"We are going to get the Falklands back"

[ships-cat]

With Argentina having no claim to the Falklands Islands I hope if conflict erupts again we nuke.

Then we are fortunate that you have absolutely no influence with either Government or the Military Mr Right Wing.

How IS the armchair ?

meow purr

[Mr Right Wing]

Then we are fortunate that you have absolutely no influence with either Government or the Military Mr Right Wing.

How IS the armchair ?

meow purr

And yet there is a nuke sub off the coast of Argentina right now

Roar!

[keithisco]

First.- The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.

In light of this, it is difficult to understand how Argentina can negotiate in good faith, when they have nothing to negotiate WITH. They have already stated that the only acceptable outcome is full sovereignty. Of particular interest is the inclusion of the term "non-prescribing sovereignty", which is a legal term for "forever... no matter how much time has passed or may pass in the future". (sort of.. )

I have highlighted the important parts of the texts: Please note inparticular the underlined parts.

"Non - presribing sovereignty, which is a legal term for "forever"": no it isnt, in this case it is Constitutional Irredentism"

"Irredentism is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged". "Forever" is grossly misleading as a description, and plain wrong.

The "permanent" aspect of the constitution is the claim on the Islands, and this is required under International Law to ensure that the claim remains active.

[MichaelW]

But those inhabitants aren't even remotely related to Argentines in any biological way possible. As I say, and I will say again, the Argentine claim is basically because the islands happen to be close by.

[keithisco]

But those inhabitants aren't even remotely related to Argentines in any biological way possible. As I say, and I will say again, the Argentine claim is basically because the islands happen to be close by.

Then have them, or the UK go to the International Courts of Law to lay this to rest once and for all. It really is that simple, the International Courts will look at both claims impartially and come to a conclusion. The UK is NOT convinced of the Right of Claim at all, it is just another pawn in the game of Local UK Politics where Sabre rattling always wins votes back at home.

Unless you are a geneticist then your first statement is pointless. The Falkanders always had very close economic and social ties with Argentina prior to the "War" in 1982.

I am sure that there are a number of people on the Islands that have mixed genetics as a result

- those lazy, hazy, days of summer in Buenos Aries

[Essan]

"Irredentism[/b] is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged". "Forever" is grossly misleading as a description, and plain wrong.

And Argentina clearly has no grounds on common ethnicity nor prior historical possession

btw I see Agentina is now cutting off it's nose to spite its face

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17184955

What with the loss of income through trading with the Falklands, and a share of the oil money, they really are digging as deep a hole as they possibly can. Idiots! I can see this backfiring badly ..... Although pleased to see those outside of politics in Argentina are a little more sensible

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17148157

[Mr.United_Nations]

And Argentina clearly has no grounds on common ethnicity nor prior historical possession

btw I see Agentina is now cutting off it's nose to spite its face

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17184955

What with the loss of income through trading with the Falklands, and a share of the oil money, they really are digging as deep a hole as they possibly can. Idiots! I can see this backfiring badly ..... Although pleased to see those outside of politics in Argentina are a little more sensible

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17148157

Never under estimate South Americans..

[ships-cat]

I have highlighted the important parts of the texts: Please note inparticular the underlined parts.

"Non - presribing sovereignty, which is a legal term for "forever"": no it isnt, in this case it is Constitutional Irredentism"

"Irredentism is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged". "Forever" is grossly misleading as a description, and plain wrong.

The "permanent" aspect of the constitution is the claim on the Islands, and this is required under International Law to ensure that the claim remains active.

Ooookay... you're going to have to expand on that one keithisco. You have introduced the term "Constitutional Irredentism" into the discussion, implying that this was part of the Argentine Constitution. But that term does NOT appear in the Argentine Constitution.

The term that DOES appear is - as previously quoted by myself - ""Non - prescribing sovereignty". You have disagreed with my interpretation of it but - rather than explaining the grounds for disagreeing, you have merely by-passed the discussion and introduced a new term.. vis. "Constitutional Irredentism".

What is your basis for both

(1) Ignoring the actual TEXT of the constitution, and..

(2) Introducing this new term of "Constitutional Irredentism", which does not appear in the text, and

(3) your interpretation of this new term ? (particularly in terms of the reference to common ethnicity/prior possession... both of which seem to have been introduced 'out of the blue')

I can understand how this might be "your opinion", and fair enough. But to suggest that it derives from the Constitution would require .. well.. a bit more evidence ?

As for the International Court - why risk the fate of the Falklanders, who have, time and time again, expressed the desire to remain British - to a politicised international body consisting of people that neither the Falklanders NOR the British have voted for ?

Would YOU like to fall under the power of the Argentine government, considering its previous record on human rights ? (or for running an economy, for that matter).

Well.. seriously.. WOULD you ? Think about it.

meow purr

Edited February 27, 2012 by ships-cat

[keithisco]

Ooookay... you're going to have to expand on that one keithisco. You have introduced the term "Constitutional Irredentism" into the discussion, implying that this was part of the Argentine Constitution. But that term does NOT appear in the Argentine Constitution.

The term that DOES appear is - as previously quoted by myself - ""Non - prescribing sovereignty". You have disagreed with my interpretation of it but - rather than explaining the grounds for disagreeing, you have merely by-passed the discussion and introduced a new term.. vis. "Constitutional Irredentism".

What is your basis for both

(1) Ignoring the actual TEXT of the constitution, and..

((3) your interpretation of this new term ? (particularly in terms of the reference to common ethnicity/prior possession... both of which seem to have been introduced 'out of the blue')

I can understand how this might be "your opinion", and fair enough. But to suggest that it derives from the Constitution would require .. well.. a bit more evidence ?

As for the International Court - why risk the fate of the Falklanders, who have, time and time again, expressed the desire to remain British - to a politicised international body consisting of people that neither the Falklanders NOR the British have voted for ?

Would YOU like to fall under the power of the Argentine government, considering its previous record on human rights ? (or for running an economy, for that matter).

Well.. seriously.. WOULD you ? Think about it.

meow purr

1. "Constitutional Irredentism" is the correct term for "Non - prescribing Sovereignty" really not that difficult for someone of your knowledge to understand.Constitutional because it is the Argentine Constitution. Because it IS in the constitution then "Non - prescribing Sovereignty" is the correct term, otherwise it becomes a circular, non - supportive statement.

I have ignored your point 2 because that is included in the rebuttal above.

3."Prior Posession" was not introduced by myself. It is a stated claim by both the UK and Argentina

I am sure that you are not so stupid as to say that the UK Govt does not support the International Courts. Every deliberation and Judgment handed down from this august body has been accepted by the UK Govt.

A question for you: Why were the wishes of the Hong Kong peoples not accepted by the UK Govt. Why was self - determination not sufficient to stop the peoples of Hong Kong Island being ceded back to China (afterall - the UK was only obliged to hand back the lease on the New Territories). NO... the UK handed back HK and Kowloom to China as well without consultation, to a Communist country with very little regard for Human Rights.

I think your argument has fallen

[Space Commander Travis]

Was the Hong Kong handed back against its' resident's wishes'? Since the great majority of the population were Chinese, did they have any real attachment to the Old Country?Whereas how many of the Falklands's population have any connection with Argentina at all?

[keithisco]

Was the Hong Kong handed back against its' resident's wishes'? Since the great majority of the population were Chinese, did they have any real attachment to the Old Country?Whereas how many of the Falklands's population have any connection with Argentina at all?

Hong Kong was handed back against the wishes of the Hong Kong people (if newsreels of the time are to be believed). The ultimate Capitalist community being handed back to Communist rule??

You tell me... what connection (prior to 1982) did the Falklanders have with the UK? A twice annual visit from the Antarctic Research Vessels, Weekly flights to Buenos Aires, most babies actually born in Argentinan hospitals (conferring dual Citizenship), Tertiary Education provided by the UK and Argentina (dependent on preferences), Hospital Services provided by Argentina... It doesnt end. Hong Kong had no choice, why confer on the Falklanders a choice. China has kept to its agreements ( a non - democratic country) why expect less of Argentina.?

[Essan]

You tell me... what connection (prior to 1982) did the Falklanders have with the UK?

They considered themselves British. What more do you want? They were a self governing British overseas territory. And very happy to be so. Just like, for example, Bermuda (which I assume you think should be ruled by the USA?)

When in he past 180 years did they have any specific connection with Argentina?

Just because Argentina is the closest sovereign country today doesn't mean they have a right to colonial rule. Despite their militaristic sabre waving.

[keithisco]

They considered themselves British. What more do you want? They were a self governing British overseas territory. And very happy to be so. Just like, for example, Bermuda (which I assume you think should be ruled by the USA?)

When in he past 180 years did they have any specific connection with Argentina?

Just because Argentina is the closest sovereign country today doesn't mean they have a right to colonial rule. Despite their militaristic sabre waving.

Plese re-read post 236. Militaristic Sabre rattling is coming from the UK. They never used those tactics where Hong Kong was concerned though....I am truly bored with posters not having the decency to read previous posts, if they did then maybe the same inane questions would not be re-raised.

Hasta Lluego, necesito dormir ahorra

[MichaelW]

Hong Kong was handed back against the wishes of the Hong Kong people (if newsreels of the time are to be believed). The ultimate Capitalist community being handed back to Communist rule??

Modern China is not communist by any stretch of the imagination. After the acquired Macau, the government spent millions on building casinos there because gambling was still banned in the rest of China (doesn't stop the locals however). The fact that you can enter in a free enterprise in China and do what you wish so long as it doesn't criticise the government (however, bribery is the best way to conduct business) is proof enough that it is a materialistic, capitalist society ruled by a communist party.

You tell me... what connection (prior to 1982) did the Falklanders have with the UK? A twice annual visit from the Antarctic Research Vessels, Weekly flights to Buenos Aires, most babies actually born in Argentinan hospitals (conferring dual Citizenship), Tertiary Education provided by the UK and Argentina (dependent on preferences), Hospital Services provided by Argentina... It doesnt end. Hong Kong had no choice, why confer on the Falklanders a choice. China has kept to its agreements ( a non - democratic country) why expect less of Argentina.?

The Falklands isn't the same as Hong Kong. The fact that Hong Kong had its own hospitals and probably its own university says something which makes it different. Hong Kong was leased from China. The Falklands were colonised. See the difference? The Falklanders need to be given a choice because it is their future we are talking about. As the Islanders themselves are different from the Argentines, why hand them over to a country that they do not wish to be a part of? Hong Kong is still self governing but it ultimately answers to Beijing, like the Falklands.

They are similar but not the same. As the Falklands were not part of Argentina before the British came along, then they have no claims to that land.

[Space Commander Travis]

Hong Kong was handed back against the wishes of the Hong Kong people (if newsreels of the time are to be believed). The ultimate Capitalist community being handed back to Communist rule??

You tell me... what connection (prior to 1982) did the Falklanders have with the UK? A twice annual visit from the Antarctic Research Vessels, Weekly flights to Buenos Aires, most babies actually born in Argentinan hospitals (conferring dual Citizenship), Tertiary Education provided by the UK and Argentina (dependent on preferences), Hospital Services provided by Argentina... It doesnt end. Hong Kong had no choice, why confer on the Falklanders a choice. China has kept to its agreements ( a non - democratic country) why expect less of Argentina.?

So in 1982, Thatcher should have just told them they should have been happy to live under Galtieri's Democratic regime, should they? Right.

Hong Kong was far too valuable to China as an economic powerhouse for them to insist on eveyone donning Mao boiler suits and go and work on collective farms; to keep at as it was was very much in Beijing's best interests, and tbqh, I think China is rather more stable than Argentine is or is likely to be.

Why, Keith, if you do not, as you so adamantly insist, not have any loyalty to spain, why are you so keen to give Argentina the Islas Malvinas, if you do not, as you keep insisting, have any emotional attachment to this former spanish colony?

[hetrodoxly]

Hong Kong was handed back against the wishes of the Hong Kong people (if newsreels of the time are to be believed). The ultimate Capitalist community being handed back to Communist rule??

You tell me... what connection (prior to 1982) did the Falklanders have with the UK? A twice annual visit from the Antarctic Research Vessels, Weekly flights to Buenos Aires, most babies actually born in Argentinan hospitals (conferring dual Citizenship), Tertiary Education provided by the UK and Argentina (dependent on preferences), Hospital Services provided by Argentina... It doesnt end. Hong Kong had no choice, why confer on the Falklanders a choice. China has kept to its agreements ( a non - democratic country) why expect less of Argentina.?

Hong Kong was held on a 99 year lease.

[Space Commander Travis]

Don't you think that if the U.K. Govt. had reneged on that deal, and not handed HK back, those who hate the UK would be on about "you can't trust the devious Brits, they always go back on their word" and so on? I bet they would.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Apparently the Argentine government are trying to persuade their top companies and industries to stop importing from the UK and go elsewhere.

Laughable really because the UK are one of the big investors in Argentina and actually the UK imports more from Argentina than it exports.Talk about cutting your nose to spite your face.

[Essan]

Plese re-read post 236. Militaristic Sabre rattling is coming from the UK.

No, it's coming entirely from Argentina. We're doing nothing. Although when a militaristic wannabe colonial country starts rattling sabres and threatens a peaceful community, we may take measures at their request to defend them

If Argentina wanted the Falkands they should have sorted it out 180 years ago. Stop living in the ancient past. Or else Brtain will have to demand half of France back And California and Texas go back to Mexico.

[Essan]

As for Hong Kong - if it was wrong for us to hand over Hong Kong to China how does that make it right for us to hand over the Falklands to Argentina?

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

No, it's coming entirely from Argentina. We're doing nothing. Although when a militaristic wannabe colonial country starts rattling sabres and threatens a peaceful community, we may take measures at their request to defend them

If Argentina wanted the Falkands they should have sorted it out 180 years ago. Stop living in the ancient past. Or else Brtain will have to demand half of France back And California and Texas go back to Mexico.

Sush........The remaining half of France might want Canada back.

[+and-then]

No, it's coming entirely from Argentina. We're doing nothing. Although when a militaristic wannabe colonial country starts rattling sabres and threatens a peaceful community, we may take measures at their request to defend them

If Argentina wanted the Falkands they should have sorted it out 180 years ago. Stop living in the ancient past. Or else Brtain will have to demand half of France back And California and Texas go back to Mexico.

They already have California. Texans don't get steam rolled by anybody! The Mexicans who come there to make a claim will look around and figure it's better to just be a Texan

That bit of wisdom is from a guy from Alabama....

[keithisco]

Don't you think that if the U.K. Govt. had reneged on that deal, and not handed HK back, those who hate the UK would be on about "you can't trust the devious Brits, they always go back on their word" and so on? I bet they would.

Yourself and Hetero seriously need to do some research viv a vis Hong Kong and the New Territories... ONLY the New Territories were on a 99 year lease, Hong Kong Island was ceded in Perpetuity.

[chromefox]

its kind of funny really you argies had your asses handed to you once before what makes you think you will be successful the second time round? and as for pirates lol yea ok call us that it doesn't bother me and im sure many others if anything i think it proves what kind of people we are if pushed i mean seriously im willing to bet that the chavs in this country would probably decimate your so called invading force and that says it all lol we should just send them if you wanna try it again XD

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Argentina are playing with fire here, if I were them I'd prefer to avoid angering a nuclear power, from what I hear, the Navy are perfectly prepared to launch a nuclear strike on Argentina's major cities if an Argentine invasion looked likely to succeed.

From where did you hear this or whom,quite frankly talk of launching a nuclear attack over a couple of small islands in the South Atlantic is a little ridiculous and out of touch with reality i think.

Edited March 13, 2012 by shaddow134