Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

oscarBravo

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.

I thought it was in plain English, but I'll ask again: what makes them squatters? A squatter, as I understand it, is someone who has taken possession of someone else's property while it is vacant.

If it is your view that the islanders are squatters because at some point their ancestors took possession of an uninhabited island (leaving aside the question of it not having been anyone else's property at the time), does that mean that we are squatters in Ireland because our ancestors did something similar, albeit a longer time ago?

I hope that clears the question up for you. If it in any way remains unclear, or "stupid", I can try to clarify it further.

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?

Firstly, I don't have a coast, except insofar as I'm Irish, so if Ireland "took" an island off my coast, it wouldn't have any material effect on my ability to exploit resources.

Secondly, the Falklands are "off the coast" of Argentina in much the same way as Iceland is "off the coast" of Greenland. The fact that they are closer to Argentina than to Britain has exactly zero bearing on the issue.

Thirdly, you're betraying a prejudice that you've hotly denied, by essentially describing the Falklands as being Argentina's to exploit, had they not been "taken by force" by Britain. It's disingenuous in the extreme to claim a lack of bias when you then turn around and beg the question in this way.

Fourthly, I'm trying to figure out why you believe that the islanders shouldn't have a say in the issue. If you believe that they shouldn't have an input into the question of sovereignty over the place where they live, but you do feel that the people of Northern Ireland should have such an input, then I feel it behooves you to explain the inconsistency in your views.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Firstly, I don't have a coast, except insofar as I'm Irish, so if Ireland "took" an island off my coast, it wouldn't have any material effect on my ability to exploit resources.

It was a hypotethical question, change Ireland to Alaska.

Secondly, the Falklands are "off the coast" of Argentina in much the same way as Iceland is "off the coast" of Greenland. The fact that they are closer to Argentina than to Britain has exactly zero bearing on the issue.

Which is not what Argentina and most of South America believe. As I say, it doesn't matter what you or I believe, what we believe is not going to fix the problem.

Thirdly, you're betraying a prejudice that you've hotly denied, by essentially describing the Falklands as being Argentina's to exploit, had they not been "taken by force" by Britain. It's disingenuous in the extreme to claim a lack of bias when you then turn around and beg the question in this way.

Again, Argentina believes it belongs to them. Which was the frame of mind I was trying to put you in with the question.
You have to see this from the British and Argentina perspectives to understand what the dispute is about.

Fourthly, I'm trying to figure out why you believe that the islanders shouldn't have a say in the issue. If you believe that they shouldn't have an input into the question of sovereignty over the place where they live, but you do feel that the people of Northern Ireland should have such an input, then I feel it behooves you to explain the inconsistency in your views.

As I said earlier, looking at the dispute from both angles, I don't see how they can be at the table. It doesn't make any sense and is probably why the UN haven't stipulated it because it puts the Argentinians in an impossible position.
How do you rationalise conceding the very thing you are trying to achieve before you go into negotiations? I can't because it's impossible.
Other than accepting that there is a population there and stating how they would be treated (both of which they have done) please tell me how the Argentinians can concede the right to self determination and maintain a credible claim of sovereignty and title? Tell me from the Argentinian perspective, not yours or what you think mine should be. It's a genuine question.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

It was a hypotethical question, change Ireland to Alaska.

Fair enough - now it only suffers from the problem of only being a parallel situation if you start from Argentina's position. If you're going to claim a lack of bias, all the while arguing from one side's perspective only, then you have a credibility problem.

Which is not what Argentina and most of South America believe. As I say, it doesn't matter what you or I believe, what we believe is not going to fix the problem.

If your entire argument is going to boil down to the assertion that there are no objective facts at all in the matter, then there quickly becomes nothing to discuss.

Objectively, an island doesn't belong to whatever country it happens to be closest to, or Corsica would be Italian.

As I said earlier, looking at the dispute from both angles, I don't see how they can be at the table. It doesn't make any sense and is probably why the UN haven't stipulated it because it puts the Argentinians in an impossible position.
How do you rationalise conceding the very thing you are trying to achieve before you go into negotiations? I can't because it's impossible.

Again, just so I'm clear: you're arguing that the principle of self-determination should be abandoned in this case because it fatally damages the claims of one of the parties?

If I argued that the people of Northern Ireland should be denied the right of self-determination because it might result in Britain losing sovereignty over the province, would you go along with that view?

Other than accepting that there is a population there and stating how they would be treated (both of which they have done) please tell me how the Argentinians can concede the right to self determination and maintain a credible claim of sovereignty and title? Tell me from the Argentinian perspective, not yours or what you think mine should be. It's a genuine question.

I don't feel an overwhelming desire to discard what's generally accepted as a fundamental human right in order to bolster the claims of one side in a dispute. Why do you?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough - now it only suffers from the problem of only being a parallel situation if you start from Argentina's position. If you're going to claim a lack of bias, all the while arguing from one side's perspective only, then you have a credibility problem. If your entire argument is going to boil down to the assertion that there are no objective facts at all in the matter, then there quickly becomes nothing to discuss.

It must be the late hour, but I have no idea what you mean here.

Objectively, an island doesn't belong to whatever country it happens to be closest to, or Corsica would be Italian.

No it doesn't, but in this case the Argentinians believe it does, because of historical events, the 1776 - 1833 period and what they believe was a forced explusion.

Again, just so I'm clear: you're arguing that the principle of self-determination should be abandoned in this case because it fatally damages the claims of one of the parties?

Not abandoned, set aside while negotiations on sovereinty and title take place.

If I argued that the people of Northern Ireland should be denied the right of self-determination because it might result in Britain losing sovereignty over the province, would you go along with that view?

Nationalists where denied self determination because Britian and the Unionists feared their sovereignty, but under the NEGOTIATED GFA they now have that right. The Irish didn't go into the negotiations having given up it's constitutional claim, that came after a deal was done.
N.I. is different in that respect anyway as there are 2 communities whereas there is only one in the Falklands as the refendum result shows.

I don't feel an overwhelming desire to discard what's generally accepted as a fundamental human right in order to bolster the claims of one side in a dispute. Why do you?

Neither do I, but I don't see any other solution but negotiation. And if the Argentinians are right (which they believe they are) aren't their rights being discarded also?

My own opinion and belief again is that the Argentinians won't achieve a British withdrawal but would be able to negotiate an acceptable deal, just like we did here.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're going to claim a lack of bias, all the while arguing from one side's perspective only, then you have a credibility problem.

We've established in your sentence above that you believe there is, at least, 'one side's perspective'. What's your perspective on the FI issue? Which side would you subscribe to?

Or have you been imbued with unique cosmic powers that insulate you from bias?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

It must be the late hour, but I have no idea what you mean here.

Fair enough, I'm in Denver right now so I have six hours' clear thinking advantage on you

You're arguing that (for example) Argentina believes that the islands being closer to their coast means they have a stronger claim. Now, some things come down to conflicting beliefs, and other things are either objectively true or they are not.

So, let's test the theory that sovereignty over an island stems from proximity to a continental landmass. My Corsican example disproves the null hypothesis: there are extant examples of islands that belong to countries more distant than the nearest continental land mass. Therefore, being closer to Argentina than to Britain doesn't make it Argentinian, and the Argentinians believing it does doesn't change that fact. It's all too easy - and convenient - to believe things that just happen to support your argument.

No it doesn't, but in this case the Argentinians believe it does, because of historical events, the 1776 - 1833 period and what they believe was a forced explusion.

There's that belief thing again.

Nationalists where denied self determination because Britian and the Unionists feared their sovereignty, but under the NEGOTIATED GFA they now have that right.

So the right to self-determination is something that can be negotiated for? Does that make it something that can be negotiated away? If it was inconvenient for the British government to continue to allow nationalists to retain that right, would it be OK to "suspend" it until a firm deal had been struck, guaranteeing that Northern Ireland would permanently remain part of the United Kingdom?

Do you think that the nationalist community would feel just a teeny bit hard done by under those circumstances?

And that's leaving aside the implication in your argument that it was OK for nationalists to be denied their right to self-determination - because, after all, it would have been inconvenient for another party in the dispute if they had been granted that right all along.

N.I. is different in that respect anyway as there are 2 communities whereas there is only one in the Falklands as the refendum result shows.

So if there were no unionists in Northern Ireland, but only nationalists, then it would be OK to remove the nationalists' right to self-determination and exclude them from negotiations?

Neither do I, but I don't see any other solution but negotiation. And if the Argentinians are right (which they believe they are) aren't their rights being discarded also?

You seem to be working on the rather strange assumption that believing you have a right to something automatically confers that right on you.

I agree that negotiation will be required, but there's no automatic right to a level playing field in negotiations. If Argentina is disadvantaged in negotiations by the basic human right to self-determination, how does that imply that those human rights should be suspended in order to give Argentina a fighting chance?

My own opinion and belief again is that the Argentinians won't achieve a British withdrawal but would be able to negotiate an acceptable deal, just like we did here.

...as long as we set aside some inconvenient human rights long enough to achieve that deal.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We've established in your sentence above that you believe there is, at least, 'one side's perspective'. What's your perspective on the FI issue? Which side would you subscribe to?

Or have you been imbued with unique cosmic powers that insulate you from bias?

My sympathies are mostly with the people of the Falklands Islands.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

My sympathies are mostly with the people of the Falklands Islands.

The British then - stop avoiding saying what is quite obvious. What you're essentially saying is 'I'm effectively with the overwhelming 99% of the Falkland Islanders' who ignore the below?

In a busy day that kept issues of territorial disputes at the forefront, the Special Committee on Decolonization today adopted a consensus resolution reiterating that the way to end the “special and particular” colonial situation in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) was through the peaceful, negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gacol3225.doc.htm

Deary me. This position of 'mostly' with the FI'ers doesn't sound very referee-like of you.

getzls

old hippy wrote: »

Quoting the butcher who sent young men to their deaths and caused the ruination of entire communities in the North of England? Quoting the worst thing to happen to the UK, who had Pinochet and Saville as friends?

Shame on you,

I think not.

Apart from her stand against the Argies and the IRA i despise Thatcher.

Both evil and both defeated.

K-9

getzls wrote: »

I think not.

Apart from her stand against the Argies and the IRA i despise Thatcher.

Both evil and both defeated.

Let's leave any discussion over the evilness of the IRA there, thank you.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

murphaph wrote: »

Where do you think the Argentinians came from, or do you think Spanish was spoken there 1,000 years ago? :rolleyes:

Las Malivinas are a long way from Argentina and it would be like us claiming Iceland. What's your position on Cyprus btw? Should the Cypriots all piss off back to Greece and leave it to Turkey?

While I agree with your point, the Greeks were actually there first and were later colonized by the Turks. You're getting it the wrong way around.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm in Denver right now so I have six hours' clear thinking advantage on you

You're arguing that (for example) Argentina believes that the islands being closer to their coast means they have a stronger claim. Now, some things come down to conflicting beliefs, and other things are either objectively true or they are not.

If it is 'objective' and immutable, where is the declaration from the UN?
Why are the British not going into 'negotiations' and calling for those negotiations that the UN have told them and the Argentinians to begin? What are they afraid off? What have they to lose? Is the reason that the British have not sought legal arbitration at the International court of justice since the 50's because their weakened position in the political world means that they may not win that case? Again, if it is so easily proved and certain, what are they afraid off?

So, let's test the theory that sovereignty over an island stems from proximity to a continental landmass. My Corsican example disproves the null hypothesis: there are extant examples of islands that belong to countries more distant than the nearest continental land mass. Therefore, being closer to Argentina than to Britain doesn't make it Argentinian, and the Argentinians believing it does doesn't change that fact. It's all too easy - and convenient - to believe things that just happen to support your argument. There's that belief thing again. So the right to self-determination is something that can be negotiated for? Does that make it something that can be negotiated away? If it was inconvenient for the British government to continue to allow nationalists to retain that right, would it be OK to "suspend" it until a firm deal had been struck, guaranteeing that Northern Ireland would permanently remain part of the United Kingdom?

The Argentinians and most of South America DO believe. That is the fact here, no amount of you or me saying they are wrong will change that or the dispute arising from that belief.

The GFA demonstrates quite profoundly what can be achieved through negotiation.

I agree that negotiation will be required, but there's no automatic right to a level playing field in negotiations. If Argentina is disadvantaged in negotiations by the basic human right to self-determination, how does that imply that those human rights should be suspended in order to give Argentina a fighting chance? ...as long as we set aside some inconvenient human rights long enough to achieve that deal.

There is no other way for negotiations to happen, it has to be a level playing field because the dispute is about sovereignty.

My sympathies are mostly with the people of the Falklands Islands.

And I have said earlier that I have tremendous sympathy with the position the islanders find themselves in, they are in that position because of failure, the failure of responsible governance, just the same failure that governments made in our own conflict here, and there is a common denominator in the two disputes... the British and their intransigence in facing up to their colonial heritage which has frequently resulted in bloodshed. Their 'heritage' is one of the reasons that the UN Committee on Decolonisation exists in the first place.

JustinDee

Falkland Islanders spoke via referendum and the usual suspects ignored what they decided upon. What a surprise and not for the first time.
A Cristina Kirchner desperate populist vote-grabber that has gone wrong. The protests against her government will still continue on Argentinian streets.

Busted Flat.

What will Hague think about this ?.

http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/16790.jpg


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Pope+Francis+on+the+Falklands&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ftop-stories%2Fpope-francis-criticised-britain-over-falklands-1-2835826&ei=YrhBUfjvELSQ7Aa9voGYDA&usg=AFQjCNFJomI2flaXzTISdlES9dDNeZ9iIQ


“We come to pray for those who have fallen, sons of the homeland who set out to defend his mother, the homeland, to claim the country that is theirs and they were usurped,”

riffmongous

I would be in favour of the Falklanders right to self determination, if they want to be British then no one should be able to tell them otherwise. The days of WW1 boundary reassignments and the WW2 expulsions should be over, the Falklanders might be a legacy of colonialism but we can't use that against the current people living there. However the rights that go with the island itself are a different matter, I'd be in favour of a solution where both sides share the costs and benefits of the sea region. As much as I dislike the British imperialist attitude, Argentinian imperialism would be equally as bad if not worse due to the times we live in now, if they don't want to negotiate then give them nothing.

I just hope we see all the same people here passionately defending the Palestinian right to self determination the next time the debate comes round, but I doubt it somehow or the other.

old hippy

getzls wrote: »

I think not.

Apart from her stand against the Argies -snip- i despise Thatcher.

Both evil and both defeated.

The Argentinians are evil?

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

What will Hague think about this ?.

http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/16790.jpg


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Pope+Francis+on+the+Falklands&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ftop-stories%2Fpope-francis-criticised-britain-over-falklands-1-2835826&ei=YrhBUfjvELSQ7Aa9voGYDA&usg=AFQjCNFJomI2flaXzTISdlES9dDNeZ9iIQ


“We come to pray for those who have fallen, sons of the homeland who set out to defend his mother, the homeland, to claim the country that is theirs and they were usurped,”

I would hazard a guess and say he couldn't give a flying ****.

jmayo

murphaph wrote: »

Where do you think the Argentinians came from, or do you think Spanish was spoken there 1,000 years ago? :rolleyes:

Las Malivinas are a long way from Argentina and it would be like us claiming Iceland. What's your position on Cyprus btw? Should the Cypriots all piss off back to Greece and leave it to Turkey?

Ehh if you were to take this to it's logical conclusion, then the Greeks have more of a right than the Turks as the Greeks settled the place in 2000 BC or some such.
Then of course one has to factor in the Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Ventians all before the Ottomans (coudl think of them as basically Turks) arrived.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't pay much attention to the result but from reading posts on here I think that is true.

A bit liek the way the Argies view things, ehhh ?

Einhard wrote: »

Obviously I don't understand. AFAIK, there was nobody on the Falklands when the British first set foot there. So whose land are they pillaging exactly? Argentina's? The same Argentina whose population is almost entirely comprised of Spanish planters? You want the British to ignore the rights of the islanders and instead give the islands back to the descendents of planters and colonisers? Seriously? That's just idiotic. Why are you so anti-British that you're willing to look like an idiot? I mean, it's like the British are still getting one over on you.

Ehh a fair chunk of the Argentinian population is Italian descent, some say as much as 50-60% have some Italian roots.

Lots of famous Argentinians are of Italian descent.
Lionel Messi, the pope, Gabriela Sabatini, Gabriel Batistuta, Zanetti, Juan Peron, Galtieri were all of Italian and Spanish descent.
And then we have the Irish including the founder of the Argentine Navy Admiral Brown.
Hell Che Guevara was Irish descent.
So not just Spanish.

stoneill wrote: »

Jasus - everywhere belongs to Spain!

Exactly.
I think the Spanish should demand Argentina, Peru, Chile, etc back.
And the Portugese can go off and demand Brazil.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

And you think most Catholics do ?

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

IMHO that is about the only sensible thing you have said around here.

Busted Flat.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would hazard a guess and say he couldn't give a flying ****.

I must agree with you there, IMO, he would not be mature enough to form a constructive opinion.That is why he is seen as a lightweight in world opinion.

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

If it is 'objective' and immutable, where is the declaration from the UN?
Why are the British not going into 'negotiations' and calling for those negotiations that the UN have told them and the Argentinians to begin? What are they afraid off? What have they to lose? Is the reason that the British have not sought legal arbitration at the International court of justice since the 50's because their weakened position in the political world means that they may not win that case? Again, if it is so easily proved and certain, what are they afraid off?

Let's turn that argument around. If Argentina's claim is strong enough why not got to the ICJ in the 50's or today? They are, after all, claiming to be the injured party in all this. The reason is simple, their only chance of gaining partial or full sovereignty is through negotiation. No court in the 21st century is going to undermine a peoples right to self determination and threaten their way of life due to some spurious interpretations of 18th century treaties.

She will continue to bitch and moan about the Falklands to distract from Argentina's financial woes (she lies about that too).

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I must agree with you there, IMO, he would not be mature enough to form a constructive opinion.That is why he is seen as a lightweight in world opinion.

You really have a thing for Hague, don't you? Truly bizarre.

Busted Flat.

Rascasse wrote: »

Let's turn that argument around. If Argentina's claim is strong enough why not got to the ICJ in the 50's or today? They are, after all, claiming to be the injured party in all this. The reason is simple, their only chance of gaining partial or full sovereignty is through negotiation. No court in the 21st century is going to undermine a peoples right to self determination and threaten their way of life due to some spurious interpretations of 18th century treaties.

She will continue to bitch and moan about the Falklands to distract from Argentina's financial woes (she lies about that too).



You really have a thing for Hague, don't you? Truly bizarre.

Nothing personal, IMO he is not suitable for a senior political post.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The British then - stop avoiding saying what is quite obvious. What you're essentially saying is 'I'm effectively with the overwhelming 99% of the Falkland Islanders' who ignore the below?

[...]

Having reviewed (albeit not in scholarly depth) the history of the islands, Argentina's claim seems to have less locus standi than Britain's. On balance though, the people with most to lose in the whole sorry affair are the people who live there.

If you agree with Happyman42 that their views should be ignored simply because they rather inconveniently favour the side you disagree with, perhaps you can explain why it's OK to set aside their human rights just because they're inconvenient.

Deary me. This position of 'mostly' with the FI'ers doesn't sound very referee-like of you.

Just as well I've never claimed to be a referee then, isn't it?

Happyman42 wrote: »

If it is 'objective' and immutable, where is the declaration from the UN?

Other than the declaration in 2008 that sovereignty disputes do not and cannot outweigh the right to self-determination? You know, the principle that you want to see set aside - a principle that's enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter - because it's inconvenient for one side in a sovereignty dispute?

The Argentinians and most of South America DO believe. That is the fact here, no amount of you or me saying they are wrong will change that or the dispute arising from that belief.

You're continuing to argue that one country's "belief" outweighs what the UN has described as a fundamental human right.

There is no other way for negotiations to happen, it has to be a level playing field because the dispute is about sovereignty.

Then negotiations can't happen, because the UN - the very body you keep invoking in this debate - has declared that the fundamental human right of self-determination cannot be overridden by sovereignty disputes.

And I have said earlier that I have tremendous sympathy with the position the islanders find themselves in, they are in that position because of failure, the failure of responsible governance, just the same failure that governments made in our own conflict here, and there is a common denominator in the two disputes... the British and their intransigence in facing up to their colonial heritage which has frequently resulted in bloodshed. Their 'heritage' is one of the reasons that the UN Committee on Decolonisation exists in the first place.

I'm waiting here for Chuck Stone to swoop in and point out that, while proclaiming neutrality in the dispute, you continue to lay all the blame at the feet of Britain.

And that's what this comes down to, despite your protestations to the contrary. As far as you're concerned, if Britain is involved, they are automatically in the wrong, and they must be prepared to concede something. You accept Argentina's claims at face value; you demand that human rights be suspended in order that Britain be forced into a less advantageous position in negotiations. You duck questions on why Irish nationalists are entitled to self-determination by right, but British Falklanders are not.

You can protest your neutrality to your heart's content, but your agenda has been clear from the start.

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I must agree with you there, IMO, he would not be mature enough to form a constructive opinion.That is why he is seen as a lightweight in world opinion.

Speaking of constructive opinions, you were about to explain what makes the islanders "squatters".

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Having reviewed (albeit not in scholarly depth) the history of the islands, Argentina's claim seems to have less locus standi than Britain's. On balance though, the people with most to lose in the whole sorry affair are the people who live there.

The operative word there being 'seems'... both sides believe in the validity of their claim.

If you agree with Happyman42 that their views should be ignored simply because they rather inconveniently favour the side you disagree with, perhaps you can explain why it's OK to set aside their human rights just because they're inconvenient. Just as well I've never claimed to be a referee then, isn't it?

Other than the declaration in 2008 that sovereignty disputes do not and cannot outweigh the right to self-determination? You know, the principle that you want to see set aside - a principle that's enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter - because it's inconvenient for one side in a sovereignty dispute? You're continuing to argue that one country's "belief" outweighs what the UN has described as a fundamental human right. Then negotiations can't happen, because the UN - the very body you keep invoking in this debate - has declared that the fundamental human right of self-determination cannot be overridden by sovereignty disputes.

And if the above where true then you would be right, but it's not right. What is frustrating this debate is posters lack of knowledge, do your research, look up territorial limitations and the principle of self determination.
The fact is, the UN recognises that there are exceptions to what you state is a fundamental right. Specifically when there is disputed territory.
That is the reason why the resolutions dealing with the Falklands/Malvinas are phrased the way they are. It is crazy that people are pronouncing and denouncing on here and they don't know that.
The right to self determination can be set aside if there are territorial claims to be settled first. The international court set aside the principle in the case of Western Sahara and upheld it in the case of Belize for instance.

I'm waiting here for Chuck Stone to swoop in and point out that, while proclaiming neutrality in the dispute, you continue to lay all the blame at the feet of Britain.

No I don't, I have already clarified that, both are to blame but Britian bears the greatest blame for all the reasons I have laid out in the thread.

And that's what this comes down to, despite your protestations to the contrary. As far as you're concerned, if Britain is involved, they are automatically in the wrong, and they must be prepared to concede something. You accept Argentina's claims at face value; you demand that human rights be suspended in order that Britain be forced into a less advantageous position in negotiations. You duck questions on why Irish nationalists are entitled to self-determination by right, but British Falklanders are not.

How is advocating for 'both claims to be tested without preconditions from either side' putting anybody at a disadvantage? Seriously?

And I don't, and never have, accepted Argentina's 'claim at face value' simply because I don't have access to the material or primary sources, and I don't accept Britians claims either for the same reason, and neither should anybody else. If you want to make that accusation again, find the relevant passage and quote it.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

The fact is, the UN recognises that there are exceptions to what you state is a fundamental right. Specifically when there is disputed territory.

This is, quite simply, no longer true. According to the UN itself:

The omnibus text [...] achieved consensus only after an amendment to its second operative paragraph was adopted...

The amendment [...] struck the qualifying phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” from that operative paragraph...

By the terms of the amended resolution, the Assembly would further reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right.

(Emphasis mine.)

How is advocating for both claims to be tested without preconditions from either side putting anybody at a disadvantage? Seriously?

You've made it clear that you believe the Falkland Islanders' fundamental human right of self-determination should be suspended solely because it disadvantages the Argentinian claim.

mcc1

Game set and match to OscarBravo.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is, quite simply, no longer true. According to the UN itself: (Emphasis mine.)

Source for the document please?
(I think you should let people see for themselves which of the 16 remaining colonised territories that was dealling with and which territories where excluded and why they were excluded)



* mcc1 might be changing the result of the match.;)

You've made it clear that you believe the Falkland Islanders' fundamental human right of self-determination should be suspended solely because it disadvantages the Argentinian claim.

If the Argentinians accept it, they have no claim. Jesus H.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Source for the document please?

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm

(I think you should let people see for themselves which of the 16 remaining colonised territories that was dealling with and which territories where excluded and why they were excluded)

The Falklands aren't specifically mentioned in this document, but before you get too excited, you'll have to explain why you believe the UN considers self-determination a fundamental human right for everyone in the world except the Falkland Islanders.

If the Argentinians accept it, they have no claim. Jesus H.

Then Argentina has no valid claim. If you have to suspend a human right in order to win a property dispute, then you don't have a valid claim on that property.

Lemming

Happyman42 wrote: »

If the Argentinians accept it, they have no claim. Jesus H.

But isn't that what negotiation is for ...

Or does that only apply when it's ABTB?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm The Falklands aren't specifically mentioned in this document, but before you get too excited, you'll have to explain why you believe the UN considers self-determination a fundamental human right for everyone in the world except the Falkland Islanders.

They are excluded from this document because the UN recognises that it is a dispute about sovereignty, self determination does not come into it.

It acknowledged the “special and particular colonial situation”, which differed from other colonial situations owing to the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gacol3196.doc.htm

Then Argentina has no valid claim. If you have to suspend a human right in order to win a property dispute, then you don't have a valid claim on that property.

Yes it does have a claim, read the rest of the document and you will see the UN reiterate again in it's 40th resolution that Argentina and Britian MUST begin negotiations.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

They are excluded from this document because the UN recognises that it is a dispute about sovereignty, self determination does not come into it.



http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gacol3196.doc.htm

.

Im sorry you must have forgot to paste the bit that says that the people of the Falklands aren't entitled to self determination.

Can you post that aswell please?

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

Again show me the piece of UN law that you have apparently found that categorically states the "Falklands Islands" arent entitled to self determination.....

Happyman42

An interesting essay on the complexities of Territorial Limitations to Self Determination for anybody interested in getting to the core of the issues.
Old, in that it's from 1982 but still widely quoted in a lot of online articles on the Falklands.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=ilj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DTerritorial%2BClaims%2Bas%2Ba%2BLimitation%2Bto%2Bthe%2BRight%2Bof%2BSelf-Determina%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCsQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fir.lawnet.fordham.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1073%2526context%253Dilj%26ei%3DOgxCUdOkE-er7AaC9oGoDg%26usg%3DAFQjCNG890shoBd1nOd9FpeYWaxIkSQu-g%26bvm%3Dbv.43287494%2Cd.ZG4#search=%22Territorial%20Claims%20as%20Limitation%20Right%20Self-Determina%22

mcc1

mcc1 wrote: »

Im sorry you must have forgot to paste the bit that says that the people of the Falklands aren't entitled to self determination.

Can you post that aswell please?

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

Again show me the piece of UN law that you have apparently found that categorically states the "Falklands Islands" arent entitled to self determination.....

Im still waiting Happyman.....

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Im still waiting Happyman.....

Where did I say that the UN said 'that the people of the Falklands aren't entitled to self determination'.
They can self determine until the cows come home, it simply isn't relevant to the conflict/dispute resolution. That is why the UN didn't recognise the plebiscite when it has recognised and monitored all plebiscites in other colony's. That is why the President of the Special Committee On Decolonisation said that it is about sovereignty, not self determination, before the referendum http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/04/c24-president-insists-falklands-dispute-is-over-sovereignty-not-self-determination
That is why the Falklands is explictly excluded from the doc OscarBravo posted. The one you are quoting from, it isn't relevant to the Falklands, it is dealing with 11 other territories where there isn't a dispute over title.
The UN in it's resolutions (40 of them) have never said that the population of the Falklands are a third party to the dispute, and that it is the two governments who MUST begin negotiations.

The UN is not undermining the 'right to self determination' and neither am I, it simply isn't relevant here.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where did I say that the UN said 'that the people of the Falklands aren't entitled to self determination'.
They can self determine until the cows come home, it simply isn't relevant to the conflict/dispute resolution. That is why the UN didn't recognise the plebiscite when it has recognised and monitored all plebiscites in other colony's. That is why the President of the Special Committee On Decolonisation said that it is about sovereignty, not self determination, before the referendum http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/04/c24-president-insists-falklands-dispute-is-over-sovereignty-not-self-determination
That is why the Falklands is explictly excluded from the doc OscarBravo posted. The one you are quoting from, it isn't relevant to the Falklands, it is dealing with 11 other territories where there isn't a dispute over title.
The UN in it's resolutions (40 of them) have never said that the population of the Falklands are a third party to the dispute, and that it is the two governments who MUST begin negotiations.

The UN is not undermining the 'right to self determination' and neither am I, it simply isn't relevant here.

General Assembly Resolution 1514 of 1960 declared and I quote:

“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

It also declared; “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Argentina is currently imposing an economic blockade on the Falkland Islands and so is acting against the very principles of Resolution 1514.

If the United Kingdom were to negotiate sovereignty with the Republic of Argentina against the wishes of the Falkland Islands’ people, this would deny them their right to self-determination. In addition, it would be subjugation and domination by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Argentina thus constituting a denial of fundamental human rights, contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

General Assembly Resolution 1514 of 1960 declared and I quote:

“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

It also declared; “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Argentina is currently imposing an economic blockade on the Falkland Islands and so is acting against the very principles of Resolution 1514.

If the United Kingdom were to negotiate sovereignty with the Republic of Argentina against the wishes of the Falkland Islands’ people, this would deny them their right to self-determination. In addition, it would be subjugation and domination by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Argentina thus constituting a denial of fundamental human rights, contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.

Jesus H!
THAT'S IF THE UK ACTUALLY HAVE TITLE, that is what the UN want decided first!!!!!!!!! READ THE UN DOCUMENTS not the Daily Telegraph or Mail.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Jesus H!
THAT'S IF THE UK ACTUALLY HAVE TITLE, that is what the UN want decided first!!!!!!!!! READ THE UN DOCUMENTS not the Daily Telegraph or Mail.

Calm down your getting a bit flustered now. As I said there can be no talks unless the Falkland Islands decide otherwise. There can be 100 more calls for negotiations, wont make a bit of difference.

Accept it and move on. Maybe if Argentina stopped bullying then the Falkland Islanders will allow talks to take place.

The UK are purely abiding by UN Law.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Calm down your getting a bit flustered now. As I said there can be no talks unless the Falkland Islands decide otherwise. There can be 100 more calls for negotiations, wont make a bit of difference.

Accept it and move on. Maybe if Argentina stopped bullying then the Falkland Islanders will allow talks to take place.

The UK are purely abiding by UN Law.

Thank you for finally accepting that it is British obstinacy in the face of UN resolutions that is in the way of negotiations, which was my point at the start. The irrelevant right to self determination stipulation.

BlaasForRafa

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thank you for finally accepting that it is British obstinacy in the face of UN resolutions that is in the way of negotiations, which was my point at the start. The irrelevant right to self determination stipulation.

That isn't what he said AT ALL. Every single argument you've put up in this thread has been crushed so many times that its getting quite unreal but still your ingrained anti-Britishness won't allow you to see reality.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thank you for finally accepting that it is British obstinacy in the face of UN resolutions that is in the way of negotiations, which was my point at the start. The irrelevant right to self determination stipulation.

Ive said multiple times already that their can be no talks unless the Argentines accept the Falklanders right to self determination..

Until Argentina accept it their can be no talks..... Argentina are the stumbling block, not the UK.

And now Self determination is irrelevant?? ookkkayyy So you disagree with UN/International law?

Happyman42

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That isn't what he said AT ALL. Every single argument you've put up in this thread has been crushed so many times that its getting quite unreal but still your ingrained anti-Britishness won't allow you to see reality.

Yes he/she did say it 'There can be 100 more calls for negotiations, wont make a bit of difference.' Which to me means that the British can ignore all resolutions from the UN.
He/she is now busy misquoting me again by saying I said 'the right to self determination is irelevant' everywhere. Which is not what I said at all.
It is irrelevant in this conflict until the 'territorial integrity' is sorted out.

Why if it was relevant did the UN not recognise the referendum? And why will they not recognise the result?

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes he/she did say it 'There can be 100 more calls for negotiations, wont make a bit of difference.' Which to means that the British can ignore all resolutions from the UN.
He/she is now busy misquoting me again by saying I said 'the right to self determination is irelevant' everywhere. Which is not what I said at all.
It is irrelevant in this conflict until the 'territorial integrity' is sorted out.

Why if it was relevant did the UN not recognise the referendum? And why will they not recognized the result?

Of course the UK can ignore resolutions, they already have..... Not because they want to but because unless Argentina accept the Falklanders rights to self determination which they reject, then there can be no talks........ How can you enter negotiations with a country that rejects UN/International Law.....

Argentina by rejecting UN Law are the stumbling block in any talks.

Its not irrelevant to this "conflict". Its only irrelevant to the Argentines because it makes the UK's case weaker and theirs stronger...

Il post it again as its clearly hasnt sunk in with you -

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

As ive said, if Argentina were to accept the law then theres no doubt talks would be held..

getzls

old hippy wrote: »

The Argentinians are evil?

The regime that were in power on and around the Falklands invasion, yes they were.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Of course the UK can ignore resolutions, they already have..... Not because they want to but because unless Argentina accept the Falklanders rights to self determination which they reject, then there can be no talks........ How can you enter negotiations with a country that rejects UN/International Law.....

Argentina by rejecting UN Law are the stumbling block in any talks.

Its not irrelevant to this "conflict". Its only irrelevant to the Argentines because it makes the UK's case weaker and theirs stronger...

Il post it again as its clearly hasnt sunk in with you -

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

mmc1, will you look at the dates on the 2 documents, one is from 2008 and the one I posted is from 2009. Now, if self determination was relevant, don't you think it would be mentioned? Don't you think that a resolution that is carefully and sensitively constructed with every word assessed and measured would mention that the islanders should be present at the negotiations?
Argentina's activity at other meetings of the Decolonisation Committee(one to do with 16 terrorities, NOT including the Falklands/Malvinas) is being spun by vested interests and you are swallowing it, hook line and sinker.
If you disagree please tell me why the Falklands/Malvinas is not on the list, there has to be a reason.
The British press is awash with the same stuff about how this referendum is meaningless, except the the likes of the Telegraph or the Mail and redtops. The same press is also critical of the British government refusal to enter negotiations.
It is absolutely amazing how the hate for Irish republicanism is allowing some Irish people to swallow what is essentially a stalling tactic by the British to avoid negotiations to resolve this dispute. Something that even it's own press realises.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

mmc1, will you look at the dates on the 2 documents, one is from 2008 and the one I posted is from 2009. Now, if self determination was relevant, don't you think it would be mentioned? Don't you think that a resolution that is carefully and sensitively constructed with every word assessed and measured would mention that the islanders should be present at the negotiations?
Argentina's activity at other meetings of the Decolonisation Committee(one to do with 16 terrorities, NOT including the Falklands/Malvinas) is being spun by vested interests and you are swallowing it, hook line and sinker.
If you disagree please tell me why the Falklands/Malvinas is not on the list, there has to be a reason.
The British press is awash with the same stuff about how this referendum is meaningless, except the the likes of the Telegraph or the Mail and redtops. The same press is also critical of the British government refusal to enter negotiations.
It is absolutely amazing how the hate for Irish republicanism is allowing some Irish people to swallow what is essentially a stalling tactic by the British to avoid negotiations to resolve this dispute. Something that even it's own press realises.

I can spin that the other way round and say if self determination wasnt relevant wouldn't it be within the so called documents you mention?

If it isn't relevant then why has Argentina tryed but failed to change it?


You either accept International law or you don't.


Tell me Happyman do you personally reject peoples rights to self determination? Yes or No?

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

I can spin that the other way round and say if self determination wasnt relevant wouldn't it be within the so called documents you mention?

Why would it?
The President of the Committee said it isn't relevant, that it is about sovereignty, are you reading any of the links?
The UN didn't recognise the referendum and won't recognise the result, what more do you want proved here?

You either agree with International law or you don't.

Guess who makes International Law...the UN. 40 resolutions ignored.

Tell me Happyman do you personally reject peoples rights to self determination? Yes or No?

No, I absolutely don't. It is paramount but only when you have the right to self determine. For instance, can the 250,000 British people or the substantial Irish community living in Argentina decide that they want to determine their own futures, no they can't because they don't have sovereignty, that is exactly why the referendum in the Falklands is irrelevant, sovereignty is not decided.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

They are excluded from this document because the UN recognises that it is a dispute about sovereignty, self determination does not come into it.

So you're sticking to your guns: self-determination is not a fundamental human right, but is a gift to be granted at the whim of either party to a territorial dispute?

Yes it does have a claim, read the rest of the document and you will see the UN reiterate again in it's 40th resolution that Argentina and Britian MUST begin negotiations.

It doesn't state that the islanders' human rights MUST be ignored as a precondition to those negotiations.

In fact, resolution 1514 states:

All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Resolution 2065:

Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

(Emphasis mine.)

You talk about Britain making it about who has the bigger gun - but it was Argentina who started a war, in direct contravention of the UN resolutions that you only seem to accuse Britain of ignoring. You talk about self-determination being something that can be excluded from consideration if it's too inconvenient for one of the parties; ignoring that it's considered a fundamental human right as enumerated in Article 1 of the UN charter.

From the document you linked:

Petitioner Richard Stevens, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said in that regard that it would be unfair to apply sovereignty rights to the Falklands case alone. “Imagine every country complying with these demands with every international border reverting back to how it was in 1833. Would America for example, return part of California to Mexico, or Russia demand Alaska?” That view of territorial integrity would also lead to unbelievable global chaos.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why would it?
The President of the Committee said it isn't relevant, that it is about sovereignty, are you reading any of the links?
The UN didn't recognise the referendum and won't recognise the result, what more do you want proved here?



Guess who makes International Law...the UN. 40 resolutions ignored.



No, I absolutely don't. It is paramount but only when you have the right to self determine. For instance, can the 250,000 British people or the substantial Irish community living in Argentina decide that they want to determine their own futures, no they can't because they don't have sovereignty, that is exactly why the referendum in the Falklands is irrelevant, sovereignty is not decided.

Again we're going round in circles again. Can you post the bit that categorically states the Falkland Islanders self determination rights do no matter?


UN makes the law, Argentina refuses to accept the law and instead tryed to change it and failed. And by refusing to accept the law on self determination prevent themselves from having any talks with the UK regarding the Falklands.

You say self determination doesn't matter in this case ?!?! ONCE AGAIN and I quote -

Within both United Nations General Assembly resolutions and international law, it is explicit that the right of self-determination applies to ALL peoples. It does not say SOME peoples, or even ALL peoples except those involved in a sovereignty dispute, as Argentina would like you to think.

IT DOES matter in this case so stop suggesting otherwise. Once Argentina accept it then things will advance. Simple.

And with that I'm off to bed. I'll be back this later:-)

murphaph

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?
...
Imagine the IRA accepting that the British had a right to be in N.I. before entering talks on a deal.

Huh? Never mind the IRA, the Republic of Ireland changed its constitution to remove any territorial claim to pave the way to self determination for the people of Northern Ireland. Argentina has done the exact opposite. The UK never ceded sovereignty over NI before, during or after the talks that led to the Agreement.

Your position on all of this makes absolutely no sense.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're sticking to your guns: self-determination is not a fundamental human right, but is a gift to be granted at the whim of either party to a territorial dispute? It doesn't state that the islanders' human rights MUST be ignored as a precondition to those negotiations.

I never said it is not a fundamental right, it is not relevant in this dispute as far as the UN is concerned. Why would it state that it has to be ignored?
Why are you looking for the UN to say that when you ignore what they are actually saying, again and again and again.
The TWO governments must sit down and negotiate the claims.
It does NOT say the TWO governments AND The Islanders must sit down and negotiate.
And it says that for a reason, BECAUSE the conflicct is about 'SOVEREIGNTY'
It's basic and very simple English.

In fact, resolution 1514 states: Resolution 2065: (Emphasis mine.)

You talk about Britain making it about who has the bigger gun - but it was Argentina who started a war, in direct contravention of the UN resolutions that you only seem to accuse Britain of ignoring. You talk about self-determination being something that can be excluded from consideration if it's too inconvenient for one of the parties; ignoring that it's considered a fundamental human right as enumerated in Article 1 of the UN charter.

From the document you linked:

Nobody is ignoring it, rescinding it, or excluding it, it SIMPLY IS NOT AN ISSUE until the sovereignty dispute is settled.
Maybe you can tell us why,
A. The UN has not recognised the Referendum?
B. Why it will not recognise the Result?
C. Why it doesn't recognise The Falklands as an independent state, and 100,000 dolla's is yours if you can find the territory referred to as anything other than The Falklands/Malvinas in official Un documents.

Answer those questions first please, mmc1 just ignores them.

And I did not and never have taken Argentina's side in the claim to sovereignty. Again, if you disagree, quote where I said that.

And I also add, this is not just my opinion, Britian's quality Press also agree as well as many commentators, some of whom I have linked to.


mcc1: I don't have time today to contribute much, so those questions A B C are for you as well, by way of answering your post.

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Huh? Never mind the IRA, the Republic of Ireland changed its constitution to remove any territorial claim to pave the way to self determination for the people of Northern Ireland. Argentina has done the exact opposite. The UK never ceded sovereignty over NI before, during or after the talks that led to the Agreement.

Your position on all of this makes absolutely no sense.

As I said to you before, WE removed the constitutional clause AFTER the negotiations, not before. The British repealed The Government of Ireland Act 1920 AFTER negotiations.
The British and Irish governments also accepted and enshrined the right of N.I. people 'to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both" (as well as their right to hold either or both British and Irish citizenship) was recognised'. Which was crucial from our (the Irish) point of view.

Which is what will be available to the Falkland island people only AFTER an agreement on sovereignty is reached. Then they can take their place at the UN as a sovereign 'people' as defined by the Charter and be removed from the 16 colonial territories un the Decolonisation Committee. Despite repeated attempts by the British to have them removed from that list, the UN hasn't complied, until the 2 governments sit down and negotiate the claims to sovereignty.

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

It does NOT say the TWO governments AND The Islanders must sit down and negotiate.
And it says that for a reason, BECAUSE the conflicct is about 'SOVEREIGNTY'

Back in the day Ireland and the UK had a straightforward conflict about the sovereignty of NI. Should the 2 governments have sat down with each other and hammered out a deal without the inhabitants of the place?