Don’t people realise that the national interest is what will determine policy in places like this? If it suits UK to move people along, we will, if it suits us to pander to the wishes of the islanders, we will. This has been happening for centuries. It happens here with compulsary purchases, moving travellers sites etc.

The Govt is elected by the people, for the people, and if you do not agree with them vote for those you agree with. If enough agree with you they will be elected.

You do need complicit support, which is why although vast majority of UN vote for negotiation, they do not vote for handover.

I struggle with long sentences

I think it’s fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina’s position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands. And I think you appear to be isolated from the reality

Complete utter total unadulterated PISH.

you saying it is PISH somehow counters a vote of 107 to 4 against

Low how you persuade us with your powerful use of logc, reason and evidence 🙄

I doubt the rest of the thread got any better

a vote of 107 to 4 against

It wasn’t 107 to 4 in agreement with Argentina’s position on decolonisation.

Read it or be quiet. we’ve done this already.

The UN voting for negotiations is kind of like when some poor deluded soul posts on here asking for relationship advice and everyone tells them that they should try to talk things out.

Good analogy – Argentina isn’t getting any, but the UK is asexual and doesn’t see the problem.

am saying not treating them the same is hypocrisy and its important to compare the different ways our governments have dealt with this situation in different areas as it clearly demonstrates in the case of the Falklands the consideration is more than the wishes of the islanders.

No, you’re comparing how the government treated a bunch of islanders 40 years ago, with how the government is treating a different groupd of islands Today.

TJ – the Chagossians right to self determination ended 40 odd years ago, they are no longer the residents of the Island, deal with it.

It bears no comparison with the right of self determination of the current inhabitants of the Falklands, we’re dealing with the Here and Now, not historical rights. Its as pointless as arguing that the people of Imber should get their houses back because the government broke their promise in 1945.

So if we remove the falklanders by force now and give the islands to Argentina, in 40 yrs it will be OK. Interesting concept.

It wasn’t 107 to 4 in agreement with Argentina’s position on decolonisation.

Really thanks. did I say it was ? It was not a 107 v 4 vote against anything other than what it was a 107 v 4 vote against ..thanks Sherlock
I dont see how even you can spin 107 v 4 against the UK position as supporting the UK position though …would you like to try and explain how it does?
I suspect you would rather snipe from the sidelines though than actually express a view

It bears no comparison with the right of self determination of the current inhabitants of the Falklands

it show hypocrisy though so you cannot really ignore it though…not least as it counters th self determination notion of the UK ..it is a principle used only when it suits our agenda hence it is not a principle

As TJ notes the passage of time does not correct an injustice of this nature.

As TJ notes the passage of time does not correct an injustice of this nature.

And two wrongs don’t make a right. What’s your point, caller?

In respect of the OP isn’t the argument about the Falklands similar to the position of America over Hawaii?
America had no claim whatsoever over those islands and actually annexed them.
It might interest a few people to take a look at Hawaii’s flag.

The guy with the biggest stick gets the goodies basically.

The guy with the biggest stick gets the goodies basically.

Didn’t work in ’82 – Their big stick was sunk by our sneaky stick…

So if we remove the falklanders by force now and give the islands to Argentina, in 40 yrs it will be OK. Interesting concept.

As TJ notes the passage of time does not correct an injustice of this nature.

No, its a fact of life

Otherwise you’d have to throw all the white people out of Argentina

What happened 40 years ago was by a different government, under different circumstances. Each one is unique and outcome is determined by prevailing circumstances, and what is best for the country at that particular time. If there was a massive outcry 40 years ago then things might have been done differently.

We have to get over past “injusticies” and learn from them. Ones mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist and all that.

Was enjoying thread till other past incidents got brought up, they have as much relevence as the Moon being made of cheese as each relies on the present circumstances prevailing at the time.

“It wasn’t 107 to 4 in agreement with Argentina’s position on decolonisation.”

Really thanks. did I say it was ?

Did you read what you quoted? Here’s a reminder:

almost every country in the world supports Argentina’s position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands

I suspect you would rather snipe from the sidelines though than actually express a view

Says the man who started his post with “I struggle with long sentences”

zokes – Member

As TJ notes the passage of time does not correct an injustice of this nature.

And two wrongs don’t make a right. What’s your point, caller?

So what does correct it? Give Oz back to the Aboriginies, NZ to the Mouiris, US to the Brave’s and thousands of countless other movemet/migrations of people where some do not agree with it, where some gain and some lose.

NZ to the Mouiris

Good point – surely that should be higher on the list of places the UN wants decolonized given its colonization post-dates that of the FI?

Good point – surely that should be higher on the list of places the UN wants decolonized given its colonization post-dates that of the FI?

add Hawai’i to that list

and wasn’t Argentina a colony once?

they certainly still behave like colonists to the indigenous population

from Amnesty International

Indigenous Peoples’ rights
Concerns remained at the failure to implement the 2006 national emergency law which temporarily suspends the execution of eviction orders or the removal of Indigenous communities from traditional lands until an appropriate nationwide survey has been carried out.

•In November, 400 police officers violently dispersed members of the Toba Qom Indigenous community who had mounted a roadblock in protest at plans to build a university on traditional lands. The police also burned down the community’s temporary homes. At least one police officer and one member of the Indigenous community were killed.

This is an intresting arcticle American publication interviewing a Falkland islander link
Far more intresting and relevant than most of the posts in this thread!

I suspect you would rather snipe from the sidelines though than actually express a view

Says the man who started his post with “I struggle with long sentences”

Do you think that would constitute a snipe, Sherlock?

Good link sa9000, thanks for that.

Far more intresting and relevant than most of the posts in this thread!
Surely not! Is that possible?

the Chagossians right to self determination ended 40 odd years ago, they are no longer the residents of the Island, deal with it.

So if we remove the falklanders by force now and give the islands to Argentina, in 40 yrs it will be OK. Interesting concept.

No, according to him if the Argies remove the Falkies today, they’ll no longer be residents and it’ll be OK tomorrow. No need to wait 40 years.

Give Oz back to the Aboriginies, NZ to the Mouiris, US to the Brave’s and thousands of countless other movemet/migrations of people where some do not agree with it

The colonists in NZ and the US signed treaties to resolve grievances with the Maori and some Indian bands respectively.

I think you are somewhat understating the genocidal intent and outcome of the US and Australian conquests by describing them as “migrations of people where some do not agree with it”.

Do you think that would constitute a snipe, Sherlock?

It’s a pretty good indication of somebody coming in from the sidelines, don’t you think?

Can I just check though – is failure to express a view an indication of the lack of merits of somebody’s argument, or am I misunderstanding “I suspect you would rather snipe from the sidelines though than actually express a view” and it’s actually commending such a position?

Nothing better to do?

The colonists in NZ and the US signed treaties to resolve grievances with the Maori and some Indian bands respectively.

Ah – so the islanders’ mistake was not signing a treaty with the penguins?

I think you are somewhat understating the genocidal intent and outcome of the US and Australian conquests by describing them as “migrations of people where some do not agree with it”.

Another good point – those countries should definitely be nearer the top of the UN’s list of wrongs to right than the FIs then.

I think you are somewhat understating the genocidal intent and outcome of the US and Australian conquests by describing them as “migrations of people where some do not agree with it”.

Yes ever so slightly. Just goes to show though, no genocidal intent and outcome here (FI) no forced evictions, murdering a people, then making them sign peace treaties when you had ground them into the dust. Yet there are many passions being stirred.

bwaarp – Member

A quick look over at wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories#Criticism

LOL Ernie, tool.

So you post a link which is in total agreement with what I’m saying, ie, that the UN considers the Falklands to be a Non-Self-Governing Territory which has not been decolonised, and you call me a tool ? How does that work then ? Did you actually read the link ?

aracer – Member

a vote of 107 to 4 against

It wasn’t 107 to 4 in agreement with Argentina’s position on decolonisation.

Well aracer, I guess you can pretend for as long as you want that the UN hasn’t called for Britain to decolonise the Falklands, but it doesn’t make your ridiculous claim true. The UN wants the UK to negotiate with Argentina the sovereignty of the Falklands, something which the UK refuses to do – a position that no one, bar about 3 tiny countries, supports. The UK is isolated over the Falklands issue.

Now you might think that the UN, which was set up after WW2 to stop disputes between countries escalating into war, shouldn’t get involved in this and that it’s none of their business, fair enough. But don’t pretend that the UN isn’t taking a position just because you personally don’t like it. It’s all quite pointless really.

UN REPORT ON FALKLANDS’ DECOLONISATION

Report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2011 General Assembly Official Records Sixty-sixth Session Supplement No. 23

Chapter XI: Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

135. The Special Committee considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) at its 6th and 7th meetings, on 21 June 2011.

136. In its consideration of the item, the Special Committee took into account paragraph 4 (b) of the annex to General Assembly resolution 58/316, as well as other relevant resolutions and decisions.

137. During its consideration of the item, the Special Committee had before it a working paper prepared by the Secretariat containing information on developments concerning the Territory (A/AC.109/2011/14).

138. At the 6th meeting, the Chair informed the Special Committee that the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay had requested to participate in the Committee’s consideration of the item. The Committee decided to accede to the requests.

139. At the same meeting, in accordance with a decision taken at the 3rd meeting, statements were made by Roger Edwards and Dick Sawle of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands, Maria Angélica del Carmen Vernet and Alejandro Betts (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.6).

140. Also at the same meeting, the representative of Chile, also on behalf of Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), introduced a draft resolution on the item (A/AC.109/2011/L.7).

141. At the same meeting, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina made a statement (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.6).

142. Also at the same meeting, statements were made by the representatives of Cuba, China, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Sierra Leone, Paraguay (on behalf of the Common Market of the South and associated countries), Guyana (on behalf of the Union of South American Nations), Guatemala (on behalf of the Ibero-American countries), Brazil, Uruguay, Peru and El Salvador (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.6).

143. At the same meeting, the Special Committee adopted draft resolution A/AC.109/2011/L.7, without a vote.

144. At the 7th meeting, on 21 June, the representative of Grenada made a statement (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.7).

145. The text of draft resolution A/AC.109/2011/L.7 read as follows:

Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

The Special Committee, Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Aware that the maintenance of colonial situations is incompatible with the United Nations ideal of universal peace, A/66/23

DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE CALLS FOR RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS BY ARGENTINA,

UNITED KINGDOM ON FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)

Adopting Draft Resolution by Consensus, Committee Debates
Questions of Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity

The Special Committee on Decolonization this morning regretted that, in spite of the widespread international support for a negotiation between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom that includes all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the implementation of the General Assembly resolutions on that question has not yet started.

And so it carries on……

DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE CALLS FOR RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS BY ARGENTINA,UNITED KINGDOM ON FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)

And there’s loads more. You can huff and puff and bang your feet as much as you want, aracer and the denialists, but my point still stands, ie, I think it’s fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina’s position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands.

I guess you can pretend for as long as you want that the UN hasn’t called for Britain to decolonise the Falklands,

What I dont understand (maybe I’m being fik) is what has the decolonisation of the FI got to do with Argentina if not so that the islands can become re-colonised?
Either the Islands are completely independent or a colony. The UN wants decolonisation, so that leaves independence which requires zero input from Argentina.

I think it’s fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina’s position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands.

Wrong choice of words, the UN resolution was for Argentina and UK to peacfully negotiate the future of the Falklands. The UN resolution as voted on does not mention decolonistaion in any shape or form.

Surely to de-colonise, the residents should determine the future – what are you proposing ern, that we should ship them out?

what are you proposing ern, that we should ship them out?

Are you struggling keeping up ? I’m not proposing anything, it’s the UN who’s doing the proposing – you need to direct your question at the UN not me. I haven’t even said whether I agree with the UN’s proposals. I simply said, quote, “I think it’s fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina’s position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands.”

As it happens I think the UN’s position is reasonable. Although personally I couldn’t give a monkeys who owns the Falklands.

BTW, I like your conclusion that UN isn’t calling for Britain to decolonise the Falklands, despite the fact that the UN Committee on Decolonization issues reports on the Falklands, and they come out with stuff like “Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Aware that the maintenance of colonial situations is incompatible with the United Nations ideal of universal peace.” That’s a blinder you’re playing there mate. Anyway, enough of all this bollox…..

So what would the UN’s position be if we gave the Falklands independence and then the argies (ex colonists themselves) took it by force? How is that not colonisation?

Is the UN calling for the decolonisation of mainland America? Did the USA vote against us? (If so that’s a bit rich). Is Scotland a colony of London? Is Basque country a colony of Madrid? If so where are the UN calls to give the Basque country back?

I fact where did the 107 v 4 figure come from?

almost every country in the world supports Argentina’s position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands.

Simply Not True – as you’ve been playing the partial quote game again

The international community supports negotiations leading to a, and I quote,

“peaceful and negotiated settlement of the dispute over sovereignty“

There is no mention in any of the UN reports or mandates of negotiations over decolonisation.

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/12/10/falklands-invites-c-24-president-to-balance-recent-visit-to-argentina

Nice response from the Falklanders.

You need to look up the definition of a colony bwaarp
that is a state entirely under the control of an independent state

USA is not a colony nor is Australia they are independent countries

Basque you may have a point but as it crosses into both france and spain it may be more difficult to say this and it is generally referred to as the basque region rather than colony.

Can I just check though – is failure to express a view an indication of the lack of merits of somebody’s argument, or am I misunderstanding “I suspect you would rather snipe from the sidelines though than actually express a view” and it’s actually commending such a position?

I am not sure how you can fail to express a view and still have an argument tbh – you can be argumentative. Perhaps you could explain that. I am not sure why you think I/anyone would praise sniping [snipe: To make malicious, underhand remarks or attacks. ] Do you think this is a good thing to do?

*In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion.[1][2]

yes Zulu the decommissioning committee on colonization want us to speak about a colony but it does not think we have a colony. It is a plausible line of attack. Keep with it and you are accusing someone else of partial quoting Oh the ironing 🙄

So what happens if the Falklanders are occupied by the Spanish Colonial descended Argentines? Is that a colony?

What’s the worlds position on making the USA give up Guam? Can someone please get back to me on this 107 v 4 vote and send me a reference because I can’t find a damn thing about it.

that is a state entirely under the control of an independent state

Which is what the argies want is it not?

Can nobody answer my question?
What has the decolonisation of the FI got to do with the Argentinians?

the argies as you call them want to make the FI part of argentina so it would not be a colony anymore than Mon Man Cymru or the shetlands are colonies of the UK

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/477/28/IMG/NR047728.pdf?OpenElement

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_v23/ai_4079774/

that was just simple google searching on
UN Resolution 40/21
UN Resolution 40/21 voting
respectively
Do you need more?

So why can’t we make the Falklands a part of Britain? What happens if the population do not want to be part of Argentina? Surely forcing them to be would be colonialism.