Falkland Islands: We plan referendum on our future

ronan wrote:

<quoted text>
I get it: you invade an island, then you bring your own settlers and ask them to vote on sovereignty.
That makes it alright then... LOL

Ridiculous argument.

You can't go around the globe displacing populations just because their ancestors may have been invaders once upon a time. Every country has been invaded at some point or other. That's why self determination is the only way.

It's debatable whether we invaded the Falklands anyway, but what isn't debatable is that the people there go back generations and are guilty of no crime whatsoever.

Mr Tripod wrote:

<quoted text>
Ridiculous argument.
You can't go around the globe displacing populations just because their ancestors may have been invaders once upon a time. Every country has been invaded at some point or other. That's why self determination is the only way.
It's debatable whether we invaded the Falklands anyway, but what isn't debatable is that the people there go back generations and are guilty of no crime whatsoever.

Now tripod,tell me why in MAlvinas they speak english and not Spanish???
Were are the Argentines settlers???
uk IS FINISHED,economically and morally!

Mr Tripod wrote:

<quoted text>
It's debatable whether we invaded the Falklands anyway,.

In the early 19th century, Britain sent ships to take possession of the islands and displace the Argentinian settlers there.

Those are documented facts.

Why do you think Argentina is claiming them?

ronan wrote:

<quoted text>
In the early 19th century, Britain sent ships to take possession of the islands and displace the Argentinian settlers there.
Those are documented facts.
Why do you think Argentina is claiming them?

could be any or all of the following regions, just like before -

they think there is oil there.
to divert attention from home affairs
because they don't have them
because they want sheep.

and pleae give dates, as in the "early 19th cebtury" Argentina didn't exist. PS, the French were there once, do we see them claiming them?

I see Ronan does not agree with self-determination or the popular vote , except when it agrees with his ideas.

Mr Tripod wrote:

<quoted text>
Ridiculous argument.
You can't go around the globe displacing populations just because their ancestors may have been invaders once upon a time. Every country has been invaded at some point or other. That's why self determination is the only way.
It's debatable whether we invaded the Falklands anyway, but what isn't debatable is that the people there go back generations and are guilty of no crime whatsoever.

Lol...somehow i can't see the Saudis welcoming the Jews back to their ancestral homeland in Saudi!

And Spain wouldn't be able to cope with half the South American population turning up on their doorstep seeking ancestral rights...lol

DudTenners wrote:

<quoted text>could be any or all of the following regions, just like before -
they think there is oil there.
to divert attention from home affairs
because they don't have them
because they want sheep.
and pleae give dates, as in the "early 19th cebtury" Argentina didn't exist. PS, the French were there once, do we see them claiming them?

I can see that your spelling is now as bad as mine!

Argentina declared independence in 1816, and obtained it in 1818. Spain recognised it officially in 1824. So Argentina clearly existed in early 19th century.

The Falklans were Spanish possession, until 1811 when they were abandoned. As Spanish ex-colonies, their sovereignty reverted to Argentina. Argentine send settlers and troops to occupy them in the 1820s.

Britain's claim is based on the invasion by force in 1833, the subsequent settlers sent there and the maintenance of military force. In fact, Britain's claim over the Falklands is akin to squatters rights: if you stay long enough in a property that doesn't belong to you, you can claim ownership.

Argentina's claim over the Falklands existed well before there was any consideration of finding energy there. They consider it as part of their historical heritage, coming from the war of independence.

But that isn't my argument here. My view is that Britain will be unable to keep them in the long run, and that it's better to hand them over in a gesture of goodwill, than to have them snatched from us in 50 or 100 years time.
They cost us a lot of money, and Britain is a country in decline which should face its post imperialism with realism and concentrate on the British islands, rather than exotics far-away outposts that are becoming less significant year by year.

That may not please those who like to bury their head in the sand, but it is the reasonable solution.

There are many way Britain could hand over the islands, and still look after the Falklanders.

DudTenners wrote:

I see Ronan does not agree with self-determination or the popular vote , except when it agrees with his ideas.

How long do you think Britain will be able to guaranty the Falklanders' self-determination?

That's the real question.

People can beat their chest and sound triumphant in 2012, but where will they be in 2112, or 2212?

I guess future British generations, and later British governments will consider the Falklands with as much interest as todays' people judge Gallipoli; nice story, but totally irrelevent!!

Once there won't be any protagonist left alive, and emotions will have calmed down, I gather Britain and Argentina will sit together at the same table and come to an agreement.

I mean Britain finally made peace will all its former enemies, and I am sure it will do the same with Buenos-Aires.

jodi_e wrote:

<quoted text> Lol...somehow i can't see the Saudis welcoming the Jews back to their ancestral homeland in Saudi!

The Jews come from Arabia?

Why do they claim Palestine as their "God given" land then?

as Ronan has obviously never read a text book on international law, I won't bother to argue with him. I just suggest he goes on line or to a library, and actually studies some law on the sovereignty issue, before spouting any more ignorant tripe.

What a revolting slimy maggot you are, Ronan.

We didn't invade the Falklands. We kicked a few squatters off years after we had already claimed it. No Argentinean has ever had ancestry there, and no Argentinean ever will.

The lengths you'll go to to be anti-British stagger me.

According to you, we must always bend over to every aggressive foreigner who claims we owe them something for nothing.

You're a total disgrace to every brave soldier who has ever fought for Britain, and you know it, you snide A hole. You haven't got a bone in your body with an ounce of morality or integrity.

This is at Ronan. Were you dropped on your head as a child?.

What part of we respect the islanders wishes dont you get?. If we went and moved them we would be no better then the Yugoslavians in the 90s.

This has nothing to do with colonialism.This is about Oil.

ronan wrote:

<quoted text>

To be fully British, one has to have established roots in Britain and live there.

that,s strange Ronan iv'e seen posts of yours stating that all it takes to be British is a British passport,or does that only stand for your Muslim child abuser friends,not for white people who speak English and are Christian?

MAlvinero1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Really.
tripod,why do not help them at the C24? Is tomorrow on the 14 June.
Do you want to know last year results at the C-24?
By the terms of the text, introduced by Chile’s representative, the Special Committee regretted that, despite widespread international support for negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom, which included all aspects of the Islands’ future, longstanding General Assembly resolutions on that question had not been implemented. The parties were requested to consolidate the current “process of dialogue and cooperation” by resuming negotiations in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful solution to their sovereignty dispute.
Imploring the Special Committee not to adopt the resolution as presented, Roger Edwards, an elected official of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands, and one of several petitioners to take the floor on the issue, pointed out that the text had been drafted without a reference to the wishes of the Falkland people and their fundamental right to self-determination.“Falkland Islanders do not wish to see a change from British sovereign status,” he declared. The Islands had never formed part of Argentina; they were self-sufficient, self-governing and enjoyed a high standard of living.“Please respect our people’s wishes and our right to self-determination,” he said.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gacol3...
AHAHAHAHA poor deluded pirates!
Only supported byt the brits scums!

lol after the way the British forces humiliated your forces last time you got excited over the FALKLANDS in 82 id have thought you would just want to forget about the whole thing,let me guess, your not in the military and are never likely to be are you,that's why you like a bit of saber rattling you would be happy to see young men from Britain and your country die to bolster your pathetic ego,your no different from that old boot Kirchner.

ronan who on earth are you to dictate about who should own the islands? The only view that is important is the people that have been on the islands for 9 generations, the falklands remain british for one reason only, it is the will of the islands population, it's has nothing to with the argies it doesn't really have that much to with the uk government and it certainly is nothing to do with you.. idiot

Monicker Thief wrote:

What a revolting slimy maggot you are, Ronan.
We didn't invade the Falklands. We kicked a few squatters off years after we had already claimed it. No Argentinean has ever had ancestry there, and no Argentinean ever will.
The lengths you'll go to to be anti-British stagger me.
According to you, we must always bend over to every aggressive foreigner who claims we owe them something for nothing.
You're a total disgrace to every brave soldier who has ever fought for Britain, and you know it, you snide A hole. You haven't got a bone in your body with an ounce of morality or integrity.

We didn't invade the Falklands? Do you think we were invited to take them maybe?

As a matter of interest, how many Falklanders do you think have served in the British Armed Forces over the years?
That's a statistic I would like to know...

So, giving up overseas territories is anti-British, right?
There must have been plenty of anti-British prime ministers and politicians then, because we decolonised in Africa, in the Middle and Far East. Attlee, Eden, McMillan, Heath, Major were also anti-British surely!

Spare us the patriotic cry, British soldiers died all over the world, and we don't consider these places ours.

I propose a sensible and practical solution, and you don't like it. Too bad ...

richieuk wrote:

ronan who on earth are you to dictate about who should own the islands? The only view that is important is the people that have been on the islands for 9 generations, the falklands remain british for one reason only, it is the will of the islands population, it's has nothing to with the argies it doesn't really have that much to with the uk government and it certainly is nothing to do with you.. idiot

If they have been 9 generations living in the Falklands, how can you still call them British.

What sre their actual roots in Britain?

Also, I am not dictating, but proposing a pragmatic solution that will save us plenty of money and probably lives as well.

mikev483 wrote:

<quoted text>
that,s strange Ronan iv'e seen posts of yours stating that all it takes to be British is a British passport,or does that only stand for your Muslim child abuser friends,not for white people who speak English and are Christian?

A Muslim who is living, works and raises his family in Britain is entitled to a British passport when he satisfies the requirements, in my book.

Not a Falklander no wasn't born here, never lived here and for many has no roots in Britain.

Race and religion aren't conditions to obtain a passport in Britain, as much as you would like it to be!

lo que esta en discusion es la soberania,los nativos pueden quedarse y hacer su vida como siempre,es tan simple!

ronan wrote:

<quoted text>
A Muslim who is living, works and raises his family in Britain is entitled to a British passport when he satisfies the requirements, in my book.
Not a Falklander no wasn't born here, never lived here and for many has no roots in Britain.
Race and religion aren't conditions to obtain a passport in Britain, as much as you would like it to be!

so any Pakistani who was born in Pakistan but now has British citizenship is NOT truly BRITISH? well, according to your criteria above anyway.