Pope Francis thinks Falklands belong to Argentina

I think you'll actually find that between 1774 and 1840 the islands where actually argentinian In addition if you go by the first come first served basis, then you'll find that the islands are french. In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766. Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.

Between 1774-1840 it was "Argentinian"? No. Argentina did not even exist until the 1830s, are you by any chance thinking of the Spanish Empire and the Spanish Province, the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata? There is no direct line of authority between the Spanish Empire and the claims of Argentina. In addition, the Spanish left a plaque on the islands when they departed, stating their ownership.

There was the 1820 claim of Captain Jewett and the United Provinces of the River Plate, another predecessor statelet to Argentina and then the 1828 British-authorised Vernet settlement, which again was that of a predecessor statelet. In 1832, the very brief attempt by Argentina to seize control was rejected by the British navy.

What happened is very simple - the new state of Argentina tried very early on to make a land-grab of the islands and this was rejected by Britain.

Since then, Argentina has tried over and over again to re-run the land-grab. The ONLY claim that has any merit on their part is a colonialist one - that the property of the Spanish Empire in the entire region of the Atlantic adjacent to Argentina passed to Argentina.

However, there is also, it is true, a colonialist element to the historical British claim - the islands were originally obtained by the British during the colonialist struggles between Britain, France, Spain and (later) the USA.

So the argument from Argentina that they are engaged in a virtuous struggle against a colonialist power (echoed by Cardinal Bagoglione) is complete nonsense and a cynical distortion of the facts. The original struggles over the islands were colonial landgrabs and realpolitik on all sides.

I see your point that argentina did not exist, however when it did 1810 (not 1830) under the Primera Junta after many independence struggles, it would have is quite obvious that this independence struggle was also for the Falkland Islands. Though I can also see the point of England wanting a port and oil, just because you but settlers on an island and make them inhabit it does not mean it is english! (BTW please stop giving me negative points, i am arguing my point and personal opinion, its not going to change!!)

George Galloway is staying true to his usual form on the issue of the Falklands... (his views, not mine)

George Galloway's 'love' for Falkland Islands (11Mar13)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beOVtOsepXg

George Galloway lets rip on Falkland Islands referendum result (12Mar13)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgw_hjJXjZ0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

He seems quite confused in that second one - he's complaining that as the FI are a British Overseas Territory, that the locals have no say, which is kind of an imperialistic argument, not a socialist one. It's fairly typical of him though tbh, I think 'shifty' is the best description of his politics, which slide all over the map to suit whichever bit of nonsense he happens to be engaging in.

Bit depressing the way some parts of the Left ignore self-determination rights, but then it happens on the Right to - after all, what was Galtieri's landgrab but a classic piece of far-Right fascistic politics?

Then we could (voice inside head - "on no, please don't!") go to the Israel/Palestine situation and look at why the US Right persistently ignore and devalue Palestinian claims to longevity of residence.

I see your point that argentina did not exist, however when it did 1810 (not 1830) under the Primera Junta after many independence struggles, it would have is quite obvious that this independence struggle was also for the Falkland Islands. Though I can also see the point of England wanting a port and oil, just because you but settlers on an island and make them inhabit it does not mean it is english! (BTW please stop giving me negative points, i am arguing my point and personal opinion, its not going to change!!)

I think you'll actually find that between 1774 and 1840 the islands where actually argentinian In addition if you go by the first come first served basis, then you'll find that the islands are french. In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766. Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.

How dare you insult our beloved Dear Leader, The Pope, whom we worship and adore?

i don't know what kind of christianity you are practicing but we don't worship the pope, he is the leader of the Catholic church not God.

Unless he calls a Crusade upon the UK I don't think we need to care.

Not sure who would take part now - Spain and Portugal have their own problems and most people who were Catholics are no longer practising in the rest of Europe. Even the Jesuits are down on their uppers, apart from having their own Pope. Amusingly, the brother of the head of the order charged with extending the Catholic faith is - no longer a Catholic!

Even in Argentina, church attendances have plummeted. Basically it's a dying Church, heading for bankruptcy and (at last) moving out of human history. And a jolly good thing too, given the misery and exploitation it has inflicted over the millennia.

It is growing in China I believe...

I agree, I doubt he will even mention them again unless the argentina president harasses him constantly about it.
They are UK property though.

Unless he calls a Crusade upon the UK I don't think we need to care.

LOL. Apparently he's a unionist though on the issue of Scottish independence which is something I was slightly surprised by.

I'm not sure why the rest of the international community tends to side with Argentina though if the self-determination principle of people having lived somewhere for a "long" period of time is widely accepted (as no doubt it generally is). Do they think 200 years is not long enough or that circa 2,800 people is too few (which seems to be partly George's argument)? Possibly anti-British, anti-colonialist sentiment in some quarters or economic interests in Latin America (as with the US).

The cynic in me does sometimes wonder if the British government would spend so much money defending the islands if there were not natural resources in the area.

I think a lot are fairly neutral and unbothered by it all, so they kind of allow Argentina to rant on and resist the temptation to call it for what it is, purely for diplomatic reasons. Some of it is just relief that Argentina no longer has a fascist government, so they are concerned not to rock the boat too much for Kirchner. I also think some of the male politicians have been a little bit keen on her, judging from reports!

There's cynicism on both sides - that's why Galloway's banging on about it, as he dislikes the cynicism of Tory politicians using it for nationalist vote appeal - it's just a shame that he can't come out and say that, instead of always relying on political games of absurdity himself - although being a regular player of the media, perhaps he comes out with the more extreme stuff to ensure he gets airtime.

The oil thing appears to have been overstated (so far) but doubtless if the price of energy continues to rise inexorably, the most remote and difficult fields will become more and more possible, so the long-term plays of both governments dominate thinking.

Also let's never forget that the sovereignty of the Falklands was under discussion before the invasion - as some kind of dubious 'leaseback' arrangement. This and the withdrawal of British naval forces were what emboldened Galtieri in his absurd and nationalistic venture.

Let's also not forget that he was further encouraged by US diplomacy in the region and their relentless toadying to neo-fascist and outright fascist governments in Latin America under the supposed guise of suppressing the Communist threat. People shouldn't go all dewy eyed about the commitment of the UK government towards the right of self-determination - as HMG were previously quite happy to discuss shared sovereignty, something the islanders never wanted.