Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory

Originally posted by Annunak1
It's rubbish that the UK never gave those Islands back. Let's say you and i are in war. Near your country is an island. I win the war and put my people on that island and say it's mine because my people are living on it. How would you feel. Those brits on the islands need to go back where they came from

Where to start with this one? Argentina didn't exist at the time of your imaginary 'war', certainly there was no one to give it back to.

Originally posted by Annunak1
reply to post by glen200376

 

It all started with colonization. They don't belong there. Why don't they find a volcano to live on.

Quite funny statement from you, seeing as the Dutch East India Company established the first major colony in 1652. This became Cape Town and was the start of all us "rich" white folks in our "mansions".

Originally posted by wiser3
reply to post by Annunak1

 

And another thing. It was YOUR forefathers that created apartheid rule in South Africa! Where do you think the Afrikaans language spoken in S.A. came from? DUTCH![

I agree - Isn't the world an ironic place?
To Annunaki1:
Besides in the South Africa Referendum we voted overwhelmingly to give the vote all regardless of race. That is what makes modern South African a very special place in the world (we are also the only.country to voluntarily give up our nuclear power status). We are such terrible warmongering bloodthirsty people, aren't we? (sarcasm).

Ha... check this out:

Written by Rodolfo Terragno (Biography)

I just used Google Translate for a quick translation, there are some mistakes but the idea is perfectly manifested.

"Hard to believe they dont understand: By declaring themselves british, the islanders will give the reason to Argentina.



The right of self-determination belongs to the people, not to people.

This is recognized in international law

A group to belong to the colonial state "is not a people and, therefore, not entitled to self-determination" (Rosalyn Higgins, British, former president of the International Court of Justice).

Population and people are two different things. To become a village, the inhabitants of a territory should "regard themselves as a distinct society of American society occupying that territory" (Hurst Hannum, Berkeley).

These people need to have a "cultural identity" that clearly differentiates the country to which they belong (Anthony Simpson, International Commission of Jurists, Geneva).

Should be (or descend) people "indigenous", ie groups living in the islands before the colonial invasion (Wolfgang F. Danspeck Grubel, Self-Determination Institute, Liechestein).

We need to be considered "victims" of "oppression" and want to "separate" the colonial power. (Pete Radan, Macquarie University).

The British diplomat Denzil Dunnett (Royal Institute of International Affairs, London) recalled, in a paper published by International Affaires, the position he held, on this subject, former British Prime Minister Edward Heath (conservative predecessor Margaret Thatcher). Based on these principles of international law, said in Parliament that the people of the Falklands have no right to self-determination.

The islanders, is expected to vote as they vote, they prove to not meet any of the requirements to enjoy that right. They will say:

They want to belong to the colonial state.
Not consider themselves distinct from society in the UK.
They have no cultural identity.
No descendants of an indigenous people.
They do not feel victims of oppression.
Do not want independence.

Demonstrate, well, something that Argentina has always maintained: that they are not a people islanders and therefore no right of self-determination.

As British, who are and have been proclaimed, they could not be arbitrators in a dispute between his country and Argentina.

It is noteworthy that the President and other political figures were outraged by the announcement of the plebiscite.

Argentina should celebrate that is the reason.

But does the opposite.

Speaking at the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations, Mrs. Kirchner asked "Why [the British] will not pose a referendum on Iraq and Afghanistan?". This implies that they should do in those countries and, in Indeed, it would be desirable that they be given to Iraqis and Afghans the right to choose their destiny. those if they are people with genuine right to self determination.

It was unfortunate them (or stop believing they are) in the same plane as the inhabitants of the Falklands.

No doubt Mrs. Kirchner would not equate. Perhaps the trend has betrayed his impromptu speech, even in diplomatic issues that require measuring each word.

In any case, it's time for Argentina to warn when the attitudes of the UK and the islanders the damage, and when inadvertently favor.

British law no longer considers the inhabitants of the archipelago, as he had for a long time, "citizens of an overseas territory". The reputation of UK citizens.

These citizens, residents in the South Atlantic, feel proud to be British and now may ratify their membership with the vote.

When British law says what it says, and the inhabitants of the islands with their vote accepted that condition, everything goes in favor of Argentina's position.

The islanders are declared part of the UK does not mean that their country belongs to the ground beneath their feet. They can not be judge and jury.

What they do is prove (unwittingly) that the right of self-determination did not attend."


Original letter written in spanish can be found here: R.Terragno FB.

foofighter00

With respect. The islands are ours.

Regards.

reply to post by glen200376


Why not? I was not for Argentinian agression, that was the imperialist war for theritories, not some kind of liberation war...

Originally posted by glen200376
reply to post by Annunak1

 

It was a barren island when discovered,so not that different from 'finding a volcano to live on'.There were no indigenious population.
I think it was actually French first.
Your empire envy shows in your posts.

Empire envy.

Wow

This whole thing was a charade.

reply to post by kingmonkey


What was? The vote overseen by independent international observers? Aw, boo hoo.

Since Argentina is always accusing Britain of imperialism (ironic given it is they who wish to forcefully impose their will on Falkland Islanders) I think it is time Britain had a real war with Argentina, and a war motivated by nothing other than profit. Clearly it does not matter whatever the Argentinean people think about this, since it is already the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Argentineans that self-determination does not matter.

reply to post by deltaalphanovember



Firstly my apologies to GLEN, I am not trying to derail your thread and this will be my last post on the thread unless I post something on topic!

Thanks DAN!

And I wonder if he has any idea of what has happened since the end of apartheid? Black pockets being lined, but only those of the "select few BLACKS" while the rest of the population, white AND black, are far worse off than they ever were under white rule, the infrastructure is crumbling and at the rate it's crumbling it's never going to be back to what it was before the end of the "hated" era! What has Black Economic Empowerment achieved? As far as I can see it has only put black people into positions of power, power which they use to get themselves on the boards of multiple corporations and thereby achieve the ability to call unscheduled board meetings whenever they run out of money, so they spend and spend then arrange a meeting to cover their extravagant lifestyles! They live more extravagant lifestyles than the few rich whites could ever have hoped to live!

reply to post by motownredux


Annunaki has probably never been to South Africa! He's much to busy with his bong!

Originally posted by wiser3
reply to post by motownredux

 

Annunaki has probably never been to South Africa! He's much to busy with his bong!

I think you could be right there.Judging by a few of his comments his mind seems a little confused.
He had the cheek to ask me if I was high,before skulking away.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by SevenThunders

 

wow...a brilliant argument.

Let's then take away all countries with unstable economies from their people and give them to the British or the Germans.

Bravo !!!!

I didn't mention the Germans, but yeah they would also be better caretakers. If it weren't for basic human pride, we would allow those wiser than us to influence our lives for the good. That's the premise of surrendering to God by the way.

Unfortunately, at this time, Argentina has surrendered to the insane forces of socialism, ie they have replaced God with government. Such governments always need to focus their aggression outwards, to mask their horrific flaws.

Unfortunately most of the rest of the world is following Argentina's lead, including the UK.

In the end sovereignty will flow to those who are worthy. Those who work hard and those who lead by serving. Very few people, let alone governments qualify.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
they have replaced God with government. Such governments always need to focus their aggression outwards, to mask their horrific flaws.

Unfortunately most of the rest of the world is following Argentina's lead, including the UK.

So if the UK government had just sat back in 1982 would any gods have come running to liberate the the islanders? If not, would that be because he/she/it sided with Argentina?

Call me overly practical, but I kind of prefer directly elected government to sort things out, from defence and emergency services to simple road building. I've never seen anything comparable carried out by any gods, but hey perhaps I'm just expecting too much in this life.

reply to post by SecretFace

I don't think it is foreign policy is put in the hands of 1800 islanders located 8000 odd miles away. If there was no oil there no one would really care. Prior to the war in 1982 the UK was cutting it's connections to the Falklands and it was this action which encouraged the junta of the time to invade.

David Cameron has now made it more difficult for the UK to withdraw and in view no other country in the world agrees with the UK on this issue means "Dave" has taken the UK into a dead-end to nowhere.

Joint Sovereignty would be the most sensible policy.

Originally posted by ispyed
If there was no oil there no one would really care. Prior to the war in 1982 the UK was cutting it's connections to the Falklands and it was this action which encouraged the junta of the time to invade.

The old “oil myth”. If you can come up with any evidence that oil has driven foreign policy to retain the Overseas Territories then please do let us know.

The UK government did at times consider negotiating issues of sovereignty with Argentina, however these were never seriously perused. It would be giving an ailing and unpopular military Junta an excuse if you actually believed the UK would not act to take back the Falklands. They invaded the Falklands because they misjudged and miscalculated and not because they thought they had the green light.

Regards

The Argentinian government finds the whole issue a useful distraction from their ongoing destruction of the nation.

Shared ownership of oil rights was already offered and rejected. When they start pulling oil out it would make sense to take it and refine it in South America.

Thats the correct way forward. 50 years or so of co-operation and respect would probably soften Falkland Islanders opinion on the issue. At that point some sort of sovereignty deal could be worked out.

Since they refuse to pursue any approach with a possibility of long term success you have to conclude its more useful to them as an ongoing distraction short term than anything else.

reply to post by ispyed

Joint Sovereignty would be the most sensible policy.

As I have repeatedly stated here on ATS and as justwokeup also pointed out the most sensible policy would have been for Argentina to take up the UK's most generous offer of an equal partnership in the development and proceeds of the mineral wealth in the area.

This would have provided a much needed boost for the Argentinian economy and over a period of time greatly improved relations between all respective party's.

Who knows what would then have happened in 40 - 50 years time when The Falklands War is just another chapter in history?

Now it would be political suicide for any UK poltician to even consider surrendering sovereignty to the islands after this referendum or when there is still a large percentage of the electorate who can recall the conflict.

It doesn't take a genius to work out why Argentinian administrations repeatedly prefer to stir up the natural romantic passions of it's people on what is a lost cause for them.

Kirchner is betraying her own people by using these blatant deflection tactics and is more concerned with raising her own international profile than looking after the long term interests of the Argentinian people.