Argentina declines invitation to Falklands meeting

Post Reply New Topic

Good. It just shows them up to be the obnoxious imperialist a***holes they really are. They have no interest in the people of the Falkland Islands. They're only interested in the land. They're like a rapist.

i don't really know enough about the basis behind Argentina's claim to make an opinion one way or the other. I know some of these colonists want to remain British for often the most asinine of reasons. The citizens of Gibraltar voted to remain in the UK on the basis that 'the beatles were british'.

If Argentina can govern the islands more efficiently due to geographic contiguity, I don't see why that would be a bad thing. The falklanders must be miserably isolated. The islands are bugger all use to the UK anyway, from either a military or economic viewpoint. All they serve to do is twist the knife in anglo-argentine relations.

Argentina is a failing state that, it's claim to the Falkland's is simply a distraction from the hellhole that country has been reduced to. If it wasn't the Falkland's it would be something else.

Don't cry for me, Argentina!

ruveyn

They just won't let it go, will they?

perhaps a little context is needed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

No. They will claim the Malvinas for ever and ever.

ruveyn

The Falklands are British and Argentina need to get over it.

The Gibraltarians didn't vote to remain British because the Beatles were. They voted to remain British because the Spanish offer was so gigantically awful.

Would you rather live in a relatively prosperous and free country (although not democratic - Gibraltar didn't have a democracy in 1967) or in poverty in an authoritarian dictatorship? A right-wing (so immeasurably worse than any left-wing dictatorship) authoritarian dictatorship at that.

The Falklanders are not colonists. They're people who have lived and worked the land for nearly 200 years. No-one actually wanted the land at the time that it was settled, and the Argentinians only want it now for ret*d nationalistic reasons of their own. No blood was spilled during the settlement of the Falkland Islands. The British didn't go to war with anyone and invade anyone's land. If you wanted to use the Falklands as an example of British racist imperialism, it would be an extremely poor example. This isn't a case of imperialist Britain stealing someone else's land; this is a case of a second-world country bullying and menacing its peaceful neighbours, who just happen to hold British citizenship because of historical factors. Nowhere near the amount of military defence would be required in the FIs if the Argentinians weren't so aggressive.

Argentina doesn't have a serious claim on it. Their main line of attack is that the Falkland Islands are geographically closer to Argentina than they are to Britain, so it should be theirs. In the same way that French Guiana should be part of Brazil, the Channel Islands should be French, Mayotte should be part of the Comoros, and so on. Basically, they're imperialistic losers with a sense of entitlement that is beyond warped. (I should stress very clearly that this doesn't stand for all of the Argentine public - quite a lot of them know that their claim is bogus but the political climate isn't free enough there for them to openly say so. Argentine journalists who have mildly supported the British claim or who have even looked at the two claims objectively have been denounced as 'traitors' and so on.)

As has been shown, members of the Falkland Islands assembly have repeatedly offered to meet the Argentinians for talks but the Argentinians are not interested. If they recognise the people of the islands, their case falls apart and they look very silly.

The citizens of Gibraltar didn't "vote to remain in the UK". They voted to remain a British colony in 1967, and in 2002, to remain a British overseas territory. In 1967, they overwhelmingly voted to remain a British colony because the people in the town across the road lived in dire poverty and were living under a fascist dictatorship, whereas they were far more prosperous and free. In 2002, they, again, overwhelmingly rejected an undemocratic deal cooked up by Tony B. Liar and Peter Vain that would have seen joint sovereignty imposed on the people of Gib. The Gibraltarians have never wanted to be Spanish and, if you note the utter contempt with which the Spanish have treated (and still do) over many decades - the endless 'claim' on Gibraltar by Spain, the sealing of the land border for fifteen years, the hassling of people driving cars with Gib number plates in Spain, the endless hassles and deliberate hold-ups at the frontier, not to mention that Spanish police and fishermen have repeatedly invaded British Gibraltarian waters, it sort of becomes obvious why they'd want nothing to do with them. Again, another case of a greedy country trying to menace its neighbours. It's not like the situation in Northern Ireland, where it's a damned sight more complex. With Gib and the FIs, it's an open and shut case.

If you've ever actually been to Gibraltar, you'll know that it's not so much about being British these days but about resisting being Spanish and, instead, being Gibraltarian. Gibraltar is a very rich and prosperous part of the world - it is very diverse and multi-ethnic - and Britain keeping Gibraltar costs us nothing. We're not 'colonisers' there - nearly every last man, woman and child living in Gib wants to remain British.



So you won't mind the whole of Ireland becoming part of the UK by force then?

Look, it's mainly about democracy on the FIs and not giving into bullies. I know that the former is a dirty word to the far-left, so perhaps that's why a lot of the extreme left in the UK supports the Argies.

Last edited by Tequila on 01 Feb 2013, 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

None of those places have considered independence?

Bermuda had an independence referendum in 1995 I think, but the islands voted to remain a British 'dependent' (ha!) territory. There has been several pro-independence Premiers of Bermuda since then and it's a constant issue in Bermudian politics and has been for decades. Out of all the British overseas territories, that's the one that's by far the most likely to go independent. The thing is, that in practical terms for Bermudians there are very few advantages for them to do that and a lot more negatives. They have more rights as Bermudian British citizens than regular UK British citizens as they get all the rights that we get and some extra ones, like more privileged access to the United States. British citizens do not get automatic right of abode in Bermuda or any special privileges, and UK British citizens must more or less apply as any other foreigner would have to.

Last edited by Tequila on 01 Feb 2013, 2:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

Places belong to the people who live there. If the Falklanders want to be British, then so be it.

Even if you believe that Argentina actually owns the Falklands for historical reasons, you can just think of it as a peaceful secession from Argentina.

Agreed. I wouldn't suggest that French Guiana is Brazilian, or that Saint Pierre and Miquelon becomes Canadian.

Which would be bogus, of course, because Argentina as a nation-state didn't even exist when Britain claimed the Falkland Islands.

I don't see that as a winning argument.

First, Argentina is the clear successor to Spanish sovereignty in the area. From Spain, through the United Provinces and ultimately to Argentina. If there is a valid claim dating back to Spanish occupation (and the Spanish did legally obtain the French settlement which predates any British settlement of the Islands) then that claim is currently held by Argentina.

The second problem is continuity. The British and the Spanish both occupied the islands during the 18th century. The British withdrew in 1774 and the Spanish in 1805. Both claimed to maintain possession in the absence of their colonists, so up to that date, no conclusive British right to sovereignty seems to be made out. Another colonization attempt was made in 1828, and both Britain and Buenos Aires were engaged in that ultimately unsuccessful venture. The establishment of continuous administration only dates from 1833, and establishment of a permanent colony only dates back to 1840. Both dates are well after the emergence of Argentina as a state.

To my mind the winning argument is the democratic one. The people of the Falklands seem clear in their intention to remain a British Overseas Territory. I see little doubt over the outcome of next month's referendum. That is far more compelling to me than the somewhat murky, early 19th century history.

calm down, I never said that Argentina should have the Falklands, merely that i was ignorant of their case for saying they should. However, how sure are we that the Falklanders want to remain in the UK for dogmatic over pragmatic reasons?



Wholly different scenario. Ireland was always a homogenous nation with its own cultural identity, with the infrastucture, precedence and political will for becoming an independent country. The Falklands have none of these things.


Do they? I dont know. As far as I'm aware its an issue the far left is most silent on. class ridden, lackey of america, semi libertarian failed empire with its flacid imperialist semi-on swinging limply between its legs or corrupted, debt ridden fascistic banana republic. Its like choosing between a turd and turd with sprinkles on it.