And so it begins - Falklands: Pope Asked To Intervene In Row

1) There's a realistic possibility of Scotland (which isn't an independant state) leaving the UK due to the scots' right to self-determination, so surely if the scots have the choice to leave the UK (despite not being an independant state), then the Falklandislanders should have the choice the remain in the UK despite not being an independant state.

2) According to most historical sources, Britian layed it's claim on the islands before the Argentian/Spanish colony was established, so arguably we were ending their 'occupation' of the islands, not starting one of ours. That said, another way (which doesn't help the British case) to look at this is that remving the existing islanders in 1833 in the name of a pre-existing claim was against their rights to self determination.

3) Surely the wishes of the current inhabitants should be the main issue. The only reason for maintaining British control just because we've administered them for 200 years is to avoid the enormous cost of shipping all of the army equipment home, reorganising government services etc.

The Falklands is not, and never has been, a nation. Thus the law of self-determination does not apply.

It is a nation, country, state, whatever you want to call it. It is simply not sovereign.

The Falklands is not, and never has been, a nation. Thus the law of self-determination does not apply.

No, it isn't. It's an overseas territory.

No, it isn't. It's an overseas territory.

This argument looks very tenuous to anybody who isn't British I'm afraid.

Firstly, the Falkland Islands are not an independent state, but a British Overseas Territory of just over 3000 people, thus, they do not have the right to self determination - do you think anybody would take a blind bit of notice if the village of Framlingham, in Suffolk, voted to become Argentine?

Secondly, the British expelled all the Argentine settlers from the Falklands back in 1833, leaving only settlers of British origin. Meaning none of the decedents of the Argentine settlers of the islands were eligible to vote, so of course the remaining islanders are going to vote to remain British.

In short, the British argument for maintaining responsibility for the islands should be based on the fact that the British have been in continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except during the 1982 invasion), not this PR nonsense about self-determination.

Very similar to how the Spanish European descendants of the predominantly white country of Argentina stole the land from the Amerindians in the 1500s and 1600s......difference being they massacred and enslaved most of them.

I'm sorry, of what relevance is this?

I assure you that the British have done their fair share of massacring and enslaving.

Scotland is a country of 5.3 million people with a substantial history as an independent nation prior to the treaty of union in 1706. The Falkland islands are an over seas territory of under 3000 (the size of a small village), with no history as an independent state. The comparison is frankly ridiculous.



In actual fact the first European colony on the Falklands was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, in 1764 (a year before the British founded their first settlement). The colony was then passed from France to Spain in 1767, and was subsequently placed under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. The British also later abandoned their settlements and left the islands in 1774, due to economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War, which left the Spanish as the only remaining colony.




The right to self-determination is the cardinal principle in modern international law principles of international law. It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference.

The Falklands is not, and never has been, a nation. Thus the law of self-determination does not apply.

This argument looks very tenuous to anybody who isn't British I'm afraid.

Firstly, the Falkland Islands are not an independent state, but a British Overseas Territory of just over 3000 people, thus, they do not have the right to self determination - do you think anybody would take a blind bit of notice if the village of Framlingham, in Suffolk, voted to become Argentine?

Secondly, the British expelled all the Argentine settlers from the Falklands back in 1833, leaving only settlers of British origin. Meaning none of the decedents of the Argentine settlers of the islands were eligible to vote, so of course the remaining islanders are going to vote to remain British.

In short, the British argument for maintaining responsibility for the islands should be based on the fact that the British have been in continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except during the 1982 invasion), not this PR nonsense about self-determination.

This argument looks very tenuous to anybody who isn't British I'm afraid.

Firstly, the Falkland Islands are not an independent state, but a British Overseas Territory of just over 3000 people, thus, they do not have the right to self determination


WRONG

- do you think anybody would take a blind bit of notice if the village of Framlingham, in Suffolk, voted to become Argentine? NOT RELEVANT

Secondly, the British expelled all the Argentine settlers from the Falklands back in 1833, READ A HISTORY BOOK. SO WRONG AND WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENED NEARLY 200 YEARS AGO? WHY AREN'T THE GERMANS COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR TERRATORIAL LOSSES AFTER WW1 & 2? leaving only settlers of British origin. WRONG Meaning none of the decedents of the Argentine settlers ARGENTINA DIDN'T EXISTS THEN. of the islands were eligible to vote, so of course the remaining islanders are going to vote to remain British. THERE'S ABOUT 26 DUAL NATIONALITY BRITISH/ARGENTINIANS LIVING ON THE ISLANDS.

In short, the British argument for maintaining responsibility for the islands should be based on the fact that the British have been in continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except during the 1982 invasion), not this PR nonsense about self-determination.

POSSIBLY, BUT IT FINALLY SHUTS THE UN COLONIZATION COMMITTEE UP. THEY'VE BEEN TOLD TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO CLOSE IT DOWN AS THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE. INCIDENTALLY THE GIBRALTARIAN REFERENDUM SENT A CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE SPANISH AND BLAIR TO BACK OFF.

The people of the Falklands want to be British. Of the 92% of the people who voted in the British/Argentnian vote, on 3 people voted to go Argentinian. The entire Argentinian argument for the Falklands is that they are closer to the Falklands than Britain. Argentina should accept this decision.

No they didn't vote to go Argentinian- they voted against being British (and have probably been banished from the Islands by now!)