Forum menu
Not only that, but freakin expensive. I doubt the cost of MPA is being met by the locals?
we took a wee island on the other side of the world by force, removed the inhabitants, put ours there , stopped them coming then claim"self determination" as the principle for the implanted population
How about a deal, we will hand back the Falklands when Argentina gets handed back to [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/05/argentina-fight-reclaim-ancestral-land-indigenous-leader ]its indigenous population[/url]?
I do however support the United Nations stance on the issue - something which clearly many people on here, in keeping with successive UK governments, don't.
Which stance? Decolonisation or right to self determination, as in this case they appear to be mutually exclusive.
Or are you referring to the UN mandate that we should re-enter negotiations towards resolving the issue?
Argentina: can we have the Malvinas back?
U.K: No!
Negotiations concluded
Happy now?
Jeremy has started with a negative overall poll rating -3.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11888380/Jeremy-Corbyn-becomes-first-Labour-leader-ever-to-score-negative-debut-poll-rating.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11888380/Jeremy-Corbyn-becomes-first-Labour-leader-ever-to-score-negative-debut-poll-rating.html[/url]
Even Foot did better than that!
**** it, Ninfans just made the same point I did.
Flounces
Meh. Oil. The second oil isn't needed, the UK will hand back the Falklands with a smile.
which is why UN resolution after UN resolution backs Argentina.
Which resolutions are these then?
I thought it was the islanders who had the right of self determination?
In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514
Sorry to drag this further off but I am unaware of any UN resolutions that support the Argentinians? Happy to be corrected.
Anyway, the real interest is in the potential oil reserves. If these are found to be to marginal and difficult, I would imagine the UK will get rid of the Islands.
Sorry to drag this further off but I am unaware of any UN resolutions that support the Argentinians? Happy to be corrected.
The ones that come up about once a year calling for negotiations between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands and which the US abstains from.
If you don't accept my point that's fine - just dismiss it as nonsense.
The ones that come up about once a year calling for negotiations between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands and which the US abstains from.
How is that a show of support from the UN for the Argentinian claim on the Falklands?
If you don't accept my point that's fine - just dismiss it as nonsense.
??? As I said I am happy to be corrected.
Hmm, saying that the UK should re-enter negotiations is hardly a rousing endorsement of the Argentine position is it? Even the UN decolonisation committee accepts that the issue of the islands is a "special and particular colonial situation" rather than a simple case of decolonisation.
Of course, the Argentinian claim isn't just for the Falklands is it? It's for South Georgia and the South Sandwich isles as well, even though these are over a thousand miles away and have never been colonised by the Argentinians (well other than a short period when they did so by force a couple of decades ago) - which sort of shoots the whole crux of their argument down really. As does the inconvenient fact that their reliance on 'decolonisation' by the UN focuses us on the fact that their alternate claim on the islands relies on the belief that [b]they[/b] own it as a colonial remnant from the fall of the Spanish empire 😆
The whole argument is shot full of more holes than the Belgrano!
As I said I am happy to be corrected.
Yeah but you're not even reading my posts properly. This is what I said :
[i]Can I just add that almost every country in the world, including all of Latin America, supports a the decolonization of the Falklands, which is why UN resolution after UN resolution backs Argentina. Even our closest ally and the one with whom we allegedly have a "special relationship", the US, refuses to back the UK and the best it manage is to abstain from Falklands related votes at the UN.[/i]
These are resolutions submitted to the UN by Argentina calling for a negotiated solution between itself and the UK to comply with the UN's policy on decolonization.
You'd think that if this was such an "important" issue people in the UK would be well-informed on the position of the UN with regards to the Falklands, apparently not.
These are resolutions submitted to the UN by Argentina calling for a negotiated solution between itself and the UK to comply with the UN's policy on decolonization.
Now this hardly the same as:
position of the UN with regards to the Falklands,
[url= http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml ]http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml[/url]
Interesting that the Falklands have the smallest population out of any of the UK's colonies but the most disputed one. I wonder why?
Even the UN decolonisation committee accepts that the issue of the islands is a "special and particular colonial situation" rather than a simple case of decolonisation.
I am Mary Shelley and refund my own £5
Best documentary I've seen for a while:
Decolonisation or right to self determination, as in this case they appear to be mutually exclusive.
Did you miss the bit where i explained that the setled poppulation that removed the existing one cannot then claim self determination
For example we could invade France kick them all out move over there and then claim self determination - its not very convincing as an argument
Or are you referring to the UN mandate that we should re-enter negotiations towards resolving the issue?
If the UN supported us they would go What issue
Even the UN decolonisation committee accepts that the issue of the islands is a "special and particular colonial situation" rather than a simple case of decolonisation.
Indeed but they still think its a colony because it is
I will follow ernies advice on this as it is pointless but you cannot claim self determination in this case as it is a planted population as is NI as woudl France be in my example above.
These are resolutions submitted to the UN by Argentina calling for a negotiated solution between itself and the UK to comply with the UN's policy on decolonization.Now this hardly the same as:
position of the UN with regards to the Falklands,
It's exactly the same, what on earth are you talking about?
That is the UN position with regards the Falklands.
For example we could invade France kick them all out move over there and then claim self determination - its not very convincing as an argument
A bit like the spaniards did to the whole of South America then?
ps! theres no evidence that any of the civilian population was forced to leave the Falklands in 1833 when we reasserted our ownership of the islands, in fact it's a matter of record that a number of the troops and gauchos remained as settlers.
It's exactly the same, what on earth are you talking about?
You know very well that it's a non sequitur that UN members supporting the Argentine position and UN mandate with regards to 're-establishing negotiations' is akin to UN members supporting the Argentine position on either the sovereignty of the islands or right to self determination of the islanders.
It's exactly the same, what on earth are you talking about?That is the UN position with regards the Falklands.
The UN position is that the UK and Argentinian governments should negotiate a peaceful settlement.
The UN has not issued a resolution to support the Falklands being passed over to Argentina.
The problem for the UN is, that it supports self determination and decolonisation, which in this case, would appear to be contradictory.
Indeed it is a balance between the two competing rights.
The question is can people who colonise claim self determination for the settle population
Can Israel steal Palestinian land then claim the people want to stay or are they just thiefs? The passage of time clouds the issue for sure but , as the france issue showed, no one would argue that was just if we tried it today on the other side of the globe.
theres no evidence that any of the civilian population was forced to leave the Falklands in 1833 when we reasserted our ownership of the islands, in fact it's a matter of record that a number of the troops and gauchos remained as settlers.
[scribble] and i am sure the argentians will do the same when they retake the island with force and you will applaud the noble act[/scribble]
I don't think you can start playing games of repatriation. If we started that we'd be here forever. with Ireland, aye we all know about the planters and the orange state that followed partition and the hegemony that ensued. But you need to recognise that after a while even the planters have a right to exist in a land and then follow democratic principles. History is history. Learn the lessons and move on, but it has little bearing in what should happen in the future.
In that sense Argentina's claim is silly and the uk's has been backed up with referendum. Same with a UI if you want it to happen you need to get people to vote for it. Same with an independent Scotland.
The question is can people who colonise claim self determination for the settle population
Like the 86% of the Argentinian population who descend from Spanish colonial settlers?
Anyway, back on topic:
the 86% of the Argentinian population who descend from Spanish colonial settlers?
The largest ethnic group in Argentina are the Italians - over 60% of Argentines are of Italian descent.
There is a saying in Argentina which claims that :
"[i]Argentines are Italians who speak Spanish live like the French but want to be British"[/i].
There are elite English schools in Argentina and British influence was massive - at one time there were more British nationals living in Argentina (despite its small population) than anywhere else outside the British Commonwealth.
There was even an Argentine RAF fighter squadron during WW2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._164_Squadron_RAF
But you need to recognise that after a while even the planters have a right to exist in a land and then follow democratic principles. History is history. Learn the lessons and move on, but it has little bearing in what should happen in the future
I really dont and I dont see how you can say we can ignore how we got here in deciding what we do next.
I stole your bike but i have had it for a decade how I got it is not important? lets move forward recognising property rights but ignoring the bit about how I got it.
FWIW we can recognise their rights but we can also return it to the people we stole it from using military might.
In bithe cases we ignored the democratic rights it a bit hypocritical/convenient to stand for them now
Does that mean we can look forward to the English returning to Denmark and Germany and giving Lloegr back to the Welsh?we can recognise their rights but we can also return it to the people we stole it from using military might.
My comment is a comment relating to two cited examples and those cases
Would you like to join in the discussion on these or not?
Clearly not all colonisation can be reversed as it would involve us all go back to Africa/ the garden of Eden.
Ninfan that telegraph link largely involves him walking past reporters and not answering a question when say getting in a car.
very weak
I had missed the bit where Corbyn commented on the Falklands this week. Does anyone have the link? 😉
So what are the criteria for deciding which colonisations can be reversed and which can't? Is there some arbitrary cut-off date?Clearly not all colonisation can be reversed
Quote "Clearly not all colonisation can be reversed as it would involve us all go back to Africa/ the garden of Eden "
True JY plus CMD would have us all stopped at the first "safe" country.
The largest ethnic group in Argentina are the Italians
Thank you for supporting my point
or were you unaware that most of Italy was part of the Spanish Empire 😈
So what are the criteria for deciding which colonisations can be reversed and which can't? Is there some arbitrary cut-off date?
Should be interesting for Texas...
I had missed the bit where Corbyn commented on the Falklands this week.
He doesn't comment on anything any more, just mumbles some platitudes and says we'll think about it...
[quote=rusty90 said]Is there some arbitrary cut-off date?
Some kind of hand-wringing day zero ?
ninfan - MemberThank you for supporting my point
I'm sure you think you're very clever ninfan but I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
.
teamhurtmore - MemberI had missed the bit where Corbyn commented on the Falklands this week.
Why else do you think that elements in the army are making early plans to stage an Argentine-style military coup should the British people dare to elect Corbyn in 5 years time ?
Well I say "an Argentine-style military coup" but these days there is no possibility that the Argentine military could and would stage a successful coup. I reckon there's probably a better chance of that happening in the UK.
Certainly it would appear that some senior military figures think it's feasible.
Jy - after a time i said, I personally think the important factor is generational. It's people lives we are talking about so the bike analogy doesn't stand up. There is a difference.
I say all I say as someone very sympathetic to Irish unification. Falklands island I couldn't really care less about tbh.
In the interests of peace you need to think about it differently than a simple possession.
So what are the criteria for deciding which colonisations can be reversed and which can't?
Interesting question what do you think?
Oh another complicated question what are your views?Is there some arbitrary cut-off date?
the important factor is generational
Yes and no as clearly the pasaage of time changes things but only to some degree. For example the gold, art and other stuff the nazis stole/looted is now the property of Germany as its a generational thing? The land Israel illegally occupied is now there? There are not always easy simple answers or arbitrary cut off points in time
Its all complicated and has nuances and shades of grey that wont be explored on STW as we insist on an answers that cannot be given to trap folk.
In the NI example I would accept the people have the right to reside there but they dont have the right to partition the country due to having been planted their to have allegiance to another country ignoring the wishes of the majority of the island population.
In the interests of peace you need to think about it differently than a simple possession.
Is peace more important than justice? An interesting question that one and I shall ponder on it.
Generally speaking, that if you're born somewhere then it's your country and you have the right to self determination.Interesting question what do you think?
To answer your 2 questions. Nazi gold, its a simple possession so I don't think there should be any statute of limits. Same goes for the British loot that fills our museums etc.
The isreali Palestine situation. Well its similar to Ireland in that just giving it back would lead end up leading to war. So essentially, yes it is different. I'm personally in favour of making the west bank and Gaza ful parts of Israel and giving them full democratic rights. I think it's the only possible solution. Isreali clearly doesn't want to stops its expansion. So if the want the land they should take the people and afford them full rights.
IANAL but reading both cases in full it's not clear to me that Argentina has a significantly better claim than the UK.
If it were my decision I'd want to see a cast iron case before doing anything against the wishes of the inhabitants, and that isn't likely.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Neither claim is particularly stronger than the other. It's all just opinion, 'facts' are hard to come by, and easily countered by other 'facts'. However, when it comes to territorial sovereignty throughout history, possession has always proven to be 9/10ths of the law, with the right to self determine coming in recently (in historical terms) to be the 1/10th exception that proves the rule. There is a certain irony of countries that are recently established in historical terms, displacing and killing off indigenous populations in doing so, then complaining about territory. If Argentina were calling for Malvinas/Falklands to be granted independence then they would have more credibility, but they just want to replace one master with another. Surely in this situation the most important thing is what the people who live there want?
As regards the Falklands surely,in true free market ideological style , we should let the markets decide.Defending the Falklands costs the UK taxpayer how much- £400 milion a year? And the Falkland residents contribute how much to this - zero? They also enjoy a top tax rate of 26% and pay no VAT.And as for self determination,it sounds like a great idea so who can migrate there and then get to vote on the issue?
Offer the islanders a deal so good they'd all vote yes. In fact, they'd only have to offer the deal to 51pc of them. 🙂
Argentina, a fine home for Nazis fleeing justice after the war. A government implicated in bombing of Jews in chorus with Iran and where the investigator mysterioulsy committed suicide just before bringing the matter to trial ? There has already been a settlement of the issue, the Argentines invaded and we resolved the situation in our favour for once and for all.
Corbyns stance on the Falklands is a vote loser amongst current and potential Labour voters and once again makes him a very easy target for his opponents. Tie this in with his view we should not have a military capable of operating away from these shores and he's advocating we run up the white flag all over the world.
@ninfan yes I saw that list, Corbyn has remarkably little to say on most issues he's pressed on. Well that is until he reverses his position or tried to weasel out of a tight spot. He can't even make up,his mind about whether to kneel before the Queen
@ernie Mandelson is another of the people who got Labour elected, that's why people should listen to him and at least have a coherent responce.
@nick, the economic argument is pretty compelling given the oil discoveries in the waters around the Falklands
@ernie Mandelson is another of the people who got Labour elected
You really say the most astounding things.
As regards the Falklands surely,in true free market ideological style , we should let the markets decide.Defending the Falklands costs the UK taxpayer how much- £400 milion a year? And the Falkland residents contribute how much to this - zero? They also enjoy a top tax rate of 26% and pay no VAT.And as for self determination,it sounds like a great idea so who can migrate there and then get to vote on the issue?
Nick, believe me, 26% tax doesn't make it worthwhile to live in the Falklands! Although it's a great place to visit, I'm off next winter
jambalaya - Member
@nick, the economic argument is pretty compelling given the oil discoveries in the waters around the Falklands
But surely they are Argentina's deposits? In the Indy thread you argued they would be split by population and not by whose international waters they lay in. The people who pointed out that was contrary to international law were OBVIOUSLY ignored,but hey-ho!
Oh,and you realise your wee critique of Argentina also sums up your precious Israel quite well? Although Argentina expansionist policy needs a bit of fine tuning,unlike the zionist genocide merchants.You are nuttier that squirrel poo.
A government implicated in bombing of Jews
How about a government linked to bombings, murders and kidnapping on foreign soil since the 50's?
See if you can guess the country.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations ]the country that can do no wrong and the one that jam cannot criticise[/url]
Cannot wait to see ignore what they do yet again whilst lecturing Argentina
FWIW your comments are not even accurate
From the beginning, he [Nisman] had the unstinting support of Argentina’s Presidents—first of Néstor Kirchner, who chose Nisman to supervise the prosecution in 2004, then of Cristina, who succeeded her husband in 2007. Every autumn, she travelled to New York and denounced the Iranian regime before the United Nations. Whenever Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, entered the main hall to speak, Argentina’s diplomats, under Kirchner’s orders, walked out.
the govt has never been implicated in the bombing but has been criticised for the investigation as has Nisman
Next up in the Corbyn news - 9/11 was made up and had nothing to do with Osama BL:
In August Corbyn shared a platform with a nutjob opineing that the world is controlled by "Jewish elders" and a secret new world order that's apparently so powerful it couldn't even stop a bearded job-dodging conspiracy theorist from Islington from being elected to lead the Labour Party.
The Labour Party elders of old would be ashamed at the new depths that Corbyn's dragging the party down to.