The Falklands Referendum

[Raithe]

So yes, a couple of days ago the Falkland Islands held a referendum over whether they should remain a British territory.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750909

 

In which, only three people voted "no".

 

 

Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum - on a turnout of more than 90%
- 1,513 were in favour, while just three votes were against.

 

It follows pressure from Argentina over its claims to the islands, 31 years
after the Falklands War with the UK.

 

The UK government welcomed the result and urged "all countries" to accept it
and respect the islanders' wishes.

 

The referendum had asked: "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their
current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?"

 

 

Of course, the Argentine's are basically saying that the vote doesn't matter, and regardless of how the islanders feel, the islands should still be given to Argentina.

 

What might add some interest to the matters is the new Pope, who , while a Cardinal, made quite a few public comments about "British usurpers/invaders" on the islands and was apparently quite vigerous about how the Argentine soldiers who died during the Falkland War need to be remembered, honoured, and (depending on how you take his tone of delivery) possibly given vengeance.

 

While I'm all for honouring fallen soldiers who did their duty, I tend to think you give up the ability to claim vengeance when you actually are the ones who invaded in the first place....

 

Still, as a lawyer friend of mine noted: 

"It is essential to Argentina's argument that it rejects (a) the right to self-determination, (b) domiciled jurisdiction and © any statute of limitations. If these three principles are accepted Argentina has no claim. If they are rejected Argentina has no right to exist!"

[BruceVC]

The referendum results  were unequivocal. The islands need to stay in British hands, I know oil has been found there now and so both countries will want them but IMO Argentina is using this debate for political opportunism.

[rjshae]

Regardless of their referendum on the matter, Argentina should be given back to Spain.

[Naurgalen]

Blah I'm from Argentina and I´ll tell you this: Nobody wants vengeance here and FAR less one who is devoted to a religion that's about union. (I´m agnostic but its just common sense) The war was a stupid maneuver by the dictatorship that was ruling my country at that time to don't be taken out. If someone needs to be punished its them for killing innocent people by their ambitions (disguised as "protecting our territory").

 

Still, the domain of the isles is debatable and being objective as I can I don't see strong arguments on the British part. If I go with my family into your home cause you were on vacations 10 whole years, and then we self determinate that it was abandoned and now its ours / from our country... is it right? And I'm not even talking about legal.

[Nonek]

There is probably some now non existent tribe that "discovered" the islands back in history, if not then it was probably first noted by Portugese mariners. All of them have nothing whatsoever to do with the people who are living there now, and they should be the only ones deciding their own fate, as they have clearly and unequivocally done. Rule by an unwanted foreign power for the sake of a particular group of settlers (one of many) from centuries past is rather absurd.

[JFSOCC]

Ofcourse most of the Argentinian supporters got kicked or bullied out after the first Falklands war.

[Nonek]

If referencing the conflict of 1982 I would say not particularly, the islanders remained as before the conflict staunchly loyal to their British origins, and there was not a large enough Argentinean presence to kick out or bully. That said the islands history is long and wracked with circumstance, so I cannot be sure which war you are referencing.

[Meshugger]

Booooring. The people have spoken, what's there left to discuss?

[HoonDing]

Have the three that voted 'no' been keelhauled yet?

[Malcador]

Well maybe the British will get a glorious war out of this eventually.

[Naurgalen]

There is probably some now non existent tribe that "discovered" the islands back in history, if not then it was probably first noted by Portugese mariners. All of them have nothing whatsoever to do with the people who are living there now, and they should be the only ones deciding their own fate, as they have clearly and unequivocally done. Rule by an unwanted foreign power for the sake of a particular group of settlers (one of many) from centuries past is rather absurd.

 

I prefer facts over speculations:

The first people who lived there were French, amerindians didn't have settlements there even if they discovered them first. That first colony then went to Spain´s "Buenos Aires colonial administration" that later became Argentina. British were the second country to build a settlement in the isles. Eventually both Spain and Britain withdrew their forces from the island leaving plaques claiming them. The third settlement was made by Luis Vernet FOR Argentina with authorization from BOTH the Republic of Buenos Aires and Britain. 10 years later British forces returned to the island and claimed that settlement making the Argentine garrison leave. A shame that they didn't have the rights to decide their own fate no? Claiming rights that you didn't respected first its a bit hypocritical.

[Nonek]

So Britain, Spain and France all claimed them long before Argentina, seems like the best thing to do in that case is leave the matter in the islanders own hands as the recent vote has just done. As you say it's a shame the Argentinian occupiers didn't get the right to decide their own fate then, so why deny the occupants that right now?

[Raithe]

Well it's still a running argument over whether it was the French, the Spanish, or the English that discovered the islands first.

Although there's a good push for a Dutch explorer as well.

 

Both the French and English built settlements on the islands in the late 1700's. The Spanish managed to swipe the French settlement at one point, then later attacked the English and expelled them from the islands. But in the name of preventing war, they were given back to the English. Then with the whole American Independence thing going on and other concerns, the English withdrew their people, but left a plaque stating they still considered the settlement theirs.

Spain did likewise with their (previously French) settlement a few years later

 

In the early 1800's a guy basically established himself on the islands , but he actually managed to get backing both from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain.. Then the US got involved (just to add to the general mess). The Argentines sent someone to run the place, but he was killed in a mutiny after a short time there. Then an Irishman arrived to increase the whole British Flag there, and they actually worked in conjunction with some of the Argentines who were settled in the area. With one of those historical twists, someone murderd a bunch of high ranking Argentines, and a lot of them left, leaving the British there. From then on, it pretty was left as it was as a British Naval Station, until the mid 1800's when it was turned into a "proper" colony settlement.

 

Stroll on to the creation of the UN, and the Argentines decided they wanted the islands and pressed their claim, but the fact that all the islanders wanted to remain British saw that claim fall through. Jump to 1980's and the ruling junta decided to distract the populace by having an "quick, easy war".  Nuff said.

 

Then big deposits of oil were discovered a decade or so on.. and it's suddenly become another big thing.

[Zoraptor]

Britain should have made the Argentines revoke their cores as part of the 1982 peace treaty. Rookie mistake not to*, they'll always come back after the truce has expired.

 

*Unless they needed to invade and occupy 99% of Argentina to get the war score high enough to accept they'd lost. In which case it's just another thing to blame Paradox and their wonky algorithms for.

[Rostere]

There's no doubt that some previous settlements on the Falklands by various nations have been evicted by means of violence.

 

Regardless, are there any now living persons outside of Britain who lived on the Falklands or knows an ancestor who lived there? I don't think that group is very large if it exists at all, and I think the islanders should decide themselves which nation they want to belong to.

 

(I don't know much about this conflict but that's what I think)

[AGX-17]

So yes, a couple of days ago the Falkland Islands held a referendum over whether they should remain a British territory.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750909

 

In which, only three people voted "no".

 

 

Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum - on a turnout of more than 90%

- 1,513 were in favour, while just three votes were against.

 

It follows pressure from Argentina over its claims to the islands, 31 years

after the Falklands War with the UK.

 

The UK government welcomed the result and urged "all countries" to accept it

and respect the islanders' wishes.

 

The referendum had asked: "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their

current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?"

 

Of course, the Argentine's are basically saying that the vote doesn't matter, and regardless of how the islanders feel, the islands should still be given to Argentina.

 

What might add some interest to the matters is the new Pope, who , while a Cardinal, made quite a few public comments about "British usurpers/invaders" on the islands and was apparently quite vigerous about how the Argentine soldiers who died during the Falkland War need to be remembered, honoured, and (depending on how you take his tone of delivery) possibly given vengeance.

 

While I'm all for honouring fallen soldiers who did their duty, I tend to think you give up the ability to claim vengeance when you actually are the ones who invaded in the first place....

 

Still, as a lawyer friend of mine noted: 

"It is essential to Argentina's argument that it rejects (a) the right to self-determination, (b) domiciled jurisdiction and © any statute of limitations. If these three principles are accepted Argentina has no claim. If they are rejected Argentina has no right to exist!"

 

 

Argentinians have never occupied the Falklands, and never made any formal claim to sovereignty that was more legitimate than those of the other colonial powers that had claimed it (the French were the first, building a colony on one, the British built a colony of their own on another before both were forced out by the Spanish.) The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans (the Earliest known record of them is from a Dutch explorer,) and subsequently changed hands between colonial powers numerous times. The British claim to sovereignty over the islands dates back to 1690, long before Argentina existed as a state. Regardless of which, it was uninhabited and thus there is no indigenous claim to the islands (even then, the majority/dominant population in most major latin American countries are of mostly European descent and still actively discriminate against pure native americans in their own countries.)

There's no doubt that some previous settlements on the Falklands by various nations have been evicted by means of violence.

 

Regardless, are there any now living persons outside of Britain who lived on the Falklands or knows an ancestor who lived there? I don't think that group is very large if it exists at all, and I think the islanders should decide themselves which nation they want to belong to.

 

(I don't know much about this conflict but that's what I think)

But they were all European colonies. Argentina's only tenuous claim is that a post-Bolivarian state which would later become part of Argentina suffered a shipwreck on one of the islands, and a letter from the captain of the wrecked ship is what Argentinians claim as proof of their ownership of the islands. Edited March 15, 2013 by AGX-17

[Walsingham]

Blah I'm from Argentina and I´ll tell you this: Nobody wants vengeance here and FAR less one who is devoted to a religion that's about union. (I´m agnostic but its just common sense) The war was a stupid maneuver by the dictatorship that was ruling my country at that time to don't be taken out. If someone needs to be punished its them for killing innocent people by their ambitions (disguised as "protecting our territory").

 

Still, the domain of the isles is debatable and being objective as I can I don't see strong arguments on the British part. If I go with my family into your home cause you were on vacations 10 whole years, and then we self determinate that it was abandoned and now its ours / from our country... is it right? And I'm not even talking about legal.

 

 

I can speak on behalf of a large slice of the British Armed Forces when I say that the last thing we want to do is get into another bloody war over the Falklands. I know several (old) bastards who fought and not a one hates any Argentines.  The whole thing is nonsense dreamed up by failed Argentine politicos.

 

However, I can equally say that to many people there is more cause to defend the Falklands than, say, Falkirk. Almost every bastard in the Falklands wants to be British. But not nearly so many in Scotland.

 

Naurgalen, can I confirm that the claim is based - as I've been told by British media - on the _Spanish_ Empire?

[Wrath of Dagon]

I demand New York be returned to its rightful owners, the Dutch!

[Gorgon]

There is an inherent problem with legal and traditional claims to lands in that they are historically always settled with violence. Besides, who is going to be the judge and who will accept a verdict that goes against them. There is usually no right or wrong just winners and losers.

 

The problem for the Falklanders? is that they don't posess the military strength to protect their sovereignty. One could argue that the minimum prerequisite for a country is some ability to do just that.

[JadedWolf]

Yes, like WoD said! If Argentina can have the Falkland Isles 'back', can we, the Dutch, have New York back? It belonged to us before the English and Americans after all...  Just uhm.... Ignore how we stole it from the native Americans. We'll take good care of it. Wooden shoes for everyone!

 

"The problem for the Falklanders? is that they don't posess the military strength to protect their sovereignty. One could argue that the minimum prerequisite for a country is some ability to do just that."

 

Didn't the British, which they are part of, you know, win the Falkland war? In any case, with your reasoning, a country with a large enough army would have the right to conquer pretty much the whole world. After all, they didn't have the strength to defend themselves, right, so they didn't deserve to be sovereign. So we can just conquer them, yay!

Edited March 16, 2013 by JadedWolf

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I support British ownership. Even if you discount the historical arguments, the fact that the islanders was to remain British shouldn't be ignored. Unless Argentina wants another war (because the last one went so well for them).  

[Gorgon]

Yes, like WoD said! If Argentina can have the Falkland Isles 'back', can we, the Dutch, have New York back? It belonged to us before the English and Americans after all...  Just uhm.... Ignore how we stole it from the native Americans. We'll take good care of it. Wooden shoes for everyone!

 

"The problem for the Falklanders? is that they don't posess the military strength to protect their sovereignty. One could argue that the minimum prerequisite for a country is some ability to do just that."

 

Didn't the British, which they are part of, you know, win the Falkland war? In any case, with your reasoning, a country with a large enough army would have the right to conquer pretty much the whole world. After all, they didn't have the strength to defend themselves, right, so they didn't deserve to be sovereign. So we can just conquer them, yay!

I'm not saying it's right, it's just how it is. No one ever backs down from a territorial dispute. In any event that would make the question whether the Falklands are part of Britan and what the islanders think is once again irrelevant.

[JadedWolf]

 

Yes, like WoD said! If Argentina can have the Falkland Isles 'back', can we, the Dutch, have New York back? It belonged to us before the English and Americans after all...  Just uhm.... Ignore how we stole it from the native Americans. We'll take good care of it. Wooden shoes for everyone!

 

"The problem for the Falklanders? is that they don't posess the military strength to protect their sovereignty. One could argue that the minimum prerequisite for a country is some ability to do just that."

 

Didn't the British, which they are part of, you know, win the Falkland war? In any case, with your reasoning, a country with a large enough army would have the right to conquer pretty much the whole world. After all, they didn't have the strength to defend themselves, right, so they didn't deserve to be sovereign. So we can just conquer them, yay!

I'm not saying it's right, it's just how it is. No one ever backs down from a territorial dispute. In any event that would make the question whether the Falklands are part of Britan and what the islanders think is once again irrelevant.

What you are saying is not true, though. Example; the Dutch had a colony called the Dutch Indies, now Indonesia. During WW II, Indonesia claimed its independence. After WW II, the Dutch returned to Indonesia in force. What happened next is a complicated chain of events, but it came down to the Dutch winning the war on the militairy side, but losing it on the public relations side as Dutch misdoings in the war made news headlights. Under pressure from the UN and especially the US, they were forced to recognise Indonesia's independence.

 

Now, I am not saying the Falkland isles are in any way similar to Indonesia, I am just saying that public opinion counts for a whole lot. And in that regard the actual inhabitants of the Falkland islands voting to be British means public opinion outside of Argentina tends to favour Britain. Imagine that Argentina would actually land on the Falklands, what would they do with the inhabitants? It could be that we could see news reports about Argentinian soldiers killing innocent British inhabitants of the Falkland isles. Such an issue could inflame the situation in such a way that Argentina would sorely regret its actions.

Edited March 16, 2013 by JadedWolf

[Naurgalen]

I can speak on behalf of a large slice of the British Armed Forces when I say that the last thing we want to do is get into another bloody war over the Falklands. I know several (old) bastards who fought and not a one hates any Argentines.  The whole thing is nonsense dreamed up by failed Argentine politicos.

 

However, I can equally say that to many people there is more cause to defend the Falklands than, say, Falkirk. Almost every bastard in the Falklands wants to be British. But not nearly so many in Scotland.

 

Naurgalen, can I confirm that the claim is based - as I've been told by British media - on the _Spanish_ Empire?

 

I haven't read all the official / political documents as a common person that I am, but there are at least 3 claims that are really common here:

1 - 2) Historic and legal rights: Based on a) the legacy from Spain, b) resettlement from Argentina while the isles were abandoned and the c) expulsion/problems that came later when the British arrived again.

3) Geographical rights: The islands are not only near Argentina but in fact they are part from its continental shelf, so they are literally in Argentinian territory by most treaty's. (+ its has given many complicated problems with the sea regulations)

 

Ofc they are far more complicated and detailed than that but that's the reason why the conflict still exists.

 

The fun thing about this all is that I don't like nationalism, it blinds people and makes people feel superior to others. But if a give my opinion in this kind of debates its cause this is greater than Argentina or The United Kingdom, its about law and justice: how we make our relations with other country's / people and respect them. Don't be mistaken, if tomorrow I see some kind of convincing proof of ownership I would totally defend the British. Its just, that this time I don't think they have the upper legal (*) and moral ground.

 

(*) PS: I feel this needs to be made clearer: Falklands are occupied with UK people from 1833, its only logical to conclude that people who was born in British ambient, culture, with British parents, grandparents etc... and are having a good way of live wont feel like suddenly having a strange urge to be from Argentina. The referendum is just a political propaganda so the people don't think about what was really wrong at the beginning.

 

PS2: Yes, I play lawfull good characters xD

Edited March 16, 2013 by Naurgalen

[BruceVC]

 

I can speak on behalf of a large slice of the British Armed Forces when I say that the last thing we want to do is get into another bloody war over the Falklands. I know several (old) bastards who fought and not a one hates any Argentines.  The whole thing is nonsense dreamed up by failed Argentine politicos.

 

However, I can equally say that to many people there is more cause to defend the Falklands than, say, Falkirk. Almost every bastard in the Falklands wants to be British. But not nearly so many in Scotland.

 

Naurgalen, can I confirm that the claim is based - as I've been told by British media - on the _Spanish_ Empire?

 

I haven't read all the official / political documents as a common person that I am, but there are at least 3 claims that are really common here:

1 - 2) Historic and legal rights: Based on a) the legacy from Spain, b) resettlement from Argentina while the isles were abandoned and the c) expulsion/problems that came later when the British arrived again.

3) Geographical rights: The islands are not only near Argentina but in fact they are part from its continental shelf, so they are literally in Argentinian territory by most treaty's. (+ its has given many complicated problems with the sea regulations)

 

Ofc they are far more complicated and detailed than that but that's the reason why the conflict still exists.

 

The fun thing about this all is that I don't like nationalism, it blinds people and makes people feel superior to others. But if a give my opinion in this kind of debates its cause this is greater than Argentina or The United Kingdom, its about law and justice: how we make our relations with other country's / people and respect them. Don't be mistaken, if tomorrow I see some kind of convincing proof of ownership I would totally defend the British. Its just, that this time I don't think they have the upper legal (*) and moral ground.

 

(*) PS: I feel this needs to be made clearer: Falklands are occupied with UK people from 1833, its only logical to conclude that people who was born in British ambient, culture, with British parents, grandparents etc... and are having a good way of live wont feel like suddenly having a strange urge to be from Argentina. The referendum is just a political propaganda so the people don't think about what was really wrong at the beginning.

 

PS2: Yes, I play lawfull good characters xD

 

 

Good post  But don't you think the interest that Argentina has in reclaiming these island has anything to do with the oil that has been discovered there?