Argentina's President Demands Falklands Back. Again.

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, President of Argentina, has asked the UK to return the Falklands - www.channel4.com...

As far as I can see her argument can be summarised as:

1) The UK used to be a big colonial meanie.
2) The Falklands used to belong to Argentina.
3) The UK is 8,700 miles away from the Falklands.
4) The UK is still a big colonial meanie.

Now, 1) and 4) are irrelevant. 2) is factually incorrect as Argentina didn't exist in 1833 (the Argentine Confederation was around then) and 3) is also irrelevant as the Falklands is 250-odd miles away from Argentina so it ain't exactly close to it. By the same argument The Channel Islands belong to France, Corsica belongs to Italy and The Faeroes belong to the UK.

The UK's PM, David Cameron, has already told Argentina to get stuffed - www.bbc.co.uk...

We had a thread on this today but for some reason it got deleted.

So again I will say it is up to the people of the falklands to decide and they will in March, we have said all along If the Falkland people wish to go to the Argies they can but I do not think they will.
I just hope the Argies accept this and STFU.

Oh and If they decide to try and invade it will not just be the UK who fight them off it will be the whole of the EU due to the Lisbon treaty.

reply to post by boymonkey74


I don't think that the results of the referendum are in much doubt - The Falklanders are highly unlikely to be pro-Argentina. The only time that the Argentineans could have won a vote would have been just after their invasion in 1982, when their garrison outnumbered the local people and who would have been allowed to vote as "locals".

Also she is a hypocrite because Argentina was founded by Spanish colonists who killed the native people, The Falklands did not have any native people there.

reply to post by boymonkey74


It's a no brainer. The Falkland Islanders will never choose Argentine rule. I know because my Mother lived there for many years.

Same old sabre rattling from one of the most corrupt dictators in South America, it's a pathetic attempt to take attention away from the real issue. Argentina is on its knees and she is driving any foreign investors out of the country, at the same time dissolving the free press and slagging off the very countries her country owes billions too. All in all a joke of a woman, I hope they try and invade again and she is on the first ship to open fire, she will end up where she belongs, on the bottom of the ocean. An oil rich ocean floor at that

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


I read that de Kirchners approval rating was at 26%, so there is your reason for this latest rabid outburst...we seem to get the same treatment every few months from her. Maybe she is taking a leaf out of Maggies book to get her ratings up...oh the irony.
I also wonder if she is pure bred Argentinian, she is being a bit naughty if she is not.

Saying that, she did seem to be gathering support from Latin America...perhaps a trade war with the EU is their plan. I doubt if they would try another war.

reply to post by Knobby


Would it be cynical of me to wonder if Argentina's leaders only ever bring up the Falklands when they're either domestically deeply unpopular or facing an economic crisis?

This is not even a debate. Argentina has no right to the Faulklands. The people themselves determain their own fate, much like democracy is supposed to work and they overwhelmingly wish to remain a British protectorate. They have the right to leave at any time, but they are happy.

reply to post by michael1983l


I've never been able to work out just what Kirchner wants the people who live there to do. Go back to Britain? After 170-odd years? She obviously has only a vague concept of democracy. I'll be fascinated to see what her response will be to the referendum and what will no doubt be a total rejection of Argentinean rule.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


How far in Kilometers is the falklands from Argentina? Does Falklands reside in what internationally is recognised as the zone of ocean that is sovereign to argentina?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

reply to post by AthlonSavage


It is about 350km away from Argentina. Distance however means nothing, the people are people of their own nation and thus must decide their own fate. They choose to be British, I only have one bit of advice to the Argentinians who cry about the Falklands.... Get over it and Man up ffs.

reply to post by michael1983l

It is about 350km away from Argentina. Distance however means nothing, the people are people of their own nation and thus must decide their own fate. They choose to be British, I only have one bit of advice to the Argentinians who cry about the Falklands.... Get over it and Man up ffs.

Actually distance does mean something. If its outside what is recognised and agreed on by Nations as the boundary between where sovereignty begins and ends yes i have to agree with you. If it wasnt the case id have to disagree.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


You are getting economic terotorial waters mixed up with soverignty there mate. In which case I the UK is claiming France as British because it is only 26 miles off our shore, same goes for Netherlands and Norway.

reply to post by michael1983l

You are getting economic terotorial waters mixed up with soverignty there mate. In which case I the UK is claiming France as British because it is only 26 miles off our shore, same goes for Netherlands and Norway.

Im not getting any thing mixed up mate. Im pointing out something very fundamental to understanding fairly who should own the Falklands. I believe this is a fundamental item for debate in decidng who owns its.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Well as the Falklands was a Soverign nation before Argentina even existed, then maybe it should be the Falkland Islanders claiming Argentina as theirs then, well at least off your logic of who should own what.

reply to post by michael1983l

Well as the Falklands was a Soverign nation before Argentina even existed, then maybe it should be the Falkland Islanders claiming Argentina as theirs then, well at least off your theory of who should own what.

i dont have a theory i only have an area for debate. If you want theories make up you own and go tell them to Fallkland islander.

But your area for debate is moot. Distance to teritory is only applicable in the time where the land does not already have recognised soverignty or at the very least an indiginous population. Argentina has no legal right to the Islands which is exactly the reason why they are still under British Soverignty. They can rattle their sabres all they want, we all know it is only for two reasons, with the first being that is gains political points for Kirchner with her people and secondly they are scared they will miss out on the copious amounts of oil underneath the surrounding areas of the Falklands. No oil and they wouldn't give two hoots.

reply to post by michael1983l

But your area for debate is moot. Distance to teritory is only applicable in the time where the land does not already have recognised soverignty or at the very least an indiginous population. Argentina has no legal right to the Islands which is exactly the reason why they are still under British Soverignty. They can rattle their sabres all they want, we all know it is only for two reasons, with the first being that is gains political points for Kirchner with her people and secondly they are scared they will miss out on the copious amounts of oil underneath the surrounding areas of the Falklands. No oil and they wouldn't give two hoots.

I would like to hear other members opinion. The things about laws is there not always right and therefore they get updated. It would be nice if there was a member on Ats who had current understanding and knowledge of international territorial laws. Im not interested sabre rattles or theories, just want to see facts for the debate.