Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    I'm sorry, of what relevance is this?

    I assure you that the British have done their fair share of massacring and enslaving.
    Really don't like Britain, do you?

    Do you reckon you could take your anti-British views outside of our territories, because I'm willing to bet you're living here.....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    It's just a thought, but do you think possibly somebody filled the ballot paper out incorrectly? Or they made sure it wasn't 100% just to make sure nobady called it fixed?
    No because (as I understand) they called in international bodies to observe the referendum was done properly (so that Argentina had no ammunition to fire). I think one paper was "spoilt".....

    Out of 1600 people you're bound to have 3 people who don't like the British Government and vote against it. Don't forget the question wasn't "UK or Argentina?", it was just "UK, yes or no?".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    It's just a thought, but do you think possibly somebody filled the ballot paper out incorrectly? Or they made sure it wasn't 100% just to make sure nobady called it fixed?
    Fixing the ballot so people wouldn't think it was fixed?!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I abhor Cristina Kirchner.

    Shallow moody *****.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    No because (as I understand) they called in international bodies to observe the referendum was done properly (so that Argentina had no ammunition to fire). I think one paper was "spoilt".....

    Out of 1600 people you're bound to have 3 people who don't like the British Government and vote against it. Don't forget the question wasn't "UK or Argentina?", it was just "UK, yes or no?".
    It would be interesting to ask those 3 people why they voted against remaining a British territory. For all we know they might have preferred for the Falklands to be independent, or perhaps they wanted greater integration with the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Really don't like Britain, do you?

    Do you reckon you could take your anti-British views outside of our territories, because I'm willing to bet you're living here.....
    I'm originally from Switzerland, and true to the Swiss tradition, I'm neutral and impartial. I have not expressed any anti-British sentiment, except in order to highlight the hypocrisy of the previous poster's comment. And indeed, I do not even necessarily support Argentina's claim. I'm merely highlighting the weakness of the self-determination argument on the basis that the international law regarding self-determination applies only to nations, not overseas territories.

    PS: If you want everybody in Britain who has ever expressed any anti-British view to leave, you'd better ask the last person leaving to turn out the lights.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    I'm originally from Switzerland, and true to the Swiss tradition, I'm neutral and impartial. I have not expressed any anti-British sentiment, except in order to highlight the hypocrisy of the previous poster's comment. And indeed, I do not even necessarily support Argentina's claim. I'm merely highlighting the weakness of the self-determination argument on the basis that the international law regarding self-determination applies only to nations, not overseas territories.
    I'm no expert on International law, but there's people living there now. They've voted to stay as they are and we lost 255 troops fighting for their freedom from a country that was ruled by a Military Junta and has had only relativly recent (World War 2) claims when it looked like we were about to loose.

    They've also tried to grab land off Chile and the Anatartic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    We already have all the dialogue we need.

    Argentina want us to hand them the Falklands for no real reason, they have taken agressive actions like denying port space to those flying the flag etc.

    We asked the people of the Falklands, they want to remain British. There's no compromise here.
    This.

    Plus the Pope has no jurisdiction or authority in the matter, I suppose he could call for crusade but...that's not really the done thing any more and would quickly spell the end of the Catholic church.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    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?
    What's the issue about the size of the population. What's it got to do with anything.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    I'm originally from Switzerland, and true to the Swiss tradition, I'm neutral and impartial. I have not expressed any anti-British sentiment, except in order to highlight the hypocrisy of the previous poster's comment. And indeed, I do not even necessarily support Argentina's claim. I'm merely highlighting the weakness of the self-determination argument on the basis that the international law regarding self-determination applies only to nations, not overseas territories.

    PS: If you want everybody in Britain who has ever expressed any anti-British view to leave, you'd better ask the last person leaving to turn out the lights.
    Yeah, you're not as neutral and impartial as you claim. As has been pointed out before, 'overseas territory' is a British designation of what the Falklands are and is a label only relevant to the UK. As part of the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Falklands is classified as a colony by the UN and there's an entire bloody resolution (1514) on how colonies most certainly do have the right to self-determination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yeah, you're not as neutral and impartial as you claim. As has been pointed out before, 'overseas territory' is a British designation of what the Falklands are and is a label only relevant to the UK. As part of the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Falklands is classified as a colony by the UN and there's an entire bloody resolution (1514) on how colonies most certainly do have the right to self-determination.
    As someone of neither British nor Argentine origin, I'm more impartial than you are.

    The British government placed the Falkland Islands onto the UN’s list of territories entitled to determine their own future when Argentina reasserted its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands in 1945, knowing full well that, having displaced the Argentine population, any self-determination vote would almost certainly go their way. As I'm sure you are aware, the Argentines reject that the Falklands are a Non-Self Governing Territory, and assert that it is merely a boundary dispute.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    the Falklands is classified as a colony by the UN and there's an entire bloody resolution (1514) on how colonies most certainly do have the right to self-determination.
    The UN also passed a resolution (2065) calling on the UK and Argentina to proceed with negotiations over the sovereignty dispute, a resolution that the UK continues to ignore by refusing to reopen negotiations. Using one UN resolution to support a sovereignty claim whist concurrently disregarding another is outright hypocrisy I'm afraid.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    I'm merely highlighting the weakness of the self-determination argument on the basis that the international law regarding self-determination applies only to nations, not overseas territories.
    It certainly does not. It applies to "people" - see the UN Charter, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for examples.

    Indeed, it's main relevance is to overseas territories, which is why it is associated with the decolonialisation movements of the later half of the 20th century.

    Your assertion that "they [the Falkland Islanders] do not have the right to self determination" is completely wrong. It is a universal right, which everyone possesses. International law does not deprive people of this basic right simply because they happen to live on an island, or alongside less people than usual, or whatever other reason you conjure up.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    having displaced the Argentine population, any self-determination vote would almost certainly go their way.
    That simply never happened. At the re-establishment of rule over the Falklands in the 1830s, the "resident population" - in reality, transient labourers - were actually induced to stay and given guarantees over their property since they were the only labour force on the islands. There was only a tiny handful of them, of course. Most left, some stayed on.

    The UN also passed a resolution (2065) calling on the UK and Argentina to proceed with negotiations over the sovereignty dispute, a resolution that the UK continues to ignore by refusing to reopen negotiations. Using one UN resolution to support a sovereignty claim whist concurrently disregarding another is outright hypocrisy I'm afraid.
    Well, no. 1514 represents the position of the Charter, not of the United Nations. But that's not really the point. The UK have negotiated, in fact they were happy to have talks with the Argentinian government very recently. Argentina withdrew from them because the Falkland Islanders were to be represented.

    At the moment, there's really nothing to negotiate. The UK has pledged to respect the views of the Falkland Islanders, and there is no indication they'd even consider the tiniest change in sovereignty at this time. If you can find anything to negotiate there, by all means enlighten us.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    No, it isn't. It's an overseas territory.
    So is Gibraltar. Should their self-determination also be ignored?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You know, I bet if the Argentinian pope asks the British government to hand over the Falklands, they'll just do it.

    ...


    His opinion could hardly be less relevant.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    I'm originally from Switzerland, and true to the Swiss tradition, I'm neutral and impartial. I have not expressed any anti-British sentiment, except in order to highlight the hypocrisy of the previous poster's comment. And indeed, I do not even necessarily support Argentina's claim. I'm merely highlighting the weakness of the self-determination argument on the basis that the international law regarding self-determination applies only to nations, not overseas territories.

    PS: If you want everybody in Britain who has ever expressed any anti-British view to leave, you'd better ask the last person leaving to turn out the lights.
    Why are the Falklands not a nation? How are you defining a nation?

    "Nation" is a fairly ambiguous word, it can mean different things in different contexts. So what are you taking it to mean in this context? For you to outright state the Falklands is not a nation, you must have some criteria in your mind for what counts as a nation, and some reason why they don't fit that criteria.

    As I pointed out earlier, it would be bizarre to say it can't be a nation because it's an overseas territory. There are lots of ex-British Overseas Territories (or the equivalent of) that were clearly nations before becoming independent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    As someone of neither British nor Argentine origin, I'm more impartial than you are.
    Being from a third country does not automatically make you impartial. The fact that you are peddling Argentina's silly rhetoric that the Falkland Islanders are not entitled to self-determination proves you are not impartial.

    (Original post by Futility)
    The British government placed the Falkland Islands onto the UN’s list of territories entitled to determine their own future when Argentina reasserted its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands in 1945, knowing full well that, having displaced the Argentine population, any self-determination vote would almost certainly go their way. As I'm sure you are aware, the Argentines reject that the Falklands are a Non-Self Governing Territory, and assert that it is merely a boundary dispute.
    Except the British government did no such thing, and the list was created by the Special Committee on Decolonization. On the contrary, the UK rejects the list, because its purpose and goal is to speed up decolonisation regardless of the will of the colonists.
    As for displacing the Argentine population, there is no evidence that the population was forced from the islands, and it has been documented that at least twenty seven of Vernet's colony remained on the islands. Only the Argentine administration was forced from the Falklands since obviously the UK claimed the islands themselves. For someone supposedly impartial, you appear to be conveniently well-versed in Argentine delusions and lies.

    (Original post by Futility)
    The UN also passed a resolution (2065) calling on the UK and Argentina to proceed with negotiations over the sovereignty dispute, a resolution that the UK continues to ignore by refusing to reopen negotiations. Using one UN resolution to support a sovereignty claim whist concurrently disregarding another is outright hypocrisy I'm afraid.
    Ignoring the fact that these two resolutions deal with two seperate issues, in this case Argentina has no interest in negotiating, rather it clearly will except nothing less than outright gaining control over the Falklands. Argentina will not concede anything on their side. That is not a negotiation, and the UK will not enter into a negotiation engineered against it, from which it can gain nothing and only lose. Furthermore Argentina refuses to open dialogue with the Falkland Islands government, it is placing illegal trade sanctions over the islands, and it has for decades refused to be reasonable. To then claim that it's the UK that is failing to abide by the resolution beggars belief.
    The fact of the matter is that you're wrong, the Falklands is entitled to self determination, no matter how many times you claim to be Swiss and falsely accuse me of hypocrisy.
    Also, an Indian umpire would referee a Pakistani cricket match with more impartiality than you've been showing here. You're clearly, clearly biased in favour of Argentina.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    The British government placed the Falkland Islands onto the UN’s list of territories entitled to determine their own future when Argentina reasserted its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands in 1945, knowing full well that, having displaced the Argentine population, any self-determination vote would almost certainly go their way. As I'm sure you are aware, the Argentines reject that the Falklands are a Non-Self Governing Territory, and assert that it is merely a boundary dispute.
    No matter which way you look at it, the Argentinians have no right to the Falklands over, either the UK or the Falklanders themselves.

    Historically, Britain claimed the island before either Spain or Argentina did.

    In terms of settlement, the only real settlement that has existed on the Falklands has been british. The french and spanish settlements co-existed alongside British settlements, and were small and minor. And the Argentinian settlement was a penal colony. On top of this, the British Settlement has been the longest running.

    In terms of self-determination, the people there want to remain part of the UK. And the displacement argument simply doesnt work because of the time scale (and the fact that nobody was displaced). Pretty much every country in the world has been owned by another group throughout history. Ironically, the Falklanders are one of the few places that can claim that nobody else has had any real claim to the islands other than themselves.

    Finally, the geographical argument makes no sense. As claiming a piece of land by virtue of it's proximity is ridiculous.

    I'm not normally one to side with the UK, and being Irish/Polish I'm exactly historically inclined to side with them. But I dislike imperialism, and I don't think the old Great Powers have a monopoly on it. The UK may be acting hypocritical in this issue, but that is no reason to hold the Falklander's accountable.

    The Falklands are either an independent nation or they are a sovereign part of the UK. The Argentinian's claim is as strong as the French's, with the exception that the French have not tried to force their claim through shameless gun-waving and imperialism.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Glad I won't be around to see the shenanigans kick off when some random country decides it was forced off the moon in the 21st century.

    De Kirchner will be president for a few more years, the Falklands will still be British for a tad longer than that.

    Tick toc Christina.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Being from a third country does not automatically make you impartial. The fact that you are peddling Argentina's silly rhetoric that the Falkland Islanders are not entitled to self-determination proves you are not impartial.
    Being from a third (uninvolved) country means that I do not have a vested interest in either claim and thus have no reason to be prejudice one way or the other. I'm reasonably well read on both sides of the argument and I've heard both parties dismiss the others' argument(s) as "silly rhetoric", "lies", "delusions", "publicity stunts" etc etc on numerous occasions; when and whether to apply such terms seems to reflect little more than perspective in my experiance. In any case, I'm not "peddling" anything, I'm merely attempting to provide a semblance of balance to a thread which has predictably (in a British-based forum) become utterly one-sided.

    I've already outlined the reasons that I do not think that self-determination argument is a strong one, chiefly amongst which is the fact that the international law regarding self-determination applies only to nations and colonies, of which the Falklands is neither. On the grounds that islands do not have any aboriginal inhabitants living on them, and that the current population were brought to the island to replace the displaced Argentine settlers (which was illegal under international law), I agree with the Argentine claim that the Falklands are an overseas territory and that conflicting claims over the island therefore constitute a territory dispute. The principle of self-determination does not apply to territory disputes.

    By contrast, I think that the British claim over the islands based on the continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (exclusive of 1982) is a strong one.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Except the British government did no such thing, and the list was created by the Special Committee on Decolonization.
    The list was created by the Special Committee on Decolonisation but the Falkland Islands were later voluntarily added to that list by the British government.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    As for displacing the Argentine population, there is no evidence that the population was forced from the islands, and it has been documented that at least twenty seven of Vernet's colony remained on the islands. Only the Argentine administration was forced from the Falklands since obviously the UK claimed the islands themselves. For someone supposedly impartial, you appear to be conveniently well-versed in Argentine delusions and lies.
    Well that depends on what historical records you read; accounts of events are contradictory. One things is for certain, Argentina made a "diplomatic protest for the occupation of the Malvinas" in 1833, and have maintained it ever since

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Ignoring the fact that these two resolutions deal with two seperate issues, in this case Argentina has no interest in negotiating, rather it clearly will except nothing less than outright gaining control over the Falklands. Argentina will not concede anything on their side. That is not a negotiation, and the UK will not enter into a negotiation engineered against it, from which it can gain nothing and only lose.
    From a neutral perspective Britain looks equally as stubborn and uncompromising as Argentina on the matter. Just as Argentina seem unwilling to "except" [sic] any less than gaining complete control over the Falklands, the British are ostensibly equally intransigent with regards to maintaining their complete control over the Falklands. And just as Argentina will seemingly not concede anything on their side, neither will Britain on theirs.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Furthermore Argentina refuses to open dialogue with the Falkland Islands government, it is placing illegal trade sanctions over the islands, and it has for decades refused to be reasonable. To then claim that it's the UK that is failing to abide by the resolution beggars belief.
    Argentina (for the reasons outlined above) do not recognise the Falklands 'government', so it can't very well open a dialogue with them. And the trade sanctions are a direct response to the UK's refusal to reopen negotiations, which is plainly in dissension of UN resolution concerning negotiation.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The fact of the matter is that you're wrong, the Falklands is entitled to self determination, no matter how many times you claim to be Swiss and falsely accuse me of hypocrisy.
    Also, an Indian umpire would referee a Pakistani cricket match with more impartiality than you've been showing here. You're clearly, clearly biased in favour of Argentina.
    Whatever. :rolleyes:

    I'm done wasting my time trying to have a reasonable balanced debate on this subject in this forum (and getting negged by ignorant children in the process).
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 25, 2013
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.