Falklands to hold referendum on sovereignty...

[Delta Starfire]

Becauses Argentina just isn't listening...

The Falkland Islands will hold a referendum on its "political status" in a bid to end the dispute with Argentina over the archipelago's sovereignty.

The islands' government made the announcement ahead of the anniversary on marking 30 years since the end of Argentina's 74-day occupation in 1982.

It said it wanted to send a firm message to Argentina that islanders want to remain British.

The UK prime minister said Britain would support the result of the vote.

The referendum will be organised by the Falkland Islands government and will take place in the first half of next year.

'Economic blockade'

The announcement comes amid growing tensions between the UK and Argentina surrounding the anniversary commemorations marking the islands' liberation by British forces on June 14, 1982.

Argentina claims sovereignty over the islands it calls the Malvinas, and wants the UK to negotiate over their rule.

Recently, UK ministers have accused Argentina of trying to impose an "economic blockade" on the islands.

The South American country has been turning away cruise ships carrying the British flag and is taking legal action against five British oil firms exploring the coast of the islands.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

We certainly have no desire to be ruled by the government in Buenos Aires”

Gavin Short Falklands legislative assembly

Gavin Short, chairman of the islands' legislative assembly, said they were holding the referendum "to show the world just how certain we are about it [our future]".

"I have no doubt that the people of the Falklands wish for the islands to remain a self-governing overseas territory of the United Kingdom.

"We certainly have no desire to be ruled by the government in Buenos Aires, a fact that is immediately obvious to anyone who has visited the islands and heard our views.

"But we are aware that not everybody is able to come to these beautiful islands and to see this reality for themselves.

"And the Argentine government deploys misleading rhetoric that wrongly implies that we have no strong views or even that we are being held hostage by the UK military. This is simply absurd."

Prime Minister David Cameron said it was "absolutely right" that the islanders set out how they intended to "make their voices heard once more".

"And Britain will be resolute in supporting their choice," he said.

"Next year's referendum will determine beyond doubt the views of the people of the Falklands. Britain will respect and defend their choice.

"We look to all UN members to live up to their responsibilities under the UN charter and accept the islanders' decision about how they want to live."

Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "I hope very much that Argentina, and indeed the whole of the international community, joins the UK in listening carefully to what they have to say."

The Falkland Islands, a rocky archipelago in the South Atlantic, are 7,780 miles from the UK and 1,140 miles from Buenos Aires.

With the exception of the 1982 occupation by Argentina - which sparked the Falklands War - they have been under British control since 1833.

Original article from BBC.

Frankly, given that Argentina's position is that the people of the Falklands do not have the right to self-determination, I doubt they'll acknowledge the validity of a referendum. Still, it will have symbolic value and I certainly hope the rest of the world will take note.

[Patticus]

Argentina won't listen because pretty well none of the citizens of the Falklands Islands are Argentine in origin, the referendum isn't being held in Argentina, and they can't control the outcome which will inevitably go against them.

[Tornado]

If nothing else, doing this will make Argentina's attempts to build up an international furor over it moot. Regardless of how Argentina will try to spin it to the countries that they do have sway over ("Britain influenced the results!" and etc.), this will be a pretty big international "shut the fuck up" result against them among everyone else.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Tornado

[blackherox]

If nothing else, doing this will make Argentina's attempts to build up an international furor over it moot. Regardless of how Argentina will try to spin it to the countries that they do have sway over ("Britain influenced the results!" and etc.), this will be a pretty big international "shut the fuck up" result against them among everyone else.

Amen.

Well, assuming the situation doesn't escalate into another battle for the Falklands.

[blackherox]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/05/falklands-under-our-control-argentina

 

Apparently they'll get in back in 20 years and that no country supports what the supposed "British colonisim". 

Whats worse is he then goes on to say, that if they were (unlikely) to get control of the islands they'd respect the interests but  not the wishes of the islanders?!. Erm, So basically, no we don't give 2 shits about the them.

[DarkOverord]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/05/falklands-under-our-control-argentina

 

Apparently they'll get in back in 20 years and that no country supports what the supposed "British colonisim". 

Whats worse is he then goes on to say, that if they were (unlikely) to get control of the islands they'd respect the interests but  not the wishes of the islanders?!. Erm, So basically, no we don't give 2 shits about the them.

The Falklands is a political motive for Argentina. They've openly said that what they think doesn't matter, and that it's between London and Argentina repeatedly.

[Stacy]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/falkland-islanders-vote-remain-british-014726845.html

 

Falkland Islanders vote to remain British. 

 

Dear Mrs Kirchner Jog On!

 

According To Argentinian Government the vote was "illegal" and "pointless". I wonder if they would felt the same if the votes were 100% in their favour. According to them the islanders have no say in the matter even if they wanted independence from anyone.

 

I wish the UN would do something seeing as the Argentinian Government are ignoring and harassing the islanders basic Human Rights maybe then they might acknowledge the islanders decision. 

[Covskin]

Argentina was never going to listen to this vote, because in their mind the people living there don't deserve to be there. The real hope is that other countries take notice of the Falkanders' right to self-determination, and stop paying attention to Arentina's moaning.

 

 

A lot of it is pure misdirection anyway. Anything to distract from their, quite frankly, scary rate of inflation.

[Vec]

I wish the UN would do something seeing as the Argentinian Government are ignoring and harassing the islanders basic Human Rights maybe then they might acknowledge the islanders decision. 

 

Actually the UN was the one that stated that only negotiation between the 2 Estates was possible to sort this and it was the UN that stated that there wasn't any self-determination possible back in the 60s. So in any case tell the UN to take that back

[DarkOverord]

Actually the UN was the one that stated that only negotiation between the 2 Estates was possible to sort this and it was the UN that stated that there wasn't any self-determination possible back in the 60s. So in any case tell the UN to take that back

This is what's honestly surprised me about this issue. Since the 60's there's been multiple British Territories moved to independence, there's been entire countries formed and absorbed since, all at the will of the inhabitants. Sudan's split for example. The UN recognises that referendum in the end. Politics have changed since then, and the right to self determination has become more recognised by the UN. So why the hell has this not come up again for debate, or at least another resolution.

 

Of course I mean no offence to you when I say this, but I highly doubt that even if the UN went in favour of the Falkland's self-determination that the Argentinian government would actually stand by that resolution. Likewise had the Falklander's determined themselves as not British honestly with Westminster.

 

Because honestly, unless both sides do agree to letting the island inhabitants determine their own fate the issue is never going to be solved. Westminster will not let go of the Islands for the exact same reasons as Argentina wants them. As such, I think this idea of Argentinian Politicians claiming they'll have them back within the next decade is ridiculous unless the plan is a Second Flaklands War (Which Westminster would happily use as a case against Argentina)

Edited March 13, 2013 by DarkOverord

[Vec]

I can assure you nor this current goverment nor the rest of South America has any short or long term plan of using any kind of weaponry outside of inner and frontier security. All that is wanted is to resume negotiations of this issue like the multiple resolutions the UN has emmited say (Between Argentina and UK and no one else). No war, bombs, ships or any other stuff like some media have speculated/lied in both sides neither I know how media treats the declarations there.

 

So what you see is not someone in constant negation, it's just someone wanting to act as the UN stated many times

[DarkOverord]

I can assure you nor this current goverment nor the rest of South America has any short or long term plan of using any kind of weaponry outside of inner and frontier security. All that is wanted is to resume negotiations of this issue like the multiple resolutions the UN has emmited say (Between Argentina and UK and no one else). No war, bombs, ships or any other stuff like some media have speculated/lied in both sides neither I know how media treats the declarations there.

 

So what you see is not someone in constant negation, it's just someone wanting to act as the UN stated many times

I'm fully aware. However that was my point. Westminster won't give up the islands, specially now with that referendum of over 90% saying they want to remain an overseas territory.

 

From the way it's been reported here though is that neither side wants to sit down on a table to try and sort anything. Westminster won't accept anything other than Argentina backing off and vice versa....

 

As for military action and the media, the only thing I know of is that Britain may send more forces down if the temprature of the situation gets any higher in case we do end up with a Second Falklands War.

[Patticus]

Why should the British government engage in negotiations with the Argentine government over the Falklands? What is there to talk about? The people have overwhelmingly voted to remain British, and the British government is not about to give up on any of the potential oil (or other mineral) wealth buried in and around the islands. As far as I can see, the matter is indisputably settled and there's not a thing the Argentine government can do about it.

 

They should be trying to get their own house in order before trying to take someone else's away from them, anyhow.

[Vec]

Better question: Why create the United Nations if then we are going to completely ignore it?

 

Anyway. What's with the "house in order"? I don't know who gives you info (Or maybe I do?) but the current situation isn't as bad as you make it look.

[Patticus]

Well, what is there for the UK and Argentina to talk about? 'Cause there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss.

 

Argentina probably has quite a few internal problems (economic or otherwise) which should be addressed before it tries to make a land grab and inherit more problems. That's what I'm saying.

[DarkOverord]

Speaking of the media:

 

Article in La Nacion, a conservative daily newspaper, by Martin Dinatale:

 

Neither did the referendum seem to start a path towards dialogue between the islanders and Buenos Aires

I do love how no matter where you are, the media plays in the same way. Pointing out the UN resolutions etc, and then apparently this journalist thinks that dialogue shouldn't include Britain but be between the islands and mainland.

 

Ho-hum.

 

I still don't think that the Falklands "issue" will be solved in my lifetime honestly and Britain and Argentina will still be bickering over it in another 50 years.

[Tani Coyote]

This will give even more legitimacy to the UK government and make the Argentine government look ever more irrationally irredentist. Sometimes the symbolic gestures really are the ones that matter.

 

Really I just don't get why Argentina can't get over it. The Falklands are inhabited, owned, and developed by British people. Even if all land is common property of human beings, what is the result of mixing it with your labor is not. Their claims hold as much validity as a Native American's would to my home: that is, none.

 

Of course, there is the whole theft being committed by a previous generation argument, but that can probably be easily handled through some reparations in this day and age, never mind the sins of the father argument. You get paid for what the land was worth when it was taken from you, and that's the end of it.

 

Sorry, I ranted. Habit!

 

Also insert an argument about the ultimate fallacy of nationalism at the end of the day.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Patticus]

All land being the common property of human beings and all the flora and fauna of the Earth was a distinctly Native American viewpoint. It was not recognized by European settlers, with their foreign concepts of "property ownership" and things like that. I like that you brought the concept up before dismissing it out of hand in the next sentence... The communal possession of items, land, homes and more worked for Native societies, and it is a shame that it doesn't work for ours.

 

But, I digress. I can't see Argentine claims to the Falklands gaining any ground in the near future now, ad if they go to war in a couple of decades' time, I imagine that the US and UK will slap them down pretty hard.

[Stacy]

All land being the common property of human beings and all the flora and fauna of the Earth was a distinctly Native American viewpoint. It was not recognized by European settlers, with their foreign concepts of "property ownership" and things like that. I like that you brought the concept up before dismissing it out of hand in the next sentence... The communal possession of items, land, homes and more worked for Native societies, and it is a shame that it doesn't work for ours.

 

But, I digress. I can't see Argentine claims to the Falklands gaining any ground in the near future now, ad if they go to war in a couple of decades' time, I imagine that the US and UK will slap them down pretty hard.

 

Don't make me laugh they didn't step last time and they won't step in and help us next time. Not when the US needs constant stability to in order keep exploiting South America.

[Patticus]

The US Navy controls the Atlantic ocean, just as it controls every other ocean. The UK was only able to defend the Falklands in the 1980s because the US allowed it to. If another war erupts, the US will be involved, no matter how discreetly, just as it was the last time.

[Stacy]

The US Navy controls the Atlantic ocean, just as it controls every other ocean. The UK was only able to defend the Falklands in the 1980s because the US allowed it to. If another war erupts, the US will be involved, no matter how discreetly, just as it was the last time.

 

They don't own any Ocean every heard of international waters? They tried to force a ceasefire because they were afraid of Soviet intervention but the Argentinian Junta made the mistake of refusing their peace plan. After that the US did provide us with submarine detectors and modern missile based weapons. However I wouldn't expect heavy intervention from them they probably only aided us because the Soviets were overseeing weapons deliveries to the Argentinians.

Edited March 14, 2013 by BW199148

[DarkOverord]

The US Navy controls the Atlantic ocean, just as it controls every other ocean. The UK was only able to defend the Falklands in the 1980s because the US allowed it to. If another war erupts, the US will be involved, no matter how discreetly, just as it was the last time.

Right, ignoring some things here. If the NORTHERN Atlantic was controlled, It would actually be the UK and Italy who does as they maintain NATO's navy. But I digress, no, other than passing by communication with NATO and US ships there would have been no "Letting" the UK sail down to the Falklands. International Waters are called as such for a reason. They are waters with no commanding nation, and as such no "control". Hence why the British Navy can sit about shooting Somalian Pirates in International Waters.

 

Now, what the US did do was supply weapons to the UK as well as approving the UK to borrow an Aircraft Carrier if one of ours was sunk. Otherwise, believe it or not, the US was very peaceful in the entire matter and repeatedly tried to get the then Argentian Dictatorship at the time to withdraw and end the conflict.

[Tani Coyote]

But, I digress. I can't see Argentine claims to the Falklands gaining any ground in the near future now, ad if they go to war in a couple of decades' time, I imagine that the US and UK will slap them down pretty hard.

 

I've been told by many people in Argentina the Falklands dispute is entirely to draw attention away from the fact the government there is bloody corrupt. The rally around the flag effect is very powerful (and the easiest way to debunk the argument for ceremonial heads of state but I digress).

 

Don't make me laugh they didn't step last time and they won't step in and help us next time. Not when the US needs constant stability to in order keep exploiting South America.

 

Never mind the UK, while no longer the predominant power, is still more than capable of handling a battle over a very small set of islands. There's simply no reason to get involved.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Vec]

Oh, so now we come to that? well blame the pro-neoliberal media for spreading that shit. Trust me, if Cameron tried to de-monopolize Murdoch there'd be news all around the world saying similar stuff. That is the exact case there

[Tani Coyote]

Oh, so now we come to that? well blame the pro-neoliberal media for spreading that shit.

 

I assume you're referring to the government's corruption accusation:

 

It wasn't the news that told me this; it was people I know who live in Argentina.

 

Then again Latin American politics is fairly divisive from all I've heard. Politicians are either saints or bloody horrible depending on who you ask, I rarely ever find a "meh" opinion on leaders in those parts.

 

Then again we get the same accusations about our leaders too sometimes, drawing attention to something else to cover up their own scandals.

 

The truth, it's right there and yet so elusive.