Falklands Referendum

[quitodario]

http://en.mercopress...heir-own-future



If the Falklanders wanted anything to do with Argentina the UK would quite happily enter into discussions but i doubt they will for a long time. Argentina would be better set wooing the future generations of Falklanders and i'm sure over time they'd quite happily work with Argentina on many things but whilst we have populist governments in Argentina i doubt any sensible approach will ever be brought to the table.

Has Argentina actually ever apologised for invading?

Its the same situation with Gibraltar. Blair almost signed a "dual" sovereignty deal there until the locals said "STOP".

Ok. Clearly we have different views on this. I share the position expressed in the Guardian article referred to earlier:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/09/meaningless-falklands-referendum-uk-sovereignty

UN resolutions on the dispute, of which there have been 40, do not refer to self-determination but to the "interests" of the islanders. Attempts by Britain at the UN to include the phrase have proved unsuccessful. The UN says the dispute over sovereignty must be settled through bilateral negotiations, between Argentina and Britain, not with the islanders.

And more from this article that I think is right on target:


The referendum, of course, is a device to strengthen the British and Falklands governments' hand as Argentina steps up its calls for negotiations over the sovereignty over the islands.
The dispute over sovereignty has been going on for centuries, and Britain has never been really confident over its claim to the islands. In 1929, the Duke of Wellington observed: "I have perused the papers respecting the Falkland Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands."
Britain was prepared to do a deal even with Galtieri's military junta in the years before the 1982 invasion of the islands. Documents recently released at the National Archives under the "30-year rule" showed that the British policy, as Lord Carrington, Thatcher's foreign secretary put it, was one of neglect and hoping for the best, he told a private meeting of the committee set up to look into the circumstances leading up to the 1982 invasion:
"If I may be very frank and rather rude, you had to keep the ball in the air with the Argentines. That was the object. We did not have any cards in our hands."
Carrington added: "There were all sorts of reasons why a settlement was to the advantage of everybody. If you cannot afford to defend a place … the only conceivable thing that you can do is to keep negotiations going as long as possible whether or not you think they are going to be successful."
Referring to a lease-back plan suggested by the Foreign Office a year earlier, he said: "As I recollect, the Argentine conversations did not go too badly and to begin with the Falklands Islanders did not react too strongly, but the House of Commons reacted very strongly." The papers reveal that Thatcher herself was prepared to negotiate with Argentina even after the invasion as the British taskforce was heading for the islands.

 

[quitodario]

http://en.mercopress...heir-own-future



If the Falklanders wanted anything to do with Argentina the UK would quite happily enter into discussions but i doubt they will for a long time. Argentina would be better set wooing the future generations of Falklanders and i'm sure over time they'd quite happily work with Argentina on many things but whilst we have populist governments in Argentina i doubt any sensible approach will ever be brought to the table.

Has Argentina actually ever apologised for invading?

Its the same situation with Gibraltar. Blair almost signed a "dual" sovereignty deal there until the locals said "STOP".

I do agree with you 100% that Argentina should issue an apology for the war if it hasn't already.

 

[camberiu]

I do agree with you 100% that Argentina should issue an apology for the war if it hasn't already.

You speak as if the the ultimate goal was to actually find a negotiated solution for this. It is not! The Falklands are MUCH more valuable to the Argentinian government if it remains under British control. It is the ultimate distractor, the ultimate galvanizer of public opinion during a time of crisis. The worst thing that it could happen to this government is to get the islands.

 

[quitodario]

You speak as if the the ultimate goal was to actually find a negotiated solution for this. It is not! The Falklands are MUCH more valuable to the Argentinian government if it remains under British control. It is the ultimate distractor, the ultimate galvanizer of public opinion during a time of crisis. The worst thing that it could happen to this government is to get the islands.

I agree with you that it is the ultimate distractor and ultimate galvanizer of public opinion, as demonstrated in '82 by the dictatorship.

I don't think you are right to say it is the worst thing that could happen to this government. Cristina's popularity would skyrocket. In the euphoria, she could probably even push through plans for a third term.

And I do honestly think the intent of the Argentine govt. is to move toward resolution.

I think we need to put this in perspective. The only thing Argentina is asking for right now is a re-opening of negotiations. That shouldn't be impossible for the UK to comply with.

Anyway, logging off. Best to all.

 

[scotttswan]

Ok. Clearly we have different views on this. I share the position expressed in the Guardian article referred to earlier:
http://www.guardian....-uk-sovereignty

UN resolutions on the dispute, of which there have been 40, do not refer to self-determination but to the "interests" of the islanders. Attempts by Britain at the UN to include the phrase have proved unsuccessful. The UN says the dispute over sovereignty must be settled through bilateral negotiations, between Argentina and Britain, not with the islanders.

Ok. Clearly we have different views on this. I share the position expressed in the Guardian article referred to earlier:
http://www.guardian....-uk-sovereignty

UN resolutions on the dispute, of which there have been 40, do not refer to self-determination but to the "interests" of the islanders. Attempts by Britain at the UN to include the phrase have proved unsuccessful. The UN says the dispute over sovereignty must be settled through bilateral negotiations, between Argentina and Britain, not with the islanders.

And more from this article that I think is right on target:


The referendum, of course, is a device to strengthen the British and Falklands governments' hand as Argentina steps up its calls for negotiations over the sovereignty over the islands.
The dispute over sovereignty has been going on for centuries, and Britain has never been really confident over its claim to the islands. In 1929, the Duke of Wellington observed: "I have perused the papers respecting the Falkland Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands."
Britain was prepared to do a deal even with Galtieri's military junta in the years before the 1982 invasion of the islands. Documents recently released at the National Archives under the "30-year rule" showed that the British policy, as Lord Carrington, Thatcher's foreign secretary put it, was one of neglect and hoping for the best, he told a private meeting of the committee set up to look into the circumstances leading up to the 1982 invasion:
"If I may be very frank and rather rude, you had to keep the ball in the air with the Argentines. That was the object. We did not have any cards in our hands."
Carrington added: "There were all sorts of reasons why a settlement was to the advantage of everybody. If you cannot afford to defend a place … the only conceivable thing that you can do is to keep negotiations going as long as possible whether or not you think they are going to be successful."
Referring to a lease-back plan suggested by the Foreign Office a year earlier, he said: "As I recollect, the Argentine conversations did not go too badly and to begin with the Falklands Islanders did not react too strongly, but the House of Commons reacted very strongly." The papers reveal that Thatcher herself was prepared to negotiate with Argentina even after the invasion as the British taskforce was heading for the islands.

What is Argentina's endgame? Complete sovereignty? Shared sovereignty? Leaseback? A share in the natural resources?
The Argentine constitution only accepts complete sovereignty. How can you negotiate anything else?
The Hague was quite happy to talk with Timmerman when he was over, but he wouldn't talk to the Hague whilst the Falkland representatives were in the room.

How can they discuss the interests of the people without the people having any form of representation there?

 

[Matiasba]

The islands are british now and they will continue like this without any problem, because they have a very strong army and the support of the main power, the USA.

But, what has to do an Island from thousands kilometers away controlling this piece of land in the ass of the world? if you look at the map, dont they belong to Argentina? In fact, didnt was like that until they got colonized in 1833, expeled the local argentine population and implanted a british one?

This what Im talking it is proved to happened, so the answer to these questions may give the reason to what Argentina claims.


Thats my view (despite I actually dont care that much of the Malvinas).

 

[Somewhereinba]

*gets out the popcorn*

Argentina will never convince the people of the Falklands to be part of Argentina and the Falklands will stay a UK territory - the end. Argentina does not have the military power to threaten the UK or reputation on the world stage to make the UK even consider entering into negotiations The Argentinian government is acting like an annoying mosquito buzzing around making noise with no real power. Claims to the island will not be solved by whoever can prove they lay claim to the island for whatever reason they believe is more valid A human settlement on the island means the power is with the UK - this won't change, Cristina can keep buzzing as much as she wants. I guess it fills newspapers and gives us something to talk about.

 

[scotttswan]

The islands are british now and they it will continue like this without any problem, because they have a very strong army and the support of the main power, the USA.

But, what has to do an Island from thousands kilometers away controlling this piece of land in the ass of the world? if you look at the map, dont they belong to Argentina? In fact, didnt was like that until they got colonized in 1833, expeled the local argentine population and implanted a british one?

This what Im talking it is proved to happened, so the answer to these questions may give the reason to what Argentina claims.


Thats my view (despite I actually dont care that much of the Malvinas).

You could say the same about all the islands in the Atlantic belonging to Portugal, Spain etc. The channel islands are closer to France than the UK.

Its debatable who they belonged to in the early 19th century, and Patagonia didn't become part of Argentina until after the Conquest of the Desert. Long after there were the islands were inhabited by some of the ancestors of the current inhabitants.

The colony was not expelled only a garrison. The colonists were encouraged to stay. If you notice the Argentine rhetoric has changed over the past year or two to actually only say Argentine authorities were removed rather than a population.

 

[Matiasba]

You could say the same about all the islands in the Atlantic belonging to Portugal, Spain etc. The channel islands are closer to France than the UK.

Its debatable who they belonged to in the early 19th century, and Patagonia didn't become part of Argentina until after the Conquest of the Desert. Long after there were the islands were inhabited by some of the ancestors of the current inhabitants.

The colony was not expelled only a garrison. The colonists were encouraged to stay. If you notice the Argentine rhetoric has changed over the past year or two to actually only say Argentine authorities were removed rather than a population.

It doesnt matter if they were a thousand or just one people, the thing here is that the british colonized and expelled local population, and implant a totally new one. That annuls 100% of the principle of self-determination, British main argument.

 

[scotttswan]

It doesnt matter if they were a thousand or just one people, the thing here is that the british colonized and expelled local population, and implant a totally new one. That annuls 100% of the principle of self-determination, British main argument.

But they didn't expel any local population they expelled a garrison and encouraged the local population to stay.