dispute, then the only option here is to enter the negotiations without preconditions, which means you have to accept the possibility that it might not go in your favour. There is plenty of criticism btw of the British intransigence from their own press if you care to look for it.

Yet the issue of the islanders, is very much a factor in the question of sovereignty - it's accepted as such everywhere, in all sovereignty disputes. You can't even call them colonists anymore, or is there some rule that say's you have to be in a location for a certain number of generations before you're no longer seen as an interloper.

Otherwise what you're suggesting is that self determination should not be a factor in any dispute; where would that leave Northern Ireland? British, we signed it over, signed the treaty and ratified it in the Dail. Tough.

If you accept that the precondition is the sticking point then those insisiting on it have to be the ones at fault for no negotiations.

I certainly believe that it is presently at fault for the lack of negotiations at present - however, unlike you, I recognise that both sides are doing this.

I am as entitled to my opinion as you are and I wouldn't be as arrogant to say that the undecided would be swayed by my arguments, but I like to think, they might. I'm in a discussion here, not a lecture from you or anybody esle.

Which is why I am responding to you, because if no one challenges your convoluted and illogical arguments, it would be a lecture. As to whether being so arrogant as to believe that someone will believe me over you, I wouldn't be, but I suspect they'll be a lot less willing to believe your word on things given the number of times you've now been pulled up on falsehoods and disingenuous tactics.

40 UN resolutions since 1965, and no negotiations. Somebody is at fault for that, it is my OPINION that the British are mainly at fault for that failure. The UN is being ignored, something you said was wrong and illegal on another thread.

I didn't say this on another thread because the UN never said anything on that topic, so please don't invent things. I've already pointed this out to you, so I'm not sure why you're repeating the same, false, accusation.

Again not what I implied at all. You are being willfully obstinate by sticking to your misunderstanding of what I said. Again, my point was, 'Britian by their actions (intransigence) are making sure that this dispute is about 'who has the biggest gun'. Argentina invading and the subsequent war is testament to that.

It is what you wrote and now you're just changing the goalposts again. However, your message hasn't changed all that much - apparently it was British intransigence (naturally Argentina had never done so) that forced the poor Argentines to take up arms and invade...

Sad, Why do you need to paint me and others as rabid republicans with British blood lust for your argument to make sense? It's getting more and more bizarre.

That you have been arguing a very obvious anti-British slant was clear to all, even back when you were claiming to be neutral.

Two wrongs never make a right, if the claim to title and sovereignty by Argentina is not proven and they insist on taking these islands then they are wrong. That is why the negotiations are the only solution here.

How is that a response to my asking you to at least acknowledge Argentina is a colonial player? Are you able to?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Out come the labels because it seems you don't want to directly address, like whatever etc, the opposing argument? You did seem to object to the alleged ad hominem approach by other posters in that thread.

If one can demonstrate the dishonesty of your opponent in argument, then calling them a liar is no longer an ad hominem.

If one can demonstrate extreme bias of your opponent in argument, then calling them a prejudiced is no longer an ad hominem.

If one can demonstrate an chronic inability, of your opponent in argument, to consider any other view, and use all means, both ethical and not, in pursuit of winning their argument with unquenchable resolve, then calling them a fanatic is no longer an ad hominem.

If one attacks the person for the purposes of simply dismissing or distracting from their argument, then that is an ad hominem - such as what he was trying in the other thread.

I hope that clarifies the difference for you, although given I wasn't able to clarify how every country having a right to invade another if they feel they have a just cause, might be a bad idea in that thread to you, I won't hold my breath.

TBH, I have neither the time or patience to peruse this thread further, as Happyman42 is just going to continue posting until he wears down everybody here and he's the last man standing.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet the issue of the islanders, is very much a factor in the question of sovereignty - it's accepted as such everywhere, in all sovereignty disputes. You can't even call them colonists anymore, or is there some rule that say's you have to be in a location for a certain number of generations before you're no longer seen as an interloper.

As the UN says, they need to 'bear in mind' the population. But it is the two government that must negotiate, specifically. It's not me or you setting the parameters, but the UN. Maybe if you had done some research you would have found that out.
If there are any other parameters or parties suggested in the UN's resolutions, please point them out.

Otherwise what you're suggesting is that self determination should not be a factor in any dispute; where would that leave Northern Ireland? British, we signed it over, signed the treaty and ratified it in the Dail. Tough.

The GFA could not come in to force until we removed our constitutional claim. That's how negotiated agreements work. The negotiations have to be about sovereignty first, how could it be any other way...think about it. Then maybe you will see how Argentina can't accept them as pre-conditions because to accept self determination means you accept title. It really is very simple to see that.

I certainly believe that it is presently at fault for the lack of negotiations at present - however, unlike you, I recognise that both sides are doing this.

And 1970, 1973, 1981?

Which is why I am responding to you, because if no one challenges your convoluted and illogical arguments, it would be a lecture. As to whether being so arrogant as to believe that someone will believe me over you, I wouldn't be, but I suspect they'll be a lot less willing to believe your word on things given the number of times you've now been pulled up on falsehoods and disingenuous tactics.

So depending on a UN Resolution is convoluted and illogical?

I didn't say this on another thread because the UN never said anything on that topic, so please don't invent things. I've already pointed this out to you, so I'm not sure why you're repeating the same, false, accusation.

Not my view of what you were saying, but can't be bothered challenging you anymore on it. Count yourself lucky you are not regularly being portrayed as a rabid anti-British bloodlusting 'Ra man

It is what you wrote and now you're just changing the goalposts again. However, your message hasn't changed all that much - apparently it was British intransigence (naturally Argentina had never done so) that forced the poor Argentines to take up arms and invade...

See my answer above.

That you have been arguing a very obvious anti-British slant was clear to all, even back when you were claiming to be neutral.

Again, your need to paint me as the boogey man to somehow prove your own argument is ever more bizarre.

How is that a response to my asking you to at least acknowledge Argentina is a colonial player? Are you able to?

[/QUOTE]
I did acknowledge it by saying, 'two wrongs don't make a right'

TBH, I have neither the time or patience to peruse this thread further, as Happyman42 is just going to continue posting until he wears down everybody here and he's the last man standing.

Apologies, I wasn't aware that your where the debate chairman/woman.
The Corinthian has spoken, everybody shut up. :rolleyes:

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

As the UN says, they need to 'bear in mind' the population.

No the UN actually said - "General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514.

Big difference from "bear in mind" the "population"............ So how can there be any negotiations when Argentina neither recognises nor respects the Falkland Islanders??

old hippy

Einhard wrote: »

Oh, no argument there. As i said, I'm not a fan. Just taking issue with some of the things you'd hang her for.

Hang her? Not me, squire. But just wait until she shuffles off this mortal coil. There will be celebrations the length and breadth of Britain

Not from me, mind. I shall just breathe a sigh of relief.

Anyways, off topic.

Mine own personal view is, like NI/6 counties, most British people don't give a stuff against the islanders. But it's amazing what a bit of patriotic flag waving and rabble rousing can do.

Lemming

Happyman42 wrote: »

Neither party goes into the discussions with preconditions, the discussions are about sovereignty. That is what the UN has issued resolutions calling on both governments to do.
Argentina attended the last meeting of the Decolonisation Committee (the UN body which has issued 40 Resolutions) and Britian didn't.
What does that say to you?

O.kay.

The Argentinians have said (recently too it was I believe) that the only thing to discuss was the handover of sovereignty. Their own constitution was changed explicity in the 1990s to reflect that view also.

You remember the Good Friday Agreement I trust? And what the Irish Republic had to cede by way of constitutional referendum in order to allow talks, yes? We (well, some of us anyway) voted on that. Namely relinqishing defacto sorverign claim to the six counties, because it infers that the only acceptable outcome was complete capitulation from the other side of the table, regardless of anything else. Otherwise known as a precondition.

So what makes Argentina's "stance" any different in this regard? It's own constitution is a barrier to negotiation, underscored by successive ministerial statements to the fact, never mind any other beligerent behaviour

Mr Cumulonimbus

The Corinthian wrote: »

dishonesty.......extreme bias.....chronic inability, of your opponent in argument, to consider any other view.....a fanatic

None of these were exhibited by me in our discussion. But why use these labels anyway? It's gonna cause potential aggro in a thread.

every country having a right to invade another if they feel they have a just cause, might be a bad idea in that thread to you, I won't hold my breath.

Never said that or meant to imply it either, i.e. EVERY cause is justified. You said there was NO justification AT ALL. This is the key point where I disagree with you. All I can say really.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

No the UN actually said - "General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514.

Big difference from "bear in mind" the "population"............ So how can there be any negotiations when Argentina neither recognises nor respects the Falkland Islanders??

That's almost exactly the same thing, 'respect the interests' does not mean, 'the islanders should be a party to the negotiations'.

Now tell us HOW the Argentinians could enter negotiations having first ceded (by accepting the right to self determination) citizenship to the islanders?
I know people think the Argentinians are stupid but that would just be absolutely ridiculous thing to do prior to a negotiation on SOVEREIGNTY.
Imagine the IRA accepting that the British had a right to be in N.I. before entering talks on a deal.

You really aren't being logical here.

Happyman42

Lemming wrote: »

O.kay.

The Argentinians have said (recently too it was I believe) that the only thing to discuss was the handover of sovereignty. Their own constitution was changed explicity in the 1990s to reflect that view also.

You will have to provide sources for this ^, as the only thing I can find is the Argentinian's president's submission to the last Decolonisation Conmmittee meeting where she was open to negotiations.

You remember the Good Friday Agreement I trust? And what the Irish Republic had to cede by way of constitutional referendum in order to allow talks, yes? We (well, some of us anyway) voted on that. Namely relinqishing defacto sorverign claim to the six counties, because it infers that the only acceptable outcome was complete capitulation from the other side of the table, regardless of anything else. Otherwise known as a precondition.

The GFA was agreed first in 1998 and it mandated the Irish government to put a referendum to change the constitution before the people. This they did in June 1999. Had we voted not to, the agreement would not have been implemented. The agreement came into force on December 1st 1999.
It is important that you realise that, the deal came first, then the constitutional change, not the other way around as you imply.
That is why I say anything is possible in negotiations. If the British are so sure of their claim, what is it they are afraid of?

So what makes Argentina's "stance" any different in this regard? It's own constitution is a barrier to negotiation, underscored by successive ministerial statements to the fact, never mind any other beligerent behaviour

Constitutions can be changed, deals can be struck, if the will is there.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's almost exactly the same thing, 'respect the interests' does not mean, 'the islanders should be a party to the negotiations'.

Just so we're clear: it's your view that the population of a disputed territory should have no input into the disposition of that territory?

Busted Flat.

Argentinian Pope, wonder what he thinks of Islas Malvinas ?.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear: it's your view that the population of a disputed territory should have no input into the disposition of that territory?

Looking at it from the Argentinian angle, I don't see how.
If you genuinely want a final solution I don't see how either, for the reason above.
The only thing the referendum will do is bolster their case come negotiations.
The Argentinians will have to ensure that the rights of those islanders are respected and some accomodation will have to be reached, that will not be easy. But that's another unfortunate ramification of colonisation. Decolonisation hasn't been easy, but it has to happen and it is one of the central committments of the UN since it's foundation, I think the decolonisation committee has been in existence since the early 40's and has assisted in 80 cases with 16 still on the list.

For the record, I don't for one minute think that Argentina will get full title to the islands, if they negotitate, but a shared interest, with the islanders allowed to keep British or Commonwealth citizenship if they wish.
But if the situation ramps up again and they think they can depend on support from South America and that Britian is politically weak and they invade, then anything can happen.
I know if I was lying in bed in the Falklands, that is what would keep me awake.

RobitTV

BREAKING NEWS: Argentina lays claim to the Vatican City on the basis "there is a temporary Argentine population".

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Looking at it from the Argentinian angle, I don't see how.
If you genuinely want a final solution I don't see how either, for the reason above.

The question was more general. I guess I can extrapolate from the specific to the general, and conclude that you don't believe that the wishes of the population are a particularly significant factor.

I wonder how you'd feel if the British and Irish governments were to decide between themselves what the fate of Northern Ireland should be, all the while telling the people who live in Northern Ireland that what they want isn't a factor?

For the record, I don't for one minute think that Argentina will get full title to the islands, if they negotitate, but a shared interest, with the islanders allowed to keep British or Commonwealth citizenship if they wish.

How would you feel if the "final solution" to the Northern Ireland situation was a shared interest, with neither Britain nor Ireland claiming (nor relinquishing) full sovereignty?

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Looking at it from the Argentinian angle, I don't see how.
If you genuinely want a final solution I don't see how either, for the reason above.
The only thing the referendum will do is bolster their case come negotiations.
The Argentinians will have to ensure that the rights of those islanders are respected and some accomodation will have to be reached, that will not be easy. But that's another unfortunate ramification of colonisation. Decolonisation hasn't been easy, but it has to happen and it is one of the central committments of the UN since it's foundation, I think the decolonisation committee has been in existence since the early 40's and has assisted in 80 cases with 16 still on the list.

For the record, I don't for one minute think that Argentina will get full title to the islands, if they negotitate, but a shared interest, with the islanders allowed to keep British or Commonwealth citizenship if they wish.
But if the situation ramps up again and they think they can depend on support from South America and that Britian is politically weak and they invade, then anything can happen.
I know if I was lying in bed in the Falklands, that is what would keep me awake.

There is nothing be negotiated, the islanders ie the populace of the Falklands has rejected any desire to become Argentinian and the arguntine government has refused to even acknowledge the legitimacy of the islanders, and the land and the population go hand in hand can't have one without the other. As for force, the Falklands are far better protected now then they ever where before. 1500 soldiers, 4 typhoon fighters, advanced air defence systems, the odd hunter killer sub lurking down there somewhere (equipped with tomahawks) and a supporting population of which the argentines found difficult to handle the last time.

Busted Flat.

RobitTV wrote: »

BREAKING NEWS: Argentina lays claim to the Vatican City on the basis "there is a temporary Argentine population".

No, that won't work, it was proved when the Brit navy landed an SAS guy on Rockall, and he stayed overnight. Next day the Navy returned and called for a census, but the poor bolli(k$ was so cold he could not fill in the form. At the end of the day, Rockall is still Irish.

Iwasfrozen

Busted Flat. wrote: »

No, that won't work, it was proved when the Brit navy landed an SAS guy on Rockall, and he stayed overnight. Next day the Navy returned and called for a census, but the poor bolli(k$ was so cold he could not fill in the form. At the end of the day, Rockall is still Irish.

Rockall is Irish? That's a new one on me.

todolist

Falklands Islands are like Ulster...British.End of debate.

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Argentinian Pope, wonder what he thinks of Islas Malvinas ?.

That's the great thing about being a protestant country. We don't give a **** what the Pope thinks.:D

WakeUp

todolist wrote: »

Falklands Islands are like Ulster...British.End of debate until such a time as a vote is wanted by a majority in the North and most probably in the South and then we will see what happens

FYP:)

The reasons outlined in the GFA should they not be in someway "copied" for whats going in Argentina to avoid conflict. That being if the people want to identify themselves a certain way then thats ok and is how it should be?? The majority wish to view themselves as British so should that not be the end of it? Why dont the Argies move some people to the island try even things up a bit and see what happens next time there is a vote??

If land is to be given back for former colonial reasons then we get the North back, Spain gets Gibraltar, Argies get the Falklands, Natvie Americans get the States, Mexico gets Texas, Aboriginies get Oz land so on so forth which I dont think will ever happen so now it has to be up to the people who are there. Im in no way making excuses for imperialism and colonialism but realpolitik would suggest only the inhabitants of say the Falklands can change what is going to happen. Is there an alternative?..

Busted Flat.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Rockall is Irish? That's a new one on me.

The extent greed will go.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Exe9j4oKhPE/TuS2XdY6MqI/AAAAAAAAKOQ/7021o8KERow/s320/obr27.jpeg


http://alfredsnider.blogspot.com/2011/12/rockall-story-continues-to-unfold.html

Distance is not really that much different is it.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Now tell us HOW the Argentinians could enter negotiations having first ceded (by accepting the right to self determination) citizenship to the islanders?

They HAVE to accept the Islanders rights to self determination, theres no other way round it pure and simple. They messed up royally with the war and and they are messing up royally by continuing to threaten the Island's and making it harder for them to earn a living.

They NEED to improve relations, pure and simple. They can't expect to get joint control in any shape or form at the minute because quite frankly it would be joke after every they have done in the last few decades. Its the reason why they are so hated on the Islands.

In a few decades time if/when relations improve then who knows, maybe a referendum then wont be as convincing as it was yesterday in Britain favour. But there certainly won't be any joint sovereignty any time soon, no point even thinking otherwise.

Happyman42 wrote: »

But that's another unfortunate ramification of colonisation. Decolonisation hasn't been easy, but it has to happen and it is one of the central committments of the UN since it's foundation, I think the decolonisation committee has been in existence since the early 40's and has assisted in 80 cases with 16 still on the list.

But if the situation ramps up again and they think they can depend on support from South America and that Britian is politically weak and they invade, then anything can happen.

And please stop with all this nonsense about colonisation regarding the Falklands... Argentina claim it based purely on Spanish colonisation. Its pointless.


Also stop with all the talk of military action, there won't be any as it would be suicide for Argentina. They will be crucified internationally like they were last time when they were told in no uncertain terms to leave the Islands. That is not something Brazil and its emerging economy will want to get involved in. They may "back them politically" but that means diddly squat. As they already do back their claims while also having an excellent relationship with the UK.

Its no different to the USA's stance, by saying what they do they stay on the side of both countries. If you honestly think any South American countries will help Argentina militarily in another war then your clearly deluded. They would have nothing whatsoever to gain from it as has been said many times.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

The question was more general. I guess I can extrapolate from the specific to the general, and conclude that you don't believe that the wishes of the population are a particularly significant factor.

I wonder how you'd feel if the British and Irish governments were to decide between themselves what the fate of Northern Ireland should be, all the while telling the people who live in Northern Ireland that what they want isn't a factor? How would you feel if the "final solution" to the Northern Ireland situation was a shared interest, with neither Britain nor Ireland claiming (nor relinquishing) full sovereignty?

One answer will suffice for all your questions;
It doesn't matter what I think, what you think of the different stances, what matters is that the claims and counterclaims exist and are the dispute.
What we are discussing here is not what my opinion is, just the situation as it actually is.

Busted Flat.

Happyman42 wrote: »

One answer will suffice for all your questions;
It doesn't matter what I think, what you think of the different stances, what matters is that the claims and counterclaims exist and are the dispute.
What we are discussing here is not what my opinion is, just the situation as it actually is.

At the end of the day the future of the squatters on the rocks, will be decided by budget considerations in London. That will be nothing new, to those that follow current affairs.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's the great thing about being a protestant country. We don't give a **** what the Pope thinks.:D

Funny, I always think that Protestants in Ireland give more of **** about what the pope had to say than Catholics.

mcc1 wrote: »

They HAVE to accept the Islanders rights to self determination, theres no other way round it pure and simple. They messed up royally with the war and and they are messing up royally by continuing to threaten the Island's and making it harder for them to earn a living.

They NEED to improve relations, pure and simple. They can't expect to get joint control in any shape or form at the minute because quite frankly it would be joke after every they have done in the last few decades. Its the reason why they are so hated on the Islands.

In a few decades time if/when relations improve then who knows, maybe a referendum then wont be as convincing as it was yesterday in Britain favour. But there certainly won't be any joint sovereignty any time soon, no point even thinking otherwise.



And please stop with all this nonsense about colonisation regarding the Falklands... Argentina claim it based purely on Spanish colonisation. Its pointless.


Also stop with all the talk of military action, there won't be any as it would be suicide for Argentina. They will be crucified internationally like they were last time when they were told in no uncertain terms to leave the Islands. That is not something Brazil and its emerging economy will want to get involved in. They may "back them politically" but that means diddly squat. As they already do back their claims while also having an excellent relationship with the UK.

Its no different to the USA's stance, by saying what they do they stay on the side of both countries. If you honestly think any South American countries will help Argentina militarily in another war then your clearly deluded. They would have nothing whatsoever to gain from it as has been said many times.

Yes, we know that is your opinion, what's your solution to the problem though?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

One answer will suffice for all your questions;
It doesn't matter what I think, what you think of the different stances, what matters is that the claims and counterclaims exist and are the dispute.
What we are discussing here is not what my opinion is, just the situation as it actually is.

That's not an answer; it's an evasion. But I guess the fact that it is an evasion is all the answer I need.

oscarBravo

Busted Flat. wrote: »

At the end of the day the future of the squatters on the rocks, will be decided by budget considerations in London.

What makes them squatters?

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, we know that is your opinion, what's your solution to the problem though?

Surely my "solution" you talk about would still only be my opinion ???:rolleyes: Why ask, you clearly won;t accept anything other than the handing of the Islands to Argentina, because of your anti British stance.

Busted Flat.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes them squatters?

I can't help you if you have to ask that.

oscarBravo

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I can't help you if you have to ask that.

Does that mean that you don't have an intelligent answer to the question?

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I can't help you if you have to ask that.

You mean you have no answer... :eek: Shock horror, who would have thought that....

Busted Flat.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does that mean that you don't have an intelligent answer to the question?

Not at all, you just asked a stupid question, no offence, maybe it is the way I interpret it. Maybe you could enlighten me with an explanation of your question.

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Not at all, you just asked a stupid question, no offence, maybe it is the way I interpret it. Maybe you could enlighten me with an explanation of your question.

He asked a stupid question :D:D:D:D, you called the Falkland Islanders Squatters and you accuse him off saying something stupid :D:D:D:D

He asked you what makes the Falkland Islanders Squatters.. You couldn't get a more simple question.

Its not stupid at all.... What is stupid is calling the Falkland Islanders who have been living on the Falklands for generations Squatters and then failing to back it up with an explanation why.....

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not an answer; it's an evasion. But I guess the fact that it is an evasion is all the answer I need.

No it's not an evasion, if I asked you, 'How would you feel if Ireland forcibly took an island of your coast and started to exploit resources which would have been your to exploit'
How would your answer affect the facts of what is claimed by both sides in the Argentinian/British dispute?
What relevance would your answer have?

Busted Flat.

mcc1 wrote: »

He asked a stupid question :D:D:D:D, you called the Falkland Islanders Squatters and you accuse him off saying something stupid :D:D:D:D

He asked you what makes the Falkland Islanders Squatters.. You couldn't get a more simple question.

I think all these little guys answer's it all.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Surely my "solution" you talk about would still only be my opinion ???:rolleyes:

Yes it would be your opinion, but it might actually add something to the discussion.

Why ask, you clearly won;t accept anything other than the handing of the Islands to Argentina

And where did I say this? There's a challenge for you, find where I said that. I will ignore anything you have to say, until you do. You said I said it 'clearly', can't be hard to find.

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I think all these little guys answer's it all.

Yup, that your making fool of yourself.:D:D:D:D:D:D

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes it would be your opinion, but it might actually add something to the discussion..

I think its obvious what my views on it are. That it should remain British until the Islanders decide otherwise. Same solution as N.Ireland. Or you against that aswell.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And where did I say this? There's a challenge for you, find where I said that. I will ignore anything you have to say, until you do. You said I said it 'clearly', can't be hard to find.

Its my "opinion" based on your clearly anti British/pro Argentina mindset that you keep displaying..

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

No it's not an evasion, if I asked you, 'How would you feel if Ireland forcibly took an island of your coast and started to exploit resources which would have been your to exploit'
How would your answer affect the facts of what is claimed by both sides in the Argentinian/British dispute?
What relevance would your answer have?

Erm rewind back to 1982. Only people who have acted with any force are Argentina.

And again Britain did not take the Islands to "exploit resources" because as you should well know the "Black Gold" which is what your getting at was not discovered there until long after Britain retook the Islands.

So you see the only ones forcibly trying to do anything to gain resources is Argentina.... As ive said Britain even offered them 50% of all discoveries and they rejected....

K-9

Rather than put in smilies as answers to questions, let's us all provide clear cut, evidential answers. It would be impolite not to.