|
On April 14 2013 01:42 Rassy wrote:
How is argentinia wrong?
This is not about argentinia beeing a terrible country btw, that should be completely irrelevant and this is also not about wanting to support the underdog.
If spain gave them the islands when they became independant, then it are their islands?
Spain was a super power in thoose days and european countrys shuffled around colonys now and then.
If spain got the islands from france (all following the laws of that time and with the majority of superpowers of thoose days agreeing with it (spain and france definatly must have agreed)) then it are spains islands and if spain then decides to give them to argentina as part of their independance it are argentinias islands. Its just because this all happend hunderds of years ago and it now is more or less a status quo, that the british think they can pull this off.
If denmark would give greenland full independance, and the next day the brits invade it and start making settlements there and chasing away the current population and then hold a referendum noone would accept it.
I dont want to see the islands become argentinian at all btw but this is more about who is fundamentally right or wrong.
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish
England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
|
Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish
England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things
There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law.
The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
@ below: ok i see what you mean now and you do have a point.
We should then look whos claim on the islands was more reasonable at that time, the english one or spanish one.
Based on what i know now it would be the spanish one, because there where no brits on the island at that time and the spanish actually held control, and also because a majority of the superpowers of that time agreed with it.
The spanish and portugal had control of pretty much all of south america at that time i think and i have never heard of an english colony there, so i am inclined to believe that spains claim on the islands is the more reasonable.
|
On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote:
Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish
England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things
There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law.
The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
Two people (A, B) claim an island.
One person (A) transfers their claim to a third party (C). This third party (C) later transfers that claim to a fourth party (D).
Just because A has transferred their claim to someone else doesn't mean B no longer has a claim to the island.
Also, proximity isn't a good argument, it's hundreds of miles from Argentina.
|
On April 14 2013 02:02 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote:
Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish
England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things
There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law.
The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit. Two people (A, B) claim an island. One person (A) transfers their claim to a third party (C). This third party (C) later transfers that claim to a fourth party (D). Just because A has transferred their claim to someone else doesn't mean B no longer has a claim to the island. Also, proximity isn't a good argument, it's hundreds of miles from Argentina.
Spain never transferred their claims to the Falklands to Argentina.
|
On April 14 2013 02:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 02:02 Saryph wrote:On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote:
Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish
England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things
There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law.
The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit. Two people (A, B) claim an island. One person (A) transfers their claim to a third party (C). This third party (C) later transfers that claim to a fourth party (D). Just because A has transferred their claim to someone else doesn't mean B no longer has a claim to the island. Also, proximity isn't a good argument, it's hundreds of miles from Argentina. Spain never transferred their claims to the Falklands to Argentina.
Regardless, my post was oriented more towards him saying that since France gave it to Spain somehow that made England's claim invalid.
|
On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote:
Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish
England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things
There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law.
The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
@ below: ok i see what you mean now and you do have a point.
We should then look whos claim on the islands was more reasonable at that time, the english one or spanish one.
Based on what i know now it would be the spanish one, because there where no brits on the island at that time and the spanish actually held control, and also because a majority of the superpowers of that time agreed with it.
The spanish and portugal had control of pretty much all of south america at that time i think and i have never heard of an english colony there, so i am inclined to believe that spains claim on the islands is the more reasonable.
Although Britain first landed on, named, mapped and colonised the islands? The Spanish claim was made after the British were already established there, the Spanish 'conquered' the islands by destroying the English settlement.
At any rate, this has nothing to do with Spain. Spain respects Gibraltar's right to self determination. Argentina made their own separate attempts to claim the islands, none of which were legal or successful.
|
Isn't it completely irrelevant in what order the island was claimed by whom? In my humble and neutral opinion, the current generation of population was born there (as in, they are no conquerors; in fact, their families have lived there since 1830ish) and they clearly state that they wish to be part of UK. Hence, there is nothing more to discuss - anything beyond that, might be onyl motivated by a chauvinistic claim to territory or, more realistically, a claim to the resources that are located there. That's called conquest.
If we on mainland Europe started with the whole nonsense of "but two hundred years ago this piece of land belonged to my country" then we'd have hundreds of wars at our hand.
|
On April 14 2013 03:36 ACrow wrote:
Isn't it completely irrelevant in what order the island was claimed by whom? In my humble and neutral opinion, the current generation of population was born there (as in, they are no conquerors; in fact, their families have lived there since 1830ish) and they clearly state that they wish to be part of UK. Hence, there is nothing more to discuss - anything beyond that, might be onyl motivated by a chauvinistic claim to territory or, more realistically, a claim to the resources that are located there. That's called conquest.
If we on mainland Europe started with the whole nonsense of "but two hundred years ago this piece of land belonged to my country" then we'd have hundreds of wars at our hand.
I fully agree. Check a map of Europe at the time. Heck it was just after the American Independence War, so if you draw the line at 240 years the US wouldn't exist. Which I think some of them might object to.
Historical claim is all nice and dandy but most countries has released parts of their historical claims since WW2 and not increased them.
I am with the camp for letting the people living there decide. If you want a country 20x20 km large then fine for you. Don't expect to live well though since you aren't in any international trade treaty.
|
lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
|
On March 12 2013 13:14 RCMDVA wrote:
$200 billion in oil reserves.
3,000 people.
$66,666,666.66 in reserves per person.
And that's what it's all about.
Which is why Obama wont back Britain here because he wants your oil companies to share in the profits.
The oil was recently found relatively, we defended the islands before this reserve was known about
|
On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote:
lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
No.
Our claim is "the people want to stay with us".
Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider.
|
On April 16 2013 03:29 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote:
lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa. No. Our claim is "the people want to stay with us". Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider.
Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
|
On April 16 2013 03:37 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 03:29 Reason wrote:On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote:
lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa. No. Our claim is "the people want to stay with us". Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider. Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
Are you serious? Scotland will hold a referendum in 2014 and if they vote for independence they will be granted it a few years later. The UK government and all of the political parties have already agreed to grant independence to Scotland but only if the majority of the Scottish people vote for it. They even let the Scottish National Party set the wording of the question, the date of the vote and the date of the independence if the vote is a yes.
It is expected that the Scottish people will vote No, however.
|
On April 16 2013 03:37 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 03:29 Reason wrote:On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote:
lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa. No. Our claim is "the people want to stay with us". Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider. Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
It sure is, if the Scottish vote for independence they will get independence.
The British government doesn't want it, but wont stop it if it's what the Scotts want, the referendums coming.
|
On April 15 2013 17:40 CursedRich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 13:14 RCMDVA wrote:
$200 billion in oil reserves.
3,000 people.
$66,666,666.66 in reserves per person.
And that's what it's all about. Which is why Obama wont back Britain here because he wants your oil companies to share in the profits. The oil was recently found relatively, we defended the islands before this reserve was known about
I'm Ex royal navy and I now work in Seismic oil exploration, so I have a few things to say about this.
This is wrong actually. The Oil was known to be there a while before the Falklands war. But the oil is rather deep down and the technology wasn't advanced enough to get to most of it.
Recent advances have been made in drilling techniques that allows much greater access to the reserves. Hence the new claims coming from Argentina over sovereignty. All the fields are now up for grabs.
The referendum was a complete farce. Ask British people if they want to stay British, they are most likely going to say yes. It was a PR stunt, it means nothing really.
But, I do agree with you, this is 100% about oil. I've been to the Falklands, it's a desolate wasteland. It's really out of the way (From England). The only reason to fight so hard over it, is the oil, plain and simple.
IMO though, Obama won't back England for more of a political reason. They don't really want to shit all over south america by siding with us do they? They kinda stuck in the middle here.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this kind of thing needs a better framework to get solved.
usually the conflict arises due to colonial legacy which results in a proximate territory to a colonial country with residents from the colonizing country living there long term. so in this situation the colony residents have their personal right to live on the land in conflict with some grand historical unfairness felt by the nationalistic colonial country nearby over claim to the resources found on the piece of island/territory.
without a way of recognizing both of these interests and arguments, a conflict will proceed with each side only advancing their own argument with no middle ground. the result is that the probability of armed conflict and tension rise, while the space for constructive and cooperative agreement get closed.
britain can administer the islands and grant argentina some stake in the resource of the island.
|
On April 16 2013 07:11 oneofthem wrote:
this kind of thing needs a better framework to get solved.
usually the conflict arises due to colonial legacy which results in a proximate territory to a colonial country with residents from the colonizing country living there long term. so in this situation the colony residents have their personal right to live on the land in conflict with some grand historical unfairness felt by the nationalistic colonial country nearby over claim to the resources found on the piece of island/territory.
without a way of recognizing both of these interests and arguments, a conflict will proceed with each side only advancing their own argument with no middle ground. the result is that the probability of armed conflict and tension rise, while the space for constructive and cooperative agreement get closed.
britain can administer the islands and grant argentina some stake in the resource of the island.
Britain and Argentina actually did agree to a method to share resources of the islands in 1995, and Argentina withdrew in 2007. There really isn't that much need for a framework because there aren't really that many previously-uninhabited islands with a colonial history that are closeish but not in the recognized EEZ of the nearest country. I'm not sure if there are really any other islands anywhere with a remotely comparable situation to that in the Falklands.
|
On April 16 2013 07:11 oneofthem wrote:
this kind of thing needs a better framework to get solved.
this is a key point overlooked by a lot of the posters in this thread.
|
Haven't read the thread, just the OP, so if this has already been said, I apologize.
The Argentineans really don't care at all about a referendum, because they claim that the British settlements of the 19th century were illegal in the first place. They claim that when Argentina won their independence, the Malvinas were part of that territory, which got occupied by the British.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that and I understand both sides 
On the one hand, I think that there is something to be said for the Argentinean point of view. Compare it to Israel's settlements in the West Bank (or how hard it was to force them to give up the settlements in Gaza). These are illegal settlements of occupied territory. How is the Falklands any different, except that it happened 200 years ago instead of 30?
On the other hand, just because you claim territory doesn't mean it should be yours, regardless of historical precedent (like I feel Tibet is unrightfully occupied by China and am glad Taiwan is independent). Historically, the Falklands were Argentinean for about 20 years (and were under official protection by the British for most of that), so I am also unsure why the Argentineans can claim them (except that they are geographically nearest).
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling.
|
On April 16 2013 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 07:11 oneofthem wrote:
this kind of thing needs a better framework to get solved.
usually the conflict arises due to colonial legacy which results in a proximate territory to a colonial country with residents from the colonizing country living there long term. so in this situation the colony residents have their personal right to live on the land in conflict with some grand historical unfairness felt by the nationalistic colonial country nearby over claim to the resources found on the piece of island/territory.
without a way of recognizing both of these interests and arguments, a conflict will proceed with each side only advancing their own argument with no middle ground. the result is that the probability of armed conflict and tension rise, while the space for constructive and cooperative agreement get closed.
britain can administer the islands and grant argentina some stake in the resource of the island. Britain and Argentina actually did agree to a method to share resources of the islands in 1995, and Argentina withdrew in 2007. There really isn't that much need for a framework because there aren't really that many previously-uninhabited islands with a colonial history that are closeish but not in the recognized EEZ of the nearest country. I'm not sure if there are really any other islands anywhere with a remotely comparable situation to that in the Falklands.
Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla, Turkish Cyprus, Taiwan. Each unique, but comparable (and yes, I know Ceuta and Melilla aren't islands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
