Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today
Comments
-
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?
No, and they didn't, we where consulted after the deal, had we voted NOT to change the constitution there would have been no deal.In the Republic of Ireland, voters were asked whether they would allow the state to sign the agreement and allow necessary constitutional changes to facilitate it.
The deal was done between the 2 governments before we got our say. The Irish government looked after OUR interests at the negotiations.
Exactly what the UN say must happen in relation to the Falklands/Malvinas.0 -
-
-
Why you bringing up the referendum? Argentina deny the Islanders their right to self determination therefore it was never gonna solve anything... Everyone knew that to begin with. The referendum was only held do give the Islanders a voice and show the world what they think.
Once again and I'll ask for the 4th time, you have ignored everytime........, SHOW me the piece of law that STATES the Falklands aren't entitled to self determination.
Its all I ask, you maintain that the Falklands are a special case, that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to it though.
Do you accept you have no proof that states the Islanders DONT have a right to self determination??0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »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?
It would need to state that it [human rights] is ignored given that the UN charter states human rights are fundamental and without precedent. The UN charter has no footnotes concerning exclusion under any conditions. So either the UN would have to clearly state irrelevance, or draft documents under the knowing implication that saying nothing to counter the earlier stated view on human rights stands.
Did the UN state an exemption or not? Yes or no?Nobody is ignoring it, rescinding it, or excluding it, it SIMPLY IS NOT AN ISSUE until the sovereignty dispute is settled.
What you have just said is that the matter of human rights are to be suspended until the issue of sovereignty is addressed. So yes, in plain English, you are proposing that it is to be ignored in the interim.
The UN - whom you have oft cited - have clearly stated that is not the case where human rights are concerned. You have been corrected on this repeatedly, and you keep trying to repeat it enough in the hopes that your mis-interpretation sticks.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
<snip>
Answer those questions first please, mmc1 just ignores them.
Sure. Your arguments are all strawmen.
Central to the above is that the Falkland Islands has not sought to cede from its status as a British Overseas Protectorate. It has not brought any motion to the UN to seek the recognition that you are bleeting on about in most dishonest fashion.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.
Of course you didn't.0 -
Why you bringing up the referendum? Argentina deny the Islanders their right to self determination therefore it was never gonna solve anything... Everyone knew that to begin with.
Once again and I'll ask for the 4th time, you have ignored everytime........, SHOW me the piece of law that STATES the Falklands aren't entitled to self determination.
Its all I ask, you maintain that the Falklands are a special case, that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to it though.
Do you accept you have no proof that states the Islanders DONT have a right to self determination??
There is no proof, just read the documents!
The islanders don't have a 'right' to self determine that the UN accepts.
There is no such thing as 'the Falklands' at the UN, therefore there isn't a 'people' under the terms of the Charter.
There is however a 'territory'/'colony' defined as The Falklands/Malvinas.0 -
Read the 2 documents, one dealing with 11 colonies specifically and named.It would need to state that it [human rights] is ignored given that the UN charter states human rights are fundamental and without precedent. The UN charter has no footnotes concerning exclusion under any conditions. So either the UN would have to clearly state irrelevance, or draft documents under the knowing implication that saying nothing to counter the earlier stated view on human rights stands.
Did the UN state an exemption or not? Yes or no?
The other from 2009 dealing specifically with the Falklands/Malvinas STATING thatIt 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. The text also specified that the only way to put an end to the question was through a negotiated settlement of the dispute between the Governments of the two countries.
This special and particular situation is dealt with in depth by an expert on the conflict here:
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
I am not the only person in the world to see this, read the British Press and they think and say exactly the same thing.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Read the 2 documents, one dealing with 11 colonies specifically and named.
The other from 2009 dealing specifically with the Falklands/Malvinas STATING that
This special and particular situation is dealt with in depth by an expert on the conflict here:
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
I am not the only person in the world to see this, read the British Press and they think and say exactly the same thing.
That last one does not recognise the changes in the Falkland's constitution. The islanders are self governing in every aspect except foreign policy and defence.
That is why Britain cant negotiate on their sovereignty.
Argentina know this which is why they refuse to talk to the islanders direct.
Argentina dont want to negotiate, they just want to spout empty rhetoric.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »There is no proof, just read the documents!
The islanders don't have a 'right' to self determine that the UN accepts.
There is no such thing as 'the Falklands' at the UN, therefore there isn't a 'people' under the terms of the Charter.
There is however a 'territory'/'colony' defined as The Falklands/Malvinas.
Again a right to self determination applies to ALL people not some. The UN does not accept the Falklanders have no right to self determination.... ONCE AGAIN THAT IS LIES.
Again I ask you show me the piece of UN Law that states the Falklands Islanders arent entitled to self determination. ***Bearing in mind it would be illegal***
All you keep coming back with is the same old UN recognises the "special and particular situation” blablabla, that in no way says they have no rights to self determination.
Do you accept no Law exists that states that the Falkalnds arent entitled to self determination?????? YES OR NO
Or are you gonna continue posting lies?0 -
There is no LAW covering that, all 'peoples' as defined by the Charter have the right. THe population of the islands is NOT defined as a 'people' yet until negotiations on sovereignty and title are concluded. THAT IS WHY IT IS A SPECIAL CASE.Again a right to self determination applies to ALL people not some. The UN does not accept the Falklanders have no right to self determination.... ONCE AGAIN THAT IS LIES.
Again I ask you show me the piece of UN Law that states the Falklands Islanders arent entitled to self determination. ***Bearing in mind it would be illegal***
All you keep coming back with is the same old UN recognises the "special and particular situation” blablabla, that in no way says they have no rights to self determination.
Do you accept no Law exists that states that the Falkalnds arent entitled to self determination?????? YES OR NO
Or are you gonna continue posting lies?
From the same document I posted,
The words of JANET ROBERTSON, Member of the Legislative Assembly, of the Falklands, not mine.It had never been clearly established why the Special Committee considered that, of all remaining denominated colonial peoples in the world, only Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders were denied that right, she said. When a 2008 meeting of the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) had approved an amendment to remove a recent insertion into a draft resolution –- thus qualifying the principle of self-determination with the words “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” –-delegates speaking in favour of the motion had expressed their deepest concern at the attempt to qualify one of the principles of the United Nations Charter. In any case, the principle of self-determination did not apply to the Falkland Islands.
You are running out of wriggle room here mmc1.
The reason there is no mention of self determination is because it does not apply.
The UN sees it as a 'population' on the Falklands/Malvinas not a 'people' as enshrined in the UN charter. Here is a document spelling out how the island is to be named and the addendum that must be added to all documents. You may think that is wrong, but those are the FACTS.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/CS/SER.A/42
@ FRATTONFRED
Wrong too, from the same documentA new Constitution was approved in 2008 and entered into force on 1 January 2009, the working paper says. According to the administering Power, the new document, as compared with the 1985 Constitution, enhances local democracy, establishes a greater degree of internal self-government and provides greater transparency and accountability, such as through the creation of a Public Accounts Committee and a Complaints Commissioner. Moreover, it is in line with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. By its terms, the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly, may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory, but full power to make laws is reserved for the British Crown.
The British application to have the Islands removed from the delcolonisation list was DENIED because of the part bolded above. I don't have time to look for the specific document but I will later.
*Could I ask a Mod or somebody neutral to confirm that the above is the case, this is just getting tedious.0 -
Advertisement
-
Happyman42 wrote: »There is no LAW covering that, all 'peoples' as defined by the Charter have the right. THe population of the islands is NOT defined as a 'people' yet until negotiations on sovereignty and title are concluded. THAT IS WHY IT IS A SPECIAL CASE.
From the same document I posted,
The words of JANET ROBERTSON, Member of the Legislative Assembly, of the Falklands, not mine.
You are running out of wriggle room here mmc1.
The reason there is no mention of self determination is because it does not apply.
The UN sees it as a 'population' on the Falklands/Malvinas not a 'people' as enshrined in the UN charter. Here is a document spelling out how the island is to be named and the addendum that must be added to all documents. You may think that is wrong, but those are the FACTS.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/CS/SER.A/42
@ FRATTONFRED
Wrong too, from the same document
The British application to have the Islands removed from the delcolonisation list was DENIED because of the part bolded above. I don't have time to look for the specific document but I will later.
*Could I ask a Mod or somebody neutral to confirm that the above is the case, this is just getting tedious.
Maybe Australia and Canada should be added to that list then.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »
From the same document I posted,
The words of JANET ROBERTSON, Member of the Legislative Assembly, of the Falklands, not mine.
TUT TUT Happyman, Janet Robertson was talking about a draft resolution that was made in 2008 which wording may have been "approved by a majority" but was later REJECTED... I repeat rejected. She was basically just asking why the Special committee had agreed to change the wording regarding the Falklands. BUT I REPEAT IT WAS REJECTED, Hence why you will find no UN Law that ommits the Falklands from the right of self determination
I also find it funny how you instead of copying and pasting all Janet Robertsons quotes you copied and paste only a part of what she said and made sure you ended it with the quote with """In any case, the principle of self-determination did not apply to the Falkland Islands."""
You failed to post the rest of what she said. She basically said it didn't apply/wasnt needed regarding the Falklands because as far as she was concerned there was no need for as because as far as shes concerned Argentina have no legal right.
Il once again post this as it still hasn't 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 (the resolution you keep refering to) 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
THE FALKLANDS ISLANDERS HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.
The United Nation’s position remains ambiguous. A supporter of both decolonization, and the human right of ‘self-determination,’ the UN has not issued any Resolution on the issue of the Falklands since 1988. The UN condemned Argentina’s invasion in 1982, and has appeared reluctant to deal with the issue following the renewal of diplomatic relations in 1989. One sub-sub-Committee of the UN’s General Assembly, the Decolonization Committee, supports Argentina but is seen as outdated and heavily biased against the UK.
Il repeat this again - also The UN has not issued any ResolutionS on the issue of the Falklands since 1988. Any "resolutions" you refer to are DRAFTS (you understand what draft means?) resolutions.
Also please stop posting info from these Sub Decolonization Committees aswell. They arent taken seriously.......0 -
TUT TUT Happyman, Janet Robertson was talking about a draft resolution that was made in 2008 which wording may have been "approved by a majority" but was later REJECTED... I repeat rejected. She was basically just asking why the Special committee had agreed to change the wording regarding the Falklands. BUT I REPEAT IT WAS REJECTED, Hence why you will find no UN Law that ommits the Falklands from the right of self determination
I also find it funny how you instead of copying and pasting all Janet Robertsons quotes you copied and paste only a part of what she said and made sure you ended it with the quote with """In any case, the principle of self-determination did not apply to the Falkland Islands."""
You failed to post the rest of what she said. She basically said it didn't apply/wasnt needed regarding the Falklands because as far as she was concerned there was no need for as because as far as shes concerned Argentina have no legal right.
Il once again post this as it still hasn't 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
THE FALKLANDS ISLANDERS HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.
The United Nation’s position remains ambiguous. A supporter of both decolonization, and the human right of ‘self-determination,’ the UN has not issued any Resolution on the issue of the Falklands since 1988. The UN condemned Argentina’s invasion in 1982, and has appeared reluctant to deal with the issue following the renewal of diplomatic relations in 1989. One sub-sub-Committee of the UN’s General Assembly, the Decolonization Committee, supports Argentina but is seen as outdated and heavily biased against the UK.
So please stop posting info from these Sub Decolonization Committees aswell. They arent taken seriously..
What was rejected?
Can we have a source for the red bit, please? Although, I could nearly guess giving that it says, 'the decolonisation Committee supports Argentina'the UN has not issued any Resolution on the issue of the Falklands since 1988.
Selective quoting again, The UN General Assembly has not issued a resolution since 1988 because it has sub committeed the issue to the Decolonisation Committee which issued it's last resolution in June 2012, one of 40 similar resolutions.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »What was rejected?
Can we have a source for the red bit, please? Although, I could nearly guess giving that it says, 'the decolonisation Committee supports Argentina'
Selective quoting again, The UN General Assembly has not issued a resolution since 1988 because it has sub committeed the issue to the Decolonisation Committee which issued it's last resolution in June 2012, one of 40 similar resolutions.
The DRAFT resolution that wanted to change of Self Determination issues regarding the Falklandsin 2008 that gained a (marjority) approval was REJECTED afterwards.
You understand what Draft means??
And like ive said the sub Decolonization Committee has been classed as outdated long ago...... It just that is just a sub committee that monitors and makes recommendations.... Dosent help that its chairman is Ecuadorean and firm ally of Argentina either.... There's been many complaints about his bias towards Argentina on the matter.......
You can refer to DRAFT resolutions all you want, Il stick to the REAL resolutions and International law that stand by the Falklanders right to self determination.
You have no argument that overrides that right.0 -
Where's that rejection document? Source please.The DRAFT resolution that wanted to change of Self Determination issues regarding the Falklandsin 2008 that gained a (marjority) approval was REJECTED afterwards.
Yes.You understand what Draft means??
Are you saying that they didn't issue a resolution in June 2012??
By whom?And like ive said the sub Decolonization Committee has been classed as outdated long ago......
Ah more Brit haters. :rolleyes:It just that is just a sub committee that monitors and makes recommendations.... Dosent help that its chairman is Ecuadorean and firm ally of Argentina either.... There's been many complaints about his bias towards Argentina on the matter.......
So the President has been biased since they started issuing resolutions in 1965???You can refer to DRAFT resolutions all you want, Il stick to the REAL resolutions and International law that stand by the Falklanders right to self determination.
You have no argument that overrides that right.
Here's the British Parliment itself accepting that the exception exists in the Falkland case (it doesn't agree with it, but it accepts that the UN General Assembly and The Decolonisation Committee omits the principle of self determination in relation to the Falklands dispute (I suppose you will tell us that they just forgot to include it, despite being reminded of it at every meeting by several delegates)
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2Fsn05602.pdf&ei=EVhDUf2ECtPX7Aaj54CoAg&usg=AFQjCNFIpW5oPFKjCvohYY3pp-_zgCWXZg&sig2=WUZirRVaLlK1qEgRTFDIPw&cad=rjaAs the UN General Assembly and the Decolonization Committee omit direct reference to the principle of self-determination in resolutions on the question of the Falklands/Malvinas
By the way, anybody reading mmc!'s red quotes in his previous posts should know that they have been plucked straight from the Falklands News here;
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/
You still haven't had a go at explaining why the UN has not recognised the Referendum and why it has chosen to issue a directive on calling it Falklands/Malvinas.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Where's that rejection document? Source please.
Im no trawling though the internet for some rejection letter, God knows how many draft UN resolutions there are. Everywhere mentions it though..... THE FACT YOU CAN ONLY COME BACK WITH A DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING IT SAYS IT ALL. Unless you can provide a link to the non draft version,that proves it came into force? Dont think you will somehow, considering there has been none since 1988....
Again the sub Decolonization Committee is not of any relevance, they can recommend whatever they like, that's all they can do. Your whole argument has been based on LIES that the Falklands Islands arent entitled to self determination.......
You have yet to prove that, because LAW state they do have the rights.Happyman42 wrote: »Where's that rejection document? Source please.
Here's the British Parliment itself accepting that the exception exists in the Falkland case (it doesn't agree with it, but it accepts that the UN General Assembly and The Decolonisation Committee omits the principle of self determination in relation to the Falklands dispute (I suppose you will tell us that they just forgot to include it, despite being reminded of it at every meeting by several delegates)
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2Fsn05602.pdf&ei=EVhDUf2ECtPX7Aaj54CoAg&usg=AFQjCNFIpW5oPFKjCvohYY3pp-_zgCWXZg&sig2=WUZirRVaLlK1qEgRTFDIPw&cad=rja
By the way, anybody reading mmc!'s red quotes in his previous posts should know that they have been plucked straight from the Falklands News here;
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/
You still haven't had a go at explaining why the UN has not recognised the Referendum and why it has chosen to issue a directive on calling it Falklands/Malvinas.
That document from the house of commons just tells us what we already know and have been talking about...........
And yes I am getting quotes and info from other sites, shock horror!!!! Im sure your getting all your bad info from the top of you heads eh?! It may surprise you im not a bloody member of the UN or a historian. Its called research. Im at least reading properly and not using draft resolutions as law lol.......
As for the referendum, I believe there are plans to hand the results to them to the UN, have the falklands demanded an answer from the UN and have they replyed? THE UN DOSENT NEED TO SAY ANYTHING AS UNDER THEIR LAWS THE FALKLANDS ARE FREE TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FUTURE.
I dont see what your trying to get at about the directive regarding the Falklands/Malvinas. I suppose they just see it as staying on the fence and preventing more rifts... Give the UN an email if you really want to know....
In 2012 there remained 16 territories in the non-self-governing territories: WHICH INCLUDES THE FALKLANDS..
In 1960 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), promulgating the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", which declared that all remaining non-self-governing territories and trust territories were entitled to self-determination and independence. The following year, the General Assembly established the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (sometimes referred to as the Special Committee on Decolonization, or the "Committee of 24" because for much of its history the committee was composed of 24 members), which reviews the situation in non-self-governing territories each year and reports to the General Assembly.
You can try and change the subject all you want, regarding whether it be called the Falklands or Malvinas. FACT is you have no argument that overrides the Falklands right to self determination NOT ONE.. And UN LAW is on their side
And until Argentina finally accept this there can and will be no talks.0 -
-0
-
Im no trawling though the internet for some rejection letter, God knows how many draft UN resolutions there are. Everywhere mentions it though..... THE FACT YOU CAN ONLY COME BACK WITH A DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING IT SAYS IT ALL.
So, no rejection of the motion that wasn't even a motion, just a statement accepting what I am saying...there is no principle of self determination relevant to the Falklands/Malvinas.
Here is the actual resolution, take care to read at the top ref to all previous Resolutions and when they where adopted.Unless you can provide a link to the non draft version,that proves it came into force? Dont think you will somehow, considering there has been none since 1988....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58499249/United-Nations-Resolution-N1137482Again the sub Decolonization Committee is not of any relevance, they can recommend whatever they like, that's all they can do. Your whole argument has been based on LIES that the Falklands Islands arent entitled to self determination.......
They are entitled to self determination if they are a designated 'people' under the UN Charter...they are not, they are the population of a colony (one of the last 'special colonies) and that right of determination is only applicable to 11 of the 16 on the UN list.
I have presented document after document that confirms this, you have presented extracts from the Falklands News which I have shown are fast and loose with the actual factsThat document from the house of commons just tells us what we already know and have been talking about...........
No, it is quite significant in that it too accepts that the principle of self determination is not in there and therefore does not apply.
Are you rubbishing the British Parlimentary view now?
Wrong again, I am quoting from UN documents and Parlimentary documents, and providing SOURCESAnd yes I am getting quotes and info from other sites, shock horror!!!! Im sure your getting all your bad info from the top of you heads eh?! It may surprise you im not a bloody member of the UN or a historian. Its called research. Im at least reading properly and not using draft resolutions as law lol.......
Copy and paste the names of the resolution docs in that link into google above and you will get the text of all of them.As for the referendum, I believe there are plans to hand the results to them to the UN, have the falklands demanded an answer from the UN and have they replyed? THE UN DOSENT NEED TO SAY ANYTHING AS UNDER THEIR LAWS THE FALKLANDS ARE FREE TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FUTURE.
The UN has monitored and recognised ALL other elections and referendums in the other colonies, it didn't in The Falklands. Sooner or later mmc1 you have to start asking yourself, why that is? And why they don't recognise a place called The FalklandsI dont see what your trying to get at about the directive regarding the Falklands/Malvinas. I suppose they just see it as staying on the fence and preventing more rifts... Give the UN an email if you really want to know....
I know why. It's really very simple.In 2012 there remained 16 territories in the non-self-governing territories: WHICH INCLUDES THE FALKLANDS..
In 1960 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), promulgating the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", which declared that all remaining non-self-governing territories and trust territories were entitled to self-determination and independence. The following year, the General Assembly established the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (sometimes referred to as the Special Committee on Decolonization, or the "Committee of 24" because for much of its history the committee was composed of 24 members), which reviews the situation in non-self-governing territories each year and reports to the General Assembly.
You can try and change the subject all you want, regarding whether it be called the Falklands or Malvinas. FACT is you have no argument that overrides the Falklands right to self determination NOT ONE.. And UN LAW is on their side
And until Argentina finally accept this there can and will be no talks.
We have been over this before, The Falklands/Malvinas is a 'special and particular situation' and different from other colonies.
An actual document from the UN trumps Wikipedia anyday of the week.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gacol3196.doc.htm
And a British Parliment document trumps Wiki too.0 -
I SUGGEST YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD READ OFF THIS -
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/UN/UN-LIST.HTM
In particular -
United Nations Documents on the Falklands-Malvinas Conflict
The Meetings of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation, 14-15 June 2012
The Special Committee was established by Resolution 1654 (XVI) (see below). It meets every year to consider each of the territories regarded by the UN as “Non-Self-Governing Territories” and produces an annual report, which is submitted to the UN General Assembly. This report includes resolutions adopted by the Committee and draft resolutions that it recommends for the Assembly to adopt. Resolutions from committees may be rejected or amended by the Assembly. Consequently, unless and until they are endorsed by the Assembly, no resolutions from the Special Committee can be regarded as UN policy. The Assembly has not considered the “Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question” nor adopted any resolution on the question since 1988.
Resolution 1541 (XV), 15 December 1960
The day after the Declaration on Decolonisation was adopted, the General Assembly adopted a further resolution, in order to define which territories were regarded by the UN as being covered by the Declaration. The specification of the Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73(e) of the Charter, includes the three options of (a) full independence, (b) “free association“ with another state or (c) integration with another state. If one of these options has been endorsed in a general election or in a referendum by the population of a colonial territory, they will be recognised as having achieved self-determination.
Resolution 2065 (XX), 16 December 1965
Adopted at Plenary Meeting 1398, by a vote of 94 in favour, to 0 against, with 14 abstentions.
This is the first resolution of the General Assembly covering the “Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” and it was framed within the context of the drive for decolonisation. Resolutions from 1982 onwards have treated the dispute both as a question of decolonisation and as a question of avoiding any repetition of armed conflict. The Argentine government maintains Resolution 2065 represents an endorsement by the UN General Assembly of their sovereignty claim. While there was support for their position during the debates in the Special Committee on Decolonisation and in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, there is nothing in the text of the Resolution that directly sustains such a conclusion. There is no explicit reference to operative paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (see above) nor to maintaining “territorial integrity” of a divided country. Resolution 2065 merely invited the Argentine and British governments to proceed with negotiations “with a view to finding a peaceful solution”. The strongest point made by the Argentine government is that reference to the “interests of the population” implies “leaving aside the principle of self-determination” (see A/66/696, p. 7), but in the light of diplomatic practices of constructive ambiguity this is insufficient to be regarded as endorsement of the Argentine claim to sovereignty.
The UN is willing to accept independence, integration with a neighbouring country, integration with the colonial metropolitan country or free association with another country, as outcomes from decolonisation. In each case, this has been done with the explicit approval of the people of the territory, through an election or a plebiscite. The only exception, since the establishment of the Special Committee on Decolonisation, has been the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule.
AND WITH THAT YOU WHOLE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN BLOWN TO BITS
So do you still reject that the Falkland Islanders have no right to self determination? Even though quite clearly by UN Resolutions/Law they do.0 -
Advertisement
-
I SUGGEST YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD READ OFF THIS -
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/UN/UN-LIST.HTM
In particular -
United Nations Documents on the Falklands-Malvinas Conflict
The Meetings of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation, 14-15 June 2012
The Special Committee was established by Resolution 1654 (XVI) (see below). It meets every year to consider each of the territories regarded by the UN as “Non-Self-Governing Territories” and produces an annual report, which is submitted to the UN General Assembly. This report includes resolutions adopted by the Committee and draft resolutions that it recommends for the Assembly to adopt. Resolutions from committees may be rejected or amended by the Assembly. Consequently, unless and until they are endorsed by the Assembly, no resolutions from the Special Committee can be regarded as UN policy. The Assembly has not considered the “Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question” nor adopted any resolution on the question since 1988.
Resolution 1541 (XV), 15 December 1960
The day after the Declaration on Decolonisation was adopted, the General Assembly adopted a further resolution, in order to define which territories were regarded by the UN as being covered by the Declaration. The specification of the Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73(e) of the Charter, includes the three options of (a) full independence, (b) “free association“ with another state or (c) integration with another state. If one of these options has been endorsed in a general election or in a referendum by the population of a colonial territory, they will be recognised as having achieved self-determination.
Resolution 2065 (XX), 16 December 1965
Adopted at Plenary Meeting 1398, by a vote of 94 in favour, to 0 against, with 14 abstentions.
This is the first resolution of the General Assembly covering the “Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” and it was framed within the context of the drive for decolonisation. Resolutions from 1982 onwards have treated the dispute both as a question of decolonisation and as a question of avoiding any repetition of armed conflict. The Argentine government maintains Resolution 2065 represents an endorsement by the UN General Assembly of their sovereignty claim. While there was support for their position during the debates in the Special Committee on Decolonisation and in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, there is nothing in the text of the Resolution that directly sustains such a conclusion. There is no explicit reference to operative paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (see above) nor to maintaining “territorial integrity” of a divided country. Resolution 2065 merely invited the Argentine and British governments to proceed with negotiations “with a view to finding a peaceful solution”. The strongest point made by the Argentine government is that reference to the “interests of the population” implies “leaving aside the principle of self-determination” (see A/66/696, p. 7), but in the light of diplomatic practices of constructive ambiguity this is insufficient to be regarded as endorsement of the Argentine claim to sovereignty.
The UN is willing to accept independence, integration with a neighbouring country, integration with the colonial metropolitan country or free association with another country, as outcomes from decolonisation. In each case, this has been done with the explicit approval of the people of the territory, through an election or a plebiscite. The only exception, since the establishment of the Special Committee on Decolonisation, has been the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule.
AND WITH THAT YOU WHOLE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN BLOWN TO BITS
So do you still reject that the Falkland Islanders have no right to self determination? Even though quite clearly by UN Resolutions/Law they do.
Posting interpretations by the South Atlantic Council (a group comprised of UK Citizens) is almost as invalid as posting the musings of the Falklands Press.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Posting interpretations by the South Atlantic Council (a group comprised of UK Citizens) is almost as invalid as posting the musings of the Falklands Press.
Must say that is a very poor response from you., but il continue.
EH?!?!!? So now the the opinions from anyone that backs Britains position is invalid......... Just confirms what we already know about you and your agenda.
It makes extremely good points, and provides the UN Resolutions (which you have been asking for). Look back the past few pages, you have been basing everything on draft resolutions which were never brought into affect and Special Committee resolutions that unless they are endorsed by the Assembly cannot be regarded as UN policy. Considering the Assembly has not considered the “Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question” nor adopted any resolution on the question since 1988. Your whole case and your evidence you have used to back it up are completely flawed.
They havent made anything up, they have copied and pasted UN Law which CLEARLY backs the Falklands right to self determination....
If it is wrong in any way or you believe it is wrong in anyway then argue your case and back your points up.0 -
Must say that is a very poor response from you., but il continue.
EH?!?!!? So now the the opinions from anyone that backs Britains position is invalid......... Just confirms what we already know about you and your agenda.
It makes extremely good points, and provides the UN Resolutions (which you have been asking for). Look back the past few pages, you have been basing everything on draft resolutions which were never brought into affect and Special Committee resolutions that unless they are endorsed by the Assembly cannot be regarded as UN policy. Considering the Assembly has not considered the “Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question” nor adopted any resolution on the question since 1988. Your whole case and your evidence you have used to back it up are completely flawed.
They havent made anything up, they have copied and pasted UN Law which CLEARLY backs the Falklands right to self determination....
If it is wrong in any way or you believe it is wrong in anyway then argue your case and back your points up.
It's an interpretation from an organisation with a known bias towards the Falklanders. Same as the Falkland News.
Look at the title on the 'actual' resolution I posted: 'The General Assembly Of The United Nations'. What more are you looking for?
And email the SAC crowd and ask them, (if you can't answer it)
Why if ' In each case, this has been done with the explicit approval of the people of the territory, through an election or a plebiscite.' did the UN not monitor and recognise the Falkland Plebiscite?
They, like you, are ignoring the relevant meetings of the Decolonisation Committee, you know the one that talks about the 'special and particular colonial situation'? You need to be aware of who it is you are reading.
Now, I'm going out for pints.
0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »It's an interpretation from an organisation with a known bias towards the Falklanders. Same as the Falkland News.
Look at the title on the 'actual' resolution I posted: 'The General Assembly Of The United Nations'. What more are you looking for?
And email the SAC crowd and ask them, (if you can't answer it)
Why if ' In each case, this has been done with the explicit approval of the people of the territory, through an election or a plebiscite.' did the UN not monitor and recognise the Falkland Plebiscite?
They, like you, are ignoring the relevant meetings of the Decolonisation Committee, you know the one that talks about the 'special and particular colonial situation'? You need to be aware of who it is you are reading.
Now, I'm going out for pints.
Im bias towards the falklanders does that make whatever I say invalid.. Once again very poor argument. You cannot claim to be neutral like you have done then reject anything that you see as Pro Britain/Falklands while at the same time accepting everything pro Argentine you believe you have found.
Again as I said the documents you have been provided have either been DRAFT Resolutions or Special Committee on Decolonization Resolutions which cannot be used unless they are endorsed by the UN Assembly[/B]. Which they werent, because as I have pointed out the assembly has not adopted any resolution regarding the Falklands since 1988. They have meetings nearly every year regarding issues like the Falklands but nothing has been agreed SINCE 1988. So providing resolutions like you have done from 1998, 1999 or even last year mean nothing as they have no legal standing within the UN, as they were never adopted.
You keep going on about these meetings that Britain keep "ignoring", but fact is (which for some reason you just cant accept) that until Argentina accept UN Law which allows the Islanders to have a right to self determination then there can be no meetings, unless you are calling for International law and Human rights laws to be dropped just so it suits Argentinas position while weakening Britains..0 -
There is no such thing as NI at the UN either but the inhabitants of NI have self determination guaranteed to them. Why shouldn't the islanders?Happyman42 wrote: »
There is no proof, just read the documents!
The islanders don't have a 'right' to self determine that the UN accepts.
There is no such thing as 'the Falklands' at the UN, therefore there isn't a 'people' under the terms of the Charter.
There is however a 'territory'/'colony' defined as The Falklands/Malvinas.0 -
Far too much mumbo jumbo. What's Britain, 8000 miles from the islands? Argentina is 300 or so. Jeez, until the 1982 war nobody in Britain even knew what or where these islands were. Naval power is the primary reason why Britain retains these islands. I'm with the pope on this one.0
-
Advertisement
-
It would not matter if the island was on the moon. The point is the people living on the Island have the right to determine their own future without the threat of Argentinian aggression. They have just voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying as a British overseas territory.Far too much mumbo jumbo. What's Britain, 8000 miles from the islands? Argentina is 300 or so. Jeez, until the 1982 war nobody in Britain even knew what or where these islands were. Naval power is the primary reason why Britain retains these islands. I'm with the pope on this one.
Some people might not like that but it is the reality.0 -
Southern Wagon. wrote: »It would not matter if the island was on the moon. The point is the people living on the Island have the right to determine their own future without the threat of Argentinian aggression. They have just voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying as a British overseas territory.
Some people might not like that but it is the reality.
Just like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas?.. FFS even sane people know what is going on here :eek:0 -
I am neutral on the conflict because I haven't seen the primary sources of the evidence.Im bias towards the falklanders does that make whatever I say invalid.. Once again very poor argument. You cannot claim to be neutral like you have done then reject anything that you see as Pro Britain/Falklands while at the same time accepting everything pro Argentine you believe you have found.
I am not neutral on who I blame for the intransigence in sorting the conflict.
Will somebody else please tell him/her that these are Reolutions with the approval of the General Assembly?Again as I said the documents you have been provided have either been DRAFT Resolutions or Special Committee on Decolonization Resolutions which cannot be used unless they are endorsed by the UN Assembly[/B]. Which they werent, because as I have pointed out the assembly has not adopted any resolution regarding the Falklands since 1988. They have meetings nearly every year regarding issues like the Falklands but nothing has been agreed SINCE 1988. So providing resolutions like you have done from 1998, 1999 or even last year mean nothing as they have no legal standing within the UN, as they were never adopted.
mmc1, this is the danger of taking info from biased sources like Falkland News and SAC, they are slanting the facts.
The General Assembly has not discussed the Falklands/Malvinas since 1988, that is a fact, what SAC and Falklands News have done with that fact, is attempt to undermine the Decolonisation Committee (which is understandable but unforgiveable) by presenting that as The UN Assembly not having agreed anything on the F/M since 1988. They have, they have approved and adopted nearly 40 resolutions from their sub-committee on Decolonisation.
It's there in black and white at the top of the actual resolution here...'United Nations General Assembly', with the sub committee underneath. With reference to all the resolutions preceding it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58499249/United-Nations-Resolution-N1137482
All resolutions are laid out that way, have a look on google.You keep going on about these meetings that Britain keep "ignoring", but fact is (which for some reason you just cant accept) that until Argentina accept UN Law which allows the Islanders to have a right to self determination then there can be no meetings, unless you are calling for International law and Human rights laws to be dropped just so it suits Argentinas position while weakening Britains..
Why aren't the UN saying that in nearly 40 meticulously crafted resolutions? If it was a law pertaining to this conflict, why would they not say that?
Here's another resolution pertaining to the 11 on the list mentioned earlier for you to compare which freely mentions 'self determination'.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,GUM,,45fa747e2,0.html0 -
I don't know if you agree or disagree but it seems pretty obvious to me that the people living on the Island didn't want to change. So they voted to keep the status quo.A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »Just like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas?.. FFS even sane people know what is going on here :eek:0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »
Will somebody else please tell him/her that these are Reolutions with the approval of the General Assembly?
mmc1, this is the danger of taking info from biased sources like Falkland News and SAC, they are slanting the facts.
The General Assembly has not discussed the Falklands/Malvinas since 1988, that is a fact, what SAC and Falklands News have done with that fact, is attempt to undermine the Decolonisation Committee (which is understandable but unforgiveable) by presenting that as The UN Assembly not having agreed anything on the F/M since 1988. They have, they have approved and adopted nearly 40 resolutions from their sub-committee on Decolonisation.
How many times do you have to be told. The resolutions you are talking about come from the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation...... This body monitors implementation of the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514. The resolutions may get approved in the decolonisation meeting as they have and you keep mentioning them but that means diddly squat.
Quite a few countries see the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation as a unimportant anachronism as I mentioned before and the US and the UK do not participate...
It holds annual meetings that tend to end with a collective resolution acknowledging that cases have been heard. On the Falklands, the committee regularly urges Britain and Argentina to negotiate a solution............. Hence were your getting all these 40 resolutions from...... They are just yearly resolutions from the Decolonisation assembly......
These resolutions you talk about are ineffective, without the approval of the UN Security Council, where the UK has a veto, which Argentina constantly moan about.
Here's a small quote from the Argentina president -
The Argentine leader said it was unacceptable for the developed nations to demand that weaker countries comply with U.N. resolutions even as Britain has been allowed to “systematically violate” the will of the decolonization committee.(you see she even mentions the resolutions come from the decolonisation committee)
Each of the Security Council’s five permanent members – the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain – has the power to veto resolutions.
They are pointless quite frankly. Until Argentina accepts that the Falklanders have a right to self determination then there can be no talks.. As I have said over and over again. UK is respecting UN LAW.
And with that im off to bed. Don't miss me too much tomorrow if im not here, more important things to do (RUGBY)0 -
Advertisement
-
How many times do you have to be told. The resolutions you are talking about come from the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation...... This body monitors implementation of the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514. The resolutions may get approved in the decolonisation meeting as they have and you keep mentioning them but that means diddly squat.
Quite a few countries see the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation as a unimportant anachronism as I mentioned before and the US and the UK do not participate...
It holds annual meetings that tend to end with a collective resolution acknowledging that cases have been heard. On the Falklands, the committee regularly urges Britain and Argentina to negotiate a solution............. Hence were your getting all these 40 resolutions from...... They are just yearly resolutions from the Decolonisation assembly......
These resolutions you talk about are ineffective, without the approval of the UN Security Council, where the UK has a veto, which Argentina constantly moan about.
Here's a small quote from the Argentina president -
The Argentine leader said it was unacceptable for the developed nations to demand that weaker countries comply with U.N. resolutions even as Britain has been allowed to “systematically violate” the will of the decolonization committee.(you see she even mentions the resolutions come from the decolonisation committee)
Each of the Security Council’s five permanent members – the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain – has the power to veto resolutions.
They are pointless quite frankly. Until Argentina accepts that the Falklanders have a right to self determination then there can be no talks.. As I have said over and over again. UK is respecting UN LAW.
And with that im off to bed. Don't miss me too much tomorrow if im not here, more important things to do (RUGBY)
OF COURSE COUNTRIES DON'T HAVE TO OBEY THEM, that's kinda of OBVIOUS in this case (40 resolutions) but they are resolutions from the UN General Assembly WHICH you said they weren't. (That is why earlier in this thread that I said the UN was toothless) but that doesn't absolve Britian from blame, they after all signed up to the UN and are ignoring it's reccomendations.
The SECURITY COUNCIL IS irrelevant here as it only passes resolutions dealing with eh....security. It has only made one Resolution on the Falklands/Malvinas which was in 1982 which Argentina IGNORED. And even then they are only legally binding if made under Chapter vii.
And AGAIN, WHY if 'Self Determination' is A LAW of the UN relevant to this case is the Security Council not issuing a binding resolution, if you say that is how it works.
The UN has adopted 40 resolutions on the Falklands/Malvinas, saying they don't mean diddly squat is just changing the goalposts to avoid putting the blame for the abscence of negoiations where it belongs.
After all your wriggling, we are no further on.
And you neatly avoided commenting on the difference (self determination in one and not in the other) between the two resolutions I posted.0 -
-
Happyman42 wrote: »OF COURSE COUNTRIES DON'T HAVE TO OBEY THEM, that's kinda of OBVIOUS in this case (40 resolutions) but they are resolutions from the UN General Assembly WHICH you said they weren't. (That is why earlier in this thread that I said the UN was toothless) but that doesn't absolve Britian from blame, they after all signed up to the UN and are ignoring it's reccomendations.
The SECURITY COUNCIL IS irrelevant here as it only passes resolutions dealing with eh....security. It has only made one Resolution on the Falklands/Malvinas which was in 1982 which Argentina IGNORED. And even then they are only legally binding if made under Chapter vii.
And AGAIN, WHY if 'Self Determination' is A LAW of the UN relevant to this case is the Security Council not issuing a binding resolution, if you say that is how it works.
The UN has adopted 40 resolutions on the Falklands/Malvinas, saying they don't mean diddly squat is just changing the goalposts to avoid putting the blame for the abscence of negoiations where it belongs.
After all your wriggling, we are no further on.
And you neatly avoided commenting on the difference (self determination in one and not in the other) between the two resolutions I posted.
Im clearly gonna have to repeat myself until this all registers in you head.
The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft
I REPEAT -
The UN Decolonisation Committee CAN BE REJECTED or amended by the Assembly. Consequently, unless and until they are endorsed by the Assembly, no resolutions from the Special Committee can be regarded as UN policy. The Assembly has not considered the “Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question” nor adopted any resolution on the question since 1988.
Argentina have made made numerous diplomatic attempts to regain full or partial sovereignty over the islands, sponsoring some 40 resolutions in the UN which called on Britain to enter bilateral talks over the islands’ ownership.
None of these resolutions, however, were enforceable.
Larry Birns, a former UN envoy to Chile and Latin America specialist at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, told Univision News that there is [B]little that Argentina can do in the UN, because as a permanent member of the security council, the UK can veto any enforceable resolution on the Falkland islands.[/B]
Birns added that efforts to get larger countries like Brazil to exert some pressure on the UK are also doomed to fail.
“You can be sure that Brazil and Mexico and so forth are not going to sacrifice they’re trade with Britain and the EU, for Argentina irredempta.” he said.
You can bleat on about the decolonisation committee all you want, they only make recommendations, not enforceable resolutions. If your whole argument is based on a bit of paper that asks this and ask that then your wasting your time....... There is nothing that DEMANDS THEM TO talk, only asks them to., therefore Britain does not need to do anything.
And until Argentina accept the Falklanders right to self determination there can be no talks... Quite simple really.0 -
Is it time for a new PM in old Blighty, Cameron is fighting with the EU, he does not give the new man in Rome a chance to get his feet under the table, before he fights with him, relations are at an all time low with the US. I can see now how little boy Hague gets his instruction's from. Brittan should see about electing adults to take charge, going by what has been said over the last few months.
LONDON — Less than 48 hours into the world’s first Latin American papacy, David Cameron took issue in public with Pope Francis yesterday, quipping that the “white smoke over the Falklands was pretty clear” and dismissing the pontiff’s explicit claims backing Argentinian ownership of the South Atlantic islands.#
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=pope+francis+and+cameron&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFMQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.todayonline.com%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fpope-francis-wrong-falklands-says-david-cameron&ei=NMZEUbONEoLR7Ab2_ID4Cg&usg=AFQjCNHYbm75egSr7DbJlpSghnH2YiKCbg0 -
Busted Flat. wrote: »LONDON — Less than 48 hours into the world’s first Latin American papacy, David Cameron took issue in public with Pope Francis yesterday, quipping that the “white smoke over the Falklands was pretty clear” and dismissing the pontiff’s explicit claims backing Argentinian ownership of the South Atlantic islands.#
Actually, Cameron is spot on with the sentiment of his comments here, if not the actual choice of words. The Pope is the head of the Catholic faith; he [the Pope, regardless of "who"] has no position commenting on international political matters of state. Indeed, his office is meant to be of a higher calling than mere mortal concerns.
It would be like the President of Ireland demanding that the UK hand back Northern Ireland tomorrow. Not only would it be a toothless act, it would undermine Dail Eireann whilst simultaneously p*ssing off both the British & Irish (because they'd have to deal with the fallout & cleanup) political establishment for no credible gain. There is a reason the Irish president doesn't speak on political matters save in the most carefully considered, scripted, and approved manner. Much like the Pope should.
Regardless of the fact that they comments were made a year ago when the Pope wasn't the Pope, and assuming that someone wants to try and make political capital out of what he said either way, lets take a look at it: So what has the Pope actually done? He has won brownie points back home - which he didn't need to do anyway - whilst undermining the credibility of his office on the international stage and quite possibly alienating members of the Catholic faith throughout the UK. And for what? If this was an attempt to repair bridges with the de Krischner government, of whom he doesn't have many fans for comments made before he became Pope, it was a poorly thought out, clumsy, and politically embarrassing attempt.0 -
Hi there. You seem to have forgotten to explain your use of the term "squatters". Do I need to dumb down the question any further for you?Busted Flat. wrote: »Is it time for a new PM in old Blighty...0 -
-
Actually, Cameron is spot on with the sentiment of his comments here, if not the actual choice of words. The Pope is the head of the Catholic faith; he [the Pope, regardless of "who"] has no position commenting on international political matters of state. Indeed, his office is meant to be of a higher calling than mere mortal concerns.
It would be like the President of Ireland demanding that the UK hand back Northern Ireland tomorrow. Not only would it be a toothless act, it would undermine Dail Eireann whilst simultaneously p*ssing off both the British & Irish (because they'd have to deal with the fallout & cleanup) political establishment for no credible gain. There is a reason the Irish president doesn't speak on political matters save in the most carefully considered, scripted, and approved manner. Much like the Pope should.
So what has the Pope actually done? He has won brownie points back home - which he didn't need to do anyway - whilst undermining the credibility of his office on the international stage and quite possibly alienating members of the Catholic faith throughout the UK. And for what? If this was an attempt to repair bridges with the de Krischner government, of whom he doesn't have many fans for comments made before he became Pope, it was a poorly thought out, clumsy, and politically embarrassing attempt.
Pretty sure that the comments made by the now pope are not recent, and were made back when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires - just comments been dragged up now.0 -
firemansam4 wrote: »Pretty sure that the comments made by the now pope are not recent, and were made back when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires - just comments been dragged up now.
Yes, you're right firemansam. I was commenting to BustedFlat who seemed to be taking great glee from the matter that "the Pope" took a swing at "de Brits". He wasn't Pope when the comments were made although I would hasten to add that given they were made last year, he was still in a position of great influence within the Catholic church and probably should have known better. That said, I haven't seen the full context in which his words were spoken so I really wouldn't be bothering to read too far into what he said, doubly so given that it was all said a year ago and not now.
I've edited my previous post to reflect that. My last paragraph reads like it's in the here and now when it wasn't intended to be. Sorry about that firemansam.0 -
The Security council has NO relevance to this issue. Here is what the Security Council is responsible for:Im clearly gonna have to repeat myself until this all registers in you head.
The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft
http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/
It is a separate organ of the UN, here are the others http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter3.shtml
That is from the horses mouth (THE UN) not some crack pot support group like the SAC.
Yes they canThe UN Decolonisation Committee CAN BE REJECTED or amended by the Assembly.
They have been, the resolutions all bear the name of 'THE UNITED NATION GENERAL ASSEMBLY. All of the documents relating to discussions at the Decolonisation committee, have the line at the end 'The draft resolution was adopted with......'Consequently, unless and until they are endorsed by the Assembly, no resolutions from the Special Committee can be regarded as UN policy.
They have not 'discussed' or 'debated it at Assembly level, because the situation hasn' changed at any significant level since the issuing of the first resolution. That doesn't mean that the 'resolution' has lost the imprimatur of the UN. The SAC are using language in an ambiguous way and you are swallowing it HOOK, LINE and SINKER.The Assembly has not considered the “Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question” nor adopted any resolution on the question since 1988.
If this forum has any integrity other posters would confirm that even if they disagree with the point I have been trying to make.
Nobody EVER said they where, stop changing the goalposts. They are recomendationsArgentina have made made numerous diplomatic attempts to regain full or partial sovereignty over the islands, sponsoring some 40 resolutions in the UN which called on Britain to enter bilateral talks over the islands’ ownership.
None of these resolutions, however, were enforceable.
The only resolutions issued by the UN that are legally binding on a nation are those from Chapter vii of the Security Council(which has no remit on this issue). They have issued ONE in relation to the Falklands/Malvinas in 19829remember what happened in 1982???) which Argentina ignored anyway.
He's absolutely right, as we can see, Britian has IGNORED 40 resolutions.Larry Birns, a former UN envoy to Chile and Latin America specialist at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, told Univision News that there is [B]little that Argentina can do in the UN, because as a permanent member of the security council, the UK can veto any enforceable resolution on the Falkland islands.[/B]
Birns added that efforts to get larger countries like Brazil to exert some pressure on the UK are also doomed to fail.
“You can be sure that Brazil and Mexico and so forth are not going to sacrifice they’re trade with Britain and the EU, for Argentina irredempta.” he said.You can bleat on about the decolonisation committee all you want, they only make recommendations, not enforceable resolutions. If your whole argument is based on a bit of paper that asks this and ask that then your wasting your time....... There is nothing that DEMANDS THEM TO talk, only asks them to., therefore Britain does not need to do anything.
And until Argentina accept the Falklanders right to self determination there can be no talks... Quite simple really.
You are right here too, but Britian by ignoring the resolutions of a body they set up to achieve world hamony and order by intervening in disputes and specifically to end colonisation, are the ones to blame here. WHICH IS MY WHOLE POINT IN THIS DEBATE.
My opinions on the toothlessness of the UN is dealt with elsewhere in this thread, if 'the right to self determination' is a law superceding everything else, (as you say) where is the legally binding resolution? IT's NOT THERE BECAUSE THE UN recommends that the conflict over sovereignty and title is solved first.0 -
Advertisement
-
We I mean I could do with a synopsis of the last few posts, Thanks.0
-
We I mean I could do with a synopsis of the last few posts, Thanks.
Who are you telling!
mmc1 contends the 40 resolutions issued by the UN are not 'in fact' UN policy on the Falklands/Malvinas dispute.
I maintain they are 'in fact' resolutions from the UN General Assembly and therefore 'policy' under it's remit/mandate to:- to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights;
- and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
mmc1 has invented the notion that we were talking about legally binding resolutions from the Security Council (which deals with security issues and world peace issues) which we weren't, nobody, including me has suggested that 'resolutions' from the General Assembly are legally binding.
Any info I have presented comes from the UN itself while mmc1 is picking up quotes from a website run by the South Atlantic Congress an affiliation of UK individuals who support the Falkland islanders.0 -
The Security council does matter on this issue, because any resolution that trys to enforce something on another country has to be passed by them, as it could damage peace and security….. Hence why there is no resolution that DEMANDS TALKS but only ask for talks between the UK and Argentina. Its not hard to understand……Happyman42 wrote: »The Security council has NO relevance to this issue.
This may help you - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768
Your “40 resolutions” from the Decolonisation commitee (they aren’t new) are just rehashes of the original General Assembly Resolution from decades ago that asked for talks, which need a simple majority to pass every year, . Every year the decolonisation committee (which the UK and quite a few others don't even take part in) just repeat the calls for talks that are passed by a majority...
So Il repeat again - The Assembly has not considered the “Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question” nor adopted any resolution on the question since 1988. !!Happyman42 wrote: »You are right here too, but Britain by ignoring the resolutions of a body they set up to achieve world hamony and order by intervening in disputes and specifically to end colonisation, are the ones to blame here. WHICH IS MY WHOLE POINT IN THIS DEBATE.
My opinions on the toothlessness of the UN is dealt with elsewhere in this thread, if 'the right to self determination' is a law superceding everything else, (as you say) where is the legally binding resolution? IT's NOT THERE BECAUSE THE UN recommends that the conflict over sovereignty and title is solved first.
Turning round like Argentina has done many time and stating that the Falkland Islanders have no rights and essentially dont exist goes against "world harmony" as you put it..... Britain states that they do exist and have rights as by International Law..... Argentina are in the wrong there not Britain...
At the end of the day Britain hasn’t been demanded to do anything therefore they don’t have to do anything…. If someone asks me to do something I can turn round and say no…. If I was demanded to do something then that’s a different story..
Britain has maintained and always maintained that they will hold new talks when Argentina accept the Falklanders exist and have a right to self determination. Britain deem the Law and peoples rights more important than talks with a country that ignore those rights.
There is no need for any Resolutions regarding right to self determination regarding the Falklands because UN LAW/INTERNATIONAL Law clearly states that EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION…..
I’ve asked you this many times before to show me any UN LAW that states some people arent entitled to rights to self determination and im still waiting……….0 -
We I mean I could do with a synopsis of the last few posts, Thanks.
Its the whole thread you need to look at not just thw past few pages.
Basically it all boils down to me believing the people on the Falkland Islanders DO matter and have a right to self determination to choose their own future.
Happyman on the other hand backs Argentina and believes the Falklanders have no rights to self determination and essentially blames Britain on for making things worse because they wont talk to Argentina.
Britain refuses to talk until Argentina accepts the Falkland Islanders have rights.
Essentially is the same argument that's been going on for decades between both countries and will continue until Argentina accept UN Law regarding peoples rights.0 -
Its the whole thread you need to look at not just thw past few pages.
Basically it all boils down to me believing the people on the Falkland Islanders DO matter and have a right to self determination to choose their own future.
Happyman on the other hand backs Argentina and believes the Falklanders have no rights to self determination and essentially blames Britain on for making things worse because they wont talk to Argentina.
Britain refuses to talk until Argentina accepts the Falkland Islanders have rights.
Essentially is the same argument that's been going on for decades between both countries and will continue until Argentina accept UN Law regarding peoples rights.
Ya can't beat that, where did we hear that before, NI, India, Pakistan, India lots of places in Africa, the middle East, and Hong Kong. That is where they met their match. The days of the empire is long gone. Finance is the big player.0 -
Busted Flat. wrote: »Ya can't beat that, where did we hear that before, NI, India, Pakistan, India lots of places in Africa, the middle East, and Hong Kong. That is where they met their match. The days of the empire is long gone. Finance is the big player.
I suggest you go read some history books......... and especially were Hong Kong is concerned. Surely your history knowledge isnt that poor?0 -
-
Busted Flat. wrote: »The Brits wanted to extend the lease, they were told to fook off, they were shown the door. History.
They had a 99 year lease which ran out and was rightly handed over.. They were legally obliged to hand it over and could do nothing about it.... Hardly mind blowing stuff lol....0 -
They had a 99 year lease which ran out and was rightly handed over.. They were legally obliged to hand it over and could do nothing about it.... Hardly mind blowing stuff lol....
Cop on, they wanted to hang on, they tried to extend the lease they were told what to do. They succumbed to a country that stood up to them. That is where they realised the empire had the sun shut down on them.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Busted Flat. wrote: »Cop on, they wanted to hang on, they tried to extend the lease they were told what to do. They succumbed to a country that stood up to them. That is where they realised the empire had the sun shut down on them.
They had no legal right, even I back China in this case lol. The Empire was long dead before the Hong Kong handover.......
Im struggling to see how this has any relevance to the Falklands, care to explain? Do Britain have a 99 lease deal with Argentina or something?0
Advertisement