Falkland Islands to hold referendum on sovereignty

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
It's their right.
Who's the country claiming the island, Argentina who formed in 1853?
People's right to self determination should be respected, if not, let's go to war.
That's one thing I'd fight and die for.
The same thing is happening in Gibraltar.

Let the people decide their future.

Like in Afghanistan, USA and everywhere else, put in a phony puppet regime...who cares what the people want, and oh yeah, first get rid of the opposition parties and people...the crown way..

Did I hear any objection?

That is what, I thought...

Mum's the word...

Any peasant landowners crying?

Nope not going to hear peep out of them...

2000 votes here and majority of employees are Crown owned..

There is a workforce of over 2,000 people in the Falkland Islands. Technical and professional posts that cannot be filled from local resources are filled by recruits from overseas, usually the UK, St. Helena, Australia or New Zealand, on fixed term contracts. Permits are required to work in the Islands.

some interesting facts:

The population, estimated at 3,140, primarily consists of Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian. Immigration from the United Kingdom, Saint Helena, and Chile has reversed a former population decline. The predominant and official language is English. Under the British Nationality Act of 1983, Falkland Islanders are British

Argentina claims that it acquired the islands from Spain when Argentina became independent in 1816 and that the United Kingdom exceeded their authority by allegedly expelling the Argentine settlers in 1833.[59] The islanders reject the Argentine sovereignty claim.

Shortly after the formation of the United Nations in 1945, Argentina asserted its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and its dependencies. In 1947, the United Kingdom offered to submit the case over the Falkland Islands Dependencies to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but Argentina refused the offer. A unilateral application by the United Kingdom in 1955 to the Court in respect of Argentine encroachment ended in deadlock when Argentina announced that it would not respect the decision of the court.[61]

In the late 1960s, as part of the United Kingdom's decolonisation policy, secret discussions were held by the British and Argentine governments to identify a means by which the United Kingdom could cede the islands to Argentina while protecting the rights and way of life of the Islanders. Details of the talks were leaked and the islanders protested against the talks having taken place.

In 2007, 25 years after the war, Argentina reasserted its claim over the Falkland Islands, asking for the UK to resume talks on sovereignty.[65] In March 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated in a meeting with Argentine President Cristina Fernández that there would be no talks over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Arms of government

Executive authority is vested in the Queen and is exercised by the Governor on her behalf.

Falkland Islands use the Falkland pound, which circulates interchangeably with the pound sterling and which is backed by the pound sterling on a one-for-one basis.[105] Falkland coins are produced in the United Kingdom;[106


The population of the Falkland Islands is primarily of British descent (about 70 percent of the population), mainly as a result of Scottish and Welsh immigration to the islands.[



Looks like 70% control of the vote, pretty much decided the vote, before it is taken...

reply to post by ipsedixit

The Falkland Islands are a pawn in the scramble for resources.

I think we all agree on this.

When Argentina is as powerful as China,

They never will be.

England will hand the islands back with a big toothy grin,

England will do nothing.
Whatever does happen it will be done by The United Kingdom.
And how can you hand something BACK to someone who has never owned or possessed it.

as they did with Hong Kong.

The UK had a 99 year lease on Hong Kong which ran out in 1997, are you saying that the UK should have broke that agreement and kept control of Hong Kong - quite an Imperialistic and colonial sort of approach don't you think?

History is a good model for sure:

Question: Why Did China Lease Hong Kong to Britain?
Answer:

The short answer is that China lost Hong Kong to Great Britain in the Opium Wars, and later leased adjacent territories to the British under duress.

Britain's reign over Hong Kong dates back to the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, which ended the First Opium War.

Nineteenth-century Britain had an insatiable appetite for Chinese tea, but the Qing Dynasty and its subjects did not want to buy anything that the British produced. The government of Queen Victoria did not want to use up the country's reserves of gold or silver in buying tea, so it decided to forcibly export opium from the Indian Subcontinent to China. The opium would then be exchanged for tea.

China's government, not too surprisingly, objected to the large-scale importation of narcotics into their country by a foreign power. In 1839, Chinese officials destroyed 20,000 bales of opium. This move provoked Britain to declare war.

The First Opium War lasted from 1839 to 1842. Britain occupied the island of Hong Kong on January 25, 1841, and used it as a military staging point.

China was defeated in the war, and had to cede Hong Kong to Britain in the aforementioned Treaty of Nanking. Hong Kong became a Crown Colony of the British Empire.
Status Changes of Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories

You may be wondering, "Wait a minute, Britain just grabbed Hong Kong. Where did the lease come in, then?"

The British grew increasingly worried about the security of their free port at Hong Kong during the second half of the 19th century. It was an isolated island, surrounded by areas still under Chinese control.

In 1860, at the end of the Second Opium War, the UK gained a perpetual lease over the Kowloon Peninsula, which is the mainland Chinese area just across the strait from Hong Kong Island. This agreement was part of the Convention of Beijing that ended that conflict.

In 1898, the British and Chinese governments signed the Second Convention of Peking, which included a 99-year lease agreement for the islands surrounding Hong Kong, called the "New Territories."

The lease awarded control of more than 200 surrounding small islands to the British. In return, China got a promise that the islands would be returned to it after 99 years.

On December 19, 1984, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which Britain agreed to return not only the New Territories but also Kowloon and Hong Kong itself when the lease term expired. China promised to implement a "One Country, Two Systems" regime, under which for fifty years Hong Kong citizens could continue to practice capitalism and political freedoms forbidden on the mainland.

So, on July 1, 1997, the lease ended and the government of Great Britain transferred control of Hong Kong and surrounding territories to the People's Republic of China.

reply to post by Physic


It's easy this isn't it, especially when you can 'copy and paste'.

asianhistory.about.com...

Which led me to this.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you are going to use external sources you really should provide a link to your source and place ex in square brackets at the beginning of your text and /ex in square brackets at the end of your quoted text.

reply to post by something wicked


Germanicus is on a one man mission to diss everything relating to the United States.
And he's also on a mission to tout BRIC's nations as the saviors of mankind after the immediate collapse of the USA.

Not that WikiPedia is a great source of information. But at least it's something.
WikiPedia

While Amerindians from Patagonia could have visited the Falklands,[1] the islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.

How you been Germanicus? Doing well I see.

reply to post by Freeborn


will do, are you disputing the information?

reply to post by grey580

Not sure if the searched the entire island chain and believe the found canoe, if there was a plaque staking claim or anything or anyone there, doubt they lived to tell about it and evidence was destroyed, to insure the Euro claims

reply to post by Physic


Unless we were there.
We will never know.

reply to post by grey580


en.wikipedia.org...-European_discovery

While Amerindians from Patagonia could have visited the Falklands,[1] the islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.[2] Recent discoveries of arrowheads in Lafonia (on the southern half of East Falkland) as well as the remains of a wooden canoe provide evidence that suggests the Yaghan people of Tierra del Fuego may have made the journey to the islands.

Evidence destroyed is hard to recover, flags burn easy as bodies in some eyes..all we know is the invaders killed the majority of islander inhabitants.

Originally posted by Physic
reply to post by grey580

 

en.wikipedia.org...-European_discovery

While Amerindians from Patagonia could have visited the Falklands,[1] the islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.[2] Recent discoveries of arrowheads in Lafonia (on the southern half of East Falkland) as well as the remains of a wooden canoe provide evidence that suggests the Yaghan people of Tierra del Fuego may have made the journey to the islands.

Evidence destroyed is hard to recover, flags burn easy as bodies in some eyes..all we know is the invaders killed the majority of islander inhabitants.

edit on 13-6-2012 by Physic because: (no reason given)

Oh please. Arrow heads and a wooden canoe don't provide sufficient evidence that there were indigenous people on the island.
Give me a grown over settlement with burnt bones or a mass burial at least.
Proof.

reply to post by Germanicus


Agree the referendum would only make sense if the Falkland Islands could indeed be defined as a sustainable state on its own.

Another example of how this type of idiotic referendums, that do not solve problems is what is happening as the result of the Southern Sudanese independence referendum, 2011 a solution externally imposed to keep the oil and resources flowing.

To me it is still amazing and a good example on how a people can come together to stand against injustice as despotism to look back on how the East Timorese independence referendum, 1999 even against all odds and expecting bloody retaliation.

In this case the UK is of course more certain of the outcome than Indonesia was, but it would be interesting if people from Argentina had been free to move and live on those Islands...

Originally posted by Germanicus
It will not matter soon.

The Imperial Empire is almost dead.

Imperial military footholes will not matter. England wants all that oil. I dont think the Chinese will allow them to have it when they are sole superpower very soon.

They do not have a large enough population to justify self determination or lay claim anyway. This is nothing more than an english publicity stunt.

With all your pro-Chinese and anti-America/West posting you have GOT to be Chinese. Sorry to spoil your parade, but China can't stop anyone. How is this an English publicity stunt when it is the residents of the Falklands doing this, and has nothing to do with England.

reply to post by Panic2k11

......but it would be interesting if people from Argentina had been free to move and live on those Islands...

There is nothing stopping Argentinian's emmigrating to The Falkland Islands.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Germanicus

 

Agree the referendum would only make sense if the Falkland Islands could indeed be defined as a sustainable state on its own.

Another example of how this type of idiotic referendums, that do not solve problems is what is happening as the result of the Southern Sudanese independence referendum, 2011 a solution externally imposed to keep the oil and resources flowing.

To me it is still amazing and a good example on how a people can come together to stand against injustice as despotism to look back on how the East Timorese independence referendum, 1999 even against all odds and expecting bloody retaliation.

In this case the UK is of course more certain of the outcome than Indonesia was, but it would be interesting if people from Argentina had been free to move and live on those Islands...

There is only one question. Do you think the people of the falklands should be able to determine for themselves who they wish to rule them, or do you think the Argentinians should be able to force their rule on them?

The british own the earth. Case closed.....

reply to post by deepankarm


I thought that was America? It's hard to keep track of who the new Imperial scum is we are suppose to hate.

reply to post by Physic

..all we know is the invaders killed the majority of islander inhabitants.

There is NO evidence at all to suggest that the islands were inhabited when discovered by Europeans.
Your assumption that 'islander inhabitants' were killed is a complete figment of your imagination

There is evidence that the islands were visited by Amerindians from Patagonia but there is absolutely no evidence that would suggest a permanent settlement or even regular visitation.

And I hope you see the irony in Argentina trying to use the visit of Patagonian Indians as support for their claim to the islands given the virtual genocide of the Patagonian Indians at the hands of Argentinian colonists and as a direct result of Argentinian government policy.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


nope, USA still ran and owned and controlled by the crown, the illusion of separation, comforts the peasants and let's the King carry out dastardly deeds under a flag other than the UNion Jack....

reply to post by Freeborn



Come on, are you saying the crown did not follow standard protocol? Sure force was used to get rid of any islanders, who did not like the King's colonization efforts...they objected.






I did not say they had a permanent settlement there...saying the King's claim to the land is not valid...

If they were not killed, they were removed from the island....unless they bowed to the crown...

Sure lot of them took jobs working as servants and hands for the new landholdings and owners...

...they being the ones that lived and stayed...the islanders claiming it for Argentina



en.wikipedia.org...

On 6 November 1820, Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (a predecessor of modern-day Argentina) and claimed possession of the islands.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Most of the Argentine settlers were expelled by a US warship in 1831 and a British expedition took control of the territory in 1832. British sovereignty was declared in 1833,