This weekend, starting Sunday the 10th of March and continuing on to Monday the 11th March, all 1,672 eligible Falkland Islander voters will vote on the issue of their current status as an overseas British territory.

The question (with preamble) is as follows:

Quote: The current political status of the Falkland Islands is that they are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. The Islands are internally self-governing, with the United Kingdom being responsible for matters including defence and foreign affairs. Under the Falkland Islands Constitution the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination, which they can exercise at any time. Given that Argentina is calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, this referendum is being undertaken to consult the people regarding their views on the political status of the Falkland Islands. Should the majority of votes cast be against the current status, the Falkland Islands Government will undertake necessary consultation and preparatory work in order to conduct a further referendum on alternative options. Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom? YES or NO

Argentina has already rejected the outcome of the referendum:

Quote: "Its predictable result will not end the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the UK." "The inhabitants are British but the territory where they live belongs to Argentina"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/382...nd-Islands-referendum-is-pointless

What are your thoughts on this?

Quoting moo (Thread starter): What are your thoughts on this?

The result is as much of a given as Argentina continuing its bullying stance for now. Ultimately nothing will change, and eventually Argentina will untwist her panties and learn to live with that fact. They are fully aware that another military conflict would not end well for them and only seek to milk the nationalistic pride associated with their 'return' in order to mask growing domestic issues. A sad, but patently obvious state of affairs.


Dan  

Quoting moo (Thread starter): What are your thoughts on this?

Firstly that, of course, the referendum will produce the same result as the previous one - over 90% of Falklanders voting to stay with the UK.

Secondly that the Argentinians have no sort of legitimate claim to the islands; or, indeed, in historical terms, to Argentina itself. Spanish colonists invaded and conquered what is now Argentina; and, in the process, pretty well exterminated the native population in a very few years. In 1982 their descendants tried to do exactly the same thing to the Falklands; invade it and seize control by military force. They were only prevented from achieving that by the British armed forces, who defeated them and drove them out (at the cost of about 1,000 British casualties, killed and wounded).

There is no chance at all that the international community will ever support any sort of Argentinian takeover of the islands; unless and until the Argentinians 'change their spots' and increase peaceful contacts with the Falklanders. Twenty or thirty years of 'peaceful co-existence' and things might be different - but, given Argentina's atrocious conduct in 1982, and its 'virtual blockade' of the Falklands ever since, that's how long it would take for them to secure any sort of political 'foothold' in the place.

As matters stand at present I think the vote is a waste of time and effort, we know the result before a vote is cast, and we also know that Argentina won't accept it as legitimate.

Politically there is presently no chance of any transfer of sovereignty, in the future however who knows, when Tony Blair was PM he made a habit of apologising for anything and everything the UK had done over the past 500 years, no matter what the circumstances at the time, whereas our present PM went to India last week to a site where British troops massacred lots of unarmed locals, and the sorry word never cropped up once.


I think the UK should treat its overseas territories in exactly the same way as France, full voting rights including parliamentary representation, subsidised travel between the territory and the capital etc. That would make it virtually impossible for a future Government to sell the Islanders down the river without their consent.

The British Falkland Islands will remain British until such a time as the people living on them decide otherwise. The sooner the Argentinians realise this the better. After what they did in the 1980's you cant blame the Islanders for being always on edge about a future attack.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Secondly that the Argentinians have no sort of legitimate claim to the islands; or, indeed, in historical terms, to Argentina itsefl

This statement is all the more ironic and utterly laughable coming from an Australian.

This is the kind of browbeating, lofty attitude I spoke about in the other thread. This is the kind of stuff that always comes up in this forum, and then people and mods here wonder why I for example have such a thin-skin? It is also a fine example of veering off-topic and taking a cheap shot, and best of all from the citizen of a country whose existence is based on the complete cultural subjugation of the natives.

Just to give another wonderful and repeating example, if a thread about Nazis pops-up, it is soon enough that forum members demonstrate their "indignity" about Argentina harboring Nazis after the war. I then naturally point out the disgraceful hypocrisy of singling out Argentina, when their countries did the same (plus the fact Argentina did allow refuge for hundreds of thousands of Jews). Everyone ignores those facts and maintain their faux moral high-ground.

Or lets remember a few years ago how in a 25 of May thread, totally non-political, decided it was the appropriate place to make fun of the death of 400 sailors.

Or when talking about the most famous plays in football, how all Argentines are coke-heads.

And the examples can just keep on coming.

These are the reasons I have no remaining benefit of the doubt about what is written about Argentina in this forum. The hypocrisy displayed time and again is simply disturbing and one can only conclude, a sign of a general attitude.

The referendum is let's face it, a bit of a stunt, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. If the Falklanders believe some formal displays of their position bolster their side, then fine.

Quoting Derico (Reply 5): The referendum is let's face it, a bit of a stunt, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.

Its actually a lot more than a stunt, its a basis for fulfilling all outstanding UN resolutions about the Falkland Islands and closing the matter.

The UN convention says that people have a right to self determination - by holding this referendum, the controlling British Government is demonstrating the most fundamental part of that right, the ability to say if they want to remain part of the British area of government as an overseas territory.

The UN resolutions about the Falkland Islands just require the UK and Argentina to resolve the issue - resolving the issue does not solely require the islands to be handed to Argentina, and it also does not require both parties to agree to the resolution.

If the Falkland Islanders vote to remain as a British territory, as far as the UN is concerned, thats the matter closed. Argentina can complain all they want, and they can reject the outcome as vehemently as they wish, the situation is resolved.

I agree with all of your points. The sooner Argentina's political class gets it the healthier for everyone. Then both sides can go their separate ways once and for all.

Quoting Derico (Reply 5):

Ok then, what is Argentina's claim the the Falklands? I was going to ask, objectively anyway


So if the people actually did vote NO, does that mean the Falklands become its own country, or would that be a vote to join Argentina?

Until I see otherwise, I'm siding with the UK on this one (not because of stereotypical 'murrican logic.) I think it should be up to the people to decide, they seem pretty intent on staying in the UK. It's not like all UK colonies are being bullied into staying, the US and India for example aren't part of the UK. Their independence was more violent, but I figure if the people really want out and they have an opportunity to vote, they will.

Another poster said Argentina has no claim to the island... that was my understanding. Is there any rebuttal? Did the current Argentina (as opposed to the basically wiped out native population) ever own the Falklands?

The historical evidence of both sides are more a "he said/she said" issue, although both Argentines and British will vehemently disagree, citing various papers, historical documents, etc. All of which can be denied by the other side as made-up.

The situation here is that the inhabitants are ethnically British, and that Argentina claims they were implanted. This charge is exceedingly hard to prove even if there was completely convincing evidence, let alone the muddled history of ownership of this area.

This issue has been debated countless times here. I take the pragmatic approach and base my position on what the facts on the ground are, thus the islands should not be part of Argentina. Both sides show hypocrisy as for example the UK maintains a claim on Antarctica that has almost no support on the ground, given the most numerous nationality in Antarctica is Argentine.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8): s opposed to the basically wiped out native population

You and NAV20 know nothing about Argentine history, or demographics for that matter. It would be useful if, as a sign of a minimum of respect, people didn't utter complete falsehoods and lies about things they have no clue about. Argentina's native population was not wiped out, it is a categorically wrong statement.

It is the casual way people here toss statements about Argentina (native population entirely wiped out, Argentines are drug-addicts, all Argentines have nazi-blood), that is truly remarkable how people here tacitly accept it.

Quoting Derico (Reply 9):

Ok I'm willing to admit I am wrong, but I would like to see proof for your statements (and that goes for the UK's side as well.) Sometimes with historical claims, you just are going too far back. I'm more concerned with what the people NOW want.

Kind of a similar issue is Israel and how both sides keep going back thousands of years, or even back to 1948. Well honestly, you can debate the past until you're blue in the face, but I'd rather just look at the situation now and try and fix it. Both sides probably got screwed in the past so an ideal, 100% fair situation doesn't exist, look at the present and go from there

I wonder how much significance this debate would have if it wasn't for oil (the Falklands have a lot of it, right?)

The row goes back well before the oil variable emerged.

I am not going to show proof about the Falklands belonging to Argentina simply because I don't have any, I have not bothered to look into it, and I don't believe quite frankly in my country's claim.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10): 'm more concerned with what the people NOW want.

I think that is what I said.

I said you were wrong (and completely wrong at that) about making such a general statement about the native indigenous Argentines. And you most certainly are.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8): So if the people actually did vote NO, does that mean the Falklands become its own country, or would that be a vote to join Argentina?

That is answered in the preamble I posted in the thread starter.

"Should the majority of votes cast be against the current status, the Falkland Islands Government will undertake necessary consultation and preparatory work in order to conduct a further referendum on alternative options."

The alternatives would be along the lines of "Join Argentina", "Become fully independent", "Join Chile", "Other".

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8): Did the current Argentina (as opposed to the basically wiped out native population) ever own the Falklands?

No, their claim lies in the ownership of part of the Islands by Spain, but that is a little off as well as Spain acquired their ownership from the French, who created the first populated colony on the islands.

The first known landing by a western nation was by a British naval officer, 74 years prior to the first French settlement.

A settlement authorised by both Britain and Argentina was created in 1829, with the founder requesting that the British protect the settlement - this they did in 1833 when they requested that a newly implanted Argentinian garrison leave.

The islands have been permanently occupied as a full settlement by Britain in officiallity since 1840.

Quote: "The inhabitants are British but the territory where they live belongs to Argentina"

100% true. This show-referendum is as worthless as asking Israeli settlers on the West Bank if they want continued occupation, or a return to Palestine.

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 13): 100% true.

Why is it 100% true? Can you back that assertion up at all?

And if things did go wrong, we always count on our "special relationship" friend ...

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):

Reading your reply I was laughing, then checking out your flag I ended up laughing even more.

I'm losing faith and hope in humanity.

Quoting moo (Reply 12): No, their claim lies in the ownership of part of the Islands by Spain, but that is a little off as well as Spain acquired their ownership from the French, who created the first populated colony on the islands.

Interesting. I'll petition my government into claiming the islands for France, that could be an interesting twist ! In fact France and current/former British territories have several disputes around the world, Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, the Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean...

The only way, and I repeat, the only way that the Falkland Islands can change their status quo, will be because the inhabitants of the islands WANT to became Argentinians. There is no other way.

With this fact in mind, there is a very important situation that nobody seems to point out yet, and that is WHY the Kelpers wants to remain British. It is not a caprice. Argentina has a long, long tradition of bad ( and some times reeeeeeally bad ) administration. From 1946 to now, the ( diverse forms of ) Peronist were at the government 90 % of the time, and it is a fact that they failed miserably in making Argentina a developed country, HAVING ALL the potential resources to achieve that. Do you know how many zeros had been removed from the Peso Argentino ( Arg. currency ) in the last decades ? 13. This number is enough proof that the politicians in charge of conducting Argentina in the last decades ( and that includes the Military ), were totally irresponsible in the way they handled the country, missing the opportunities once and again and again and again. Even today, after a decade with the price of the soy ( the most important commodity for the Argentinian economy ) over the clouds, they are struggling with high inflation rates, recession, capitals fleeing the country, no investment, lack of infrastructure in the rails, roads, airports, the fuel and energy are a big headache despite the "nationalization" of YPF....I mean, in a country that could perfectly be similar to Australia or New Zealand due to its natural blessings, today they have a country that is, probably, the 30 or 35 % of what should be under good and responsible policies.
So, the islanders must decide between remain British Overseas Territory, or became a province of this country where there are suspicions of corruption over the President, the Vice President and other authorities, an intestinal fight for funds between the federal government and the provinces, a divided society where being "K" or "Anti-K " are enough reasons to be insulted and bullied by mobs ( if you are an authority of the "K's" ) or by the President in a public speech ( like several common citizens who were mistreated by her for being critical about Mss. CFK policies ).

Sorry, but I think there is NO CHANCE for mistakes here, who could have even the shadow of a doubt under this circumstances ? And the problem is, this circumstances are the norm one decade after the other.....is the Argentinian way of life, and I'm afraid only the Argentinians are prepared to live that way.

Rgds.
G.

Quoting Derico (Reply 5): and best of all from the citizen of a country whose existence is based on the complete cultural subjugation of the natives.

Pot meet kettle!

It'll be interesting to see what happens if there's a oil boom there. Will they go for independence? Will the UK be entitled to any revenue? Hope so, we need the cash.  

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17): the Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean...

The Chagos Islands?

Yes, i'm ashamed about that. I don't see why we can't just let them live on one of the other island in that group away from the military base.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 19): Pot meet kettle!

Right, and you guys just LOOOOVE the Maori people.

Response: Right, and you guys just LOOOOVE the Native Americans.

This is a stupid f****** argument. The displacement and mistreatment of natives has been going on as long as colonial expansion itself. Why anyone feels the need to bring it up is entirely beyond me. Much less someone from a country that is widely known to be one of the worst offenders (Australia).

It's childish, and completely counter-productive.

With that said, the Falkland Islanders should do whatever the hell they want. And Argentina should quit with the political posturing. CFK has got a lot of other problems she needs to deal with.

Cheers,
Cameron

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 22): CFK has got a lot of other problems she needs to deal with.

Which is part of the reason this has been such a noisy subject. When you can't FIX the problems you have, you create another to distract people from your ineptitude.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Firstly that, of course, the referendum will produce the same result as the previous one - over 90% of Falklanders voting to stay with the UK.

The other 10% having a bit too much at the local pub before voting.  

[Edited 2013-03-07 10:47:02]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Secondly that the Argentinians have no sort of legitimate claim to the islands; or, indeed, in historical terms, to Argentina itself. Spanish colonists invaded and conquered what is now Argentina; and, in the process, pretty well exterminated the native population in a very few years.

So when are you surrendering Australia back to the aboriginals? If you think Argentinians don't have legitimate claim to Argentina, then Australians sure as hell don't have legitimate claims to Australia.

Quoting Derico (Reply 9): Argentina's native population was not wiped out, it is a categorically wrong statement.

Quoting Derico (Reply 11): I said you were wrong (and completely wrong at that) about making such a general statement about the native indigenous Argentines. And you most certainly are.

Less than 5 minutes of Googling yielded these interesting links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalp%C3%AD_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/countr...COUNTRYPROF,ARG,,4954ce2f23,0.html

The indigenous weren't wiped out, but it wasn't for lack of effort according to the above sources. So why are you berating DeltaMD90?

I might as well also mention that I realize I'm from a country that has treated their natives like garbage as well, so no point in anybody trying to throw that back at me. I can at least fully admit my country's wrongdoings.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17): In fact France and current/former British territories have several disputes around the world, Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon

The situation with St. Pierre and Miquelon is different. It's solely to do with France trying to claim as much Canadian water near the islands as they can with hopes of there being oil underneath. Canada isn't questioning the island itself.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 22): Right, and you guys just LOOOOVE the Maori people.

Sure do nothing wrong with race relations in NZ, maori have always had the same rights as any other person in NZ, we got that right from the begining, we even gave maori women the right to vote at the same time we gave all our women the vote. New Zealand has always had equal opportunities, we have always had maori representation in Parliament, can many if any other country claim similar, the US can't, the Aussies certainly can't. I'd say New Zealand is an example that many should follow, we've done a far better job than you Longhorn.

Quoting Derico (Reply 5): The referendum is let's face it, a bit of a stunt,

I don't really think that's fair. It's a sensible reaction to the unprovoked antics of De Kirchner. Without wishing to spark a pissing contest, because frankly you seem like a supremely reasonable sort of guy, I think the term 'stunt' is far more legitimately applied to some of De Kirchner's actions, such as blanking British leaders or passing pointless letters. To be honest, I think that in the circumstances it's the only wise thing to do. Of course, the ultra 'stunt' in this matter in recent times was the Sun newpaper's (I use the term 'newspaper' very loosely here) foolish advert in the Argentine press. I don't think such nonsense should have a place in the situation.

Quoting Derico (Reply 5): but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it

I am grateful to you for your balanced approach here. We may inherently disagree when the chips are down, but the ability to actually talk to each other about it in a perfectly civil way is something that perhaps our respective leaders could do with learning.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10): (the Falklands have a lot of it, right?)

They found about a billion barrels a few years ago, but since then the exploration has been pretty disappointing, so it's not clear whether there's a whole lot available.

I think if there was no oil the situation would probably be the same though. Like others have said CFdK is using this as a distraction, because it's an easy, popular rallying cry, and a good distraction from troubles at home. I don't think the oil is a major issue for a lot of people, any more than it is to the British.

What is supremely ironic to me here is that the only 'legitimacy' (if you want to call it that) behind colonization by the European powers in the first place was FORCE. The Spanish Empire "lived by that sword" as much as anybody else, so their descendents have no right to bitch now just because they lost.

To suggest that Argentina has some entitlement to the Falklands based on what the Spanish Empire may or may not have done is as specious as the Dutch clamoring for Manhattan back from the US.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 3): Politically there is presently no chance of any transfer of sovereignty, in the future however who knows, when Tony Blair was PM he made a habit of apologising for anything and everything the UK had done over the past 500 years,

The only one I recall was when he set up the inquiry into Bloody Sunday in 1998, remember at the time he was also heavily committed to the peace process in Northern Ireland. Cameron however made an even more fulsome apology when the report was finally published in 2010.
Certainly the Islanders should not have had any worries under Blair, I mean, he wasn't shy about deploying military force after all.

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 13): 100% true. This show-referendum is as worthless as asking Israeli settlers on the West Bank if they want continued occupation, or a return to Palestine.

In that case, seeing your flag, you'd be happy for Sweden to walk back in and rule you?
After all, the Falklands have been British way longer than Norway has been a nation.

This is being done to counter the lies that that useless, crooked and incompetent Argentine government tries to spread.

The silly thing is, in the 1990's relations between the UK and Argentina were improving, they worsened when the late husband of President Botox took over - him a fairly recent immigrant to Argentina. (Given his family had included SS officers and given how many of them found a home and protection in Argentina after WW2 - the Israelis had to smuggle Eichmann out, the admin brains behind the holocaust, remember - perhaps going there was a sort of homecoming).
He dies, she took over, has displayed huge incompetence, hostility to any domestic criticism and bores the hell out of anyone unlucky enough to be in earshot on this issue.
(Even other other Latin American leaders, while they might be polite, do not take her seriously and have quite a few issues with her policies in the region. The only one who really did support her is currently lying in state in Caracas).

Had the more sensible stance of the 1990's been continued, if oil is found around the Islands, then there would have also been a bonanza for Argentina too. Indeed, agreements were made about this between the two countries.
But guess who tore them up?
So if there are commercially viable oil sources, Argentina, as it stands now, won't see any of it.
And that will be the fault of that woman and her late husband, ironic, but it fits in with the general hissy fit based incompetence we've seen.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 29): To suggest that Argentina has some entitlement to the Falklands based on what the Spanish Empire may or may not have done is as specious as the Dutch clamoring for Manhattan back from the US.

Let's be honest here - I think the real reason that the strength of feeling actually exists over the Falklands for Argentina is not one of any history of ownership, or other complex history, but rather one of simple geography. I firmly believe that this is the real motivating factor, no matter how subconsciously or latently it may affect people. I doubt many Argentines would admit it, but I'm pretty sure that for many the fact that it's nearest to Argentina has a massive influence on their thinking. But hey, lots of countries own little bits of the world quite far away from their mainland, the UK isn't unique in this regard.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 31): But hey, lots of countries own little bits of the world quite far away from their mainland, the UK isn't unique in this regard.

Which is why, contrary to some received wisdom in the UK, it was France who instantly gave support to the UK in 1982. Technical details on French weapons, when the Task Force sailed past France's Atlantic coast the Harriers did air combat training against French Mirages. France did not want a precedent created if Argentina had succeded.
Despite Maggie and Mitterrand not being political soul-mates to put it mildly.

Whereas her apparent political soul-mate Reagan only came down on the UK's side once all diplomatic channels had been exhausted (and Al Haig kept on being treated with drunken contempt by the Junta).
Even then, the US State Department was far from happy, this bureaucratic tendency still exists to this day in that arm of the US government. Not has bad as that ghastly Anglophobe harridan Jeanne Kirkpatrick in 1982 though.
The Pentagon were much more supportive from the start, Cap Weinburger didn't get a honorary Knighthood for nothing.

But you could perhaps also say the same of the British Foreign Office prior to the war as well.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 31): But hey, lots of countries own little bits of the world quite far away from their mainland, the UK isn't unique in this regard.

Not only that, RussianJet - the British set up a 'colony' there in 1843 - basically a few ex-naval families with the task of building and maintaining a naval base. What is now 'Argentina' did not get its first constitution until 1853. The islands were unpopulated and barren when the British arrived - there weren't even any trees growing there. It's absurd really for Argentina to claim any right to sovereignty over islands 600 miles from the mainland of South America - on that basis, Cuba should be part of the United States, it's a lot closer to Florida than the Falklands are to Argentina.  

Point was, of course, that the British Royal Navy in the 19th. Century had the worldwide role of protecting British trade routes. Initially these were mainly east of Europe - but by 1843 the development of New Zealand and Australia, plus the development of the Western United States, particularly California, meant that they increasingly had to protect shipping going round Cape Horn as well.

In historical terms it's just as well that they did set up a naval base in the Falklands - in 1914 they had to deal with a German cruiser force heading for the Pacific ('Battle of the Falkland Islands') and in 1939 they faced the same sort of thing ('Battle of the River Plate'). Happily they won both battles - with the result that the German Navy, in both world wars, was pretty well forced on to the defensive from very early on.

At this point I don´t think it is relevant who the Malvinas islands belong to, or who has a claim of sovereignity. The issue is too muddled. You can argue it is the British with the same amount of logic and facts as if arguing they are Argentine.

The only natural resource there worth anything is the fishing industry. The oil is too expensive to extract, given the amount located and it requires a lot of investment. No one´s going to do it. Not in a few decades.

It is in the benefit of the islanders, the British and the Argentines to find some formula to achieve joint sovereignity. You can say whatever you want about Argentina but previous to the 1982 folly, the islanders went to Argentina for university, for medical procedures and many other things. Now they have to take outrageously expensive flights to Chile, getting scalped by LA in the process, or all the way to the UK.

Argentina´s current government is horrid, and I agree CFK is not the best person to negotiate anything meaningful but that government won´t last forever.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 22): This is a stupid f****** argument. The displacement and mistreatment of natives has been going on as long as colonial expansion itself. Why anyone feels the need to bring it up is entirely beyond me. Much less someone from a country that is widely known to be one of the worst offenders (Australia).

  

Fair comment.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 26): I'd say New Zealand is an example that many should follow, we've done a far better job than you Longhorn.

Um - well, fair-ish comment, but it was still a land grab and the (post-Treaty) Maori Wars were fairly violent. It is within my lifetime that Maori children were punished for speaking Maori at school.

But yes - there was a Treaty (Waitangi) signed between Queen Victoria and some of the Maori chiefs, even though - in strictly legal terms - that treaty became null and void the day Queen Victoria died.

mariner

Falklands belong to Britain, end of discussion.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 34): You can argue it is the British with the same amount of logic and facts as if arguing they are Argentine.

Nonsense.

Britain has claimed the islands before Argentina was a country
The population of the islands (inevitably) want to remain British
Argentina failed to take and retain the islands using military force

That really covers all the bases.

Argentina's claim is based upon a short settlement which was permitted by the UK and expelled when it attempted to claim sovereignty. But such a settlement expressly sought the permission from the UK - thus acknowledging British sovereignty - so you can hardly claim that this settlement equated to sovereignty, neither at the time nor now.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 34): It is in the benefit of the islanders, the British and the Argentines to find some formula to achieve joint sovereignity.

No it isn't. It is in the benefit of Argentina to get over it and trade feely with the islands.

There is only one way for Argentina to get Falklands and that is war and that war they would lose.

Only thing that Argentina wants from Falklands is oil and their president a bit more support.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 18): The only way, and I repeat, the only way that the Falkland Islands can change their status quo, will be because the inhabitants of the islands WANT to became Argentinians. There is no other way.

  

This is the exactly the same as Gibraltar. In the 2002 referendum, 98.48% voted to reject any shared sovereignty between Britain and Spain.

What I completely fail to understand is that as both Argentina and Spain were dictatorships for many years, and are now functioning democracies, under precisely what logic would you want to assume control of lands where a huge majority of the local population did not want to be under your control? Why would you want to subjugate a people that would clearly loath you and possibly at the very least start a terror campaign against you?

Quoting offloaded (Reply 39): under precisely what logic would you want to assume control of lands where a huge majority of the local population did not want to be under your control?

I've often had the same thought, offloaded. The only 'angle' that I can think of is the strategic one. Gibraltar is arguably the strategic 'key' to the Mediterranean, and the Falklands fill a similar role with regard to Cape Horn. And Britain has effectively controlled them both for more than a century?

Which leaves the 'irritating' Brits still enjoying a certain amount of 'world power status.' And Spain and Argentina 'nowhere' by comparison?

I guess the British would be pretty fed up if the French had gained control of Dover during the Napoleonic Wars, and somehow hung on to it?

Pretty sure that that's the 'mainspring' of the continuing discontent.........

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37): No it isn't. It is in the benefit of Argentina to get over it and trade feely with the islands.

Well, if this doesn't sum up the height of hubris, then nothing does.   

I'm sure if you use an electron microscope one could see the benefits to Argentina, whose GDP is in the hundreds of billions, of trading with a town of 3000 people and a GDP of a few tens of millions. They must import absolutely everything.

Quoting Derico (Reply 41): I'm sure if you use an electron microscope one could see the benefits to Argentina, whose GDP is in the hundreds of billions, of trading with a town of 3000 people and a GDP of a few tens of millions

Derico, that rather confirms my impression of the whole Falklands mess. Why do you (as an Argentinian) dislike the Falklanders so much? Why do you (apparently) favour isolating them, and not trading with them? Why are you (and presumably many other Argentinians) apparently so keen on gaining control of these tiny, largely insignificant, islands?

Quoting Derico (Reply 41): They must import absolutely everything.

They can import absolutely everything from places like Montevideo, or even from some Chilean cities, with the advantage of better prices ( there are big differences in pricing at each side of the Andes and each shore of Rio de La Plata, and Argentina is always the most expensive ), better quality ( you Know, between a genuine Sony or Samsung product, and a bunch of Chinese pieces assembled in Tierra del Fuego with a "Made in Argentina" label, the decision is very easy ).... and all that without being harassed and/or threatened every time there is a shipment with destination Port Stanley.

Rgds.

G.

I can't answer your questions, because they are incorrect assumptions.

I was just stating the obvious. Haven't you and others here stated how Britain would win a direct war with Argentina decisively? Did I come back all of yesterday and say "oh, why do you say such things, why do you dislike us so much?." No, because that is a fact. The only things I object to are blanket generalizations, which I have mentioned at reply 5 as happening over the years.

So when I state the obvious, that the economic scale of the Falklands and Argentina places the islands in no position to be dictating terms of engagement in trade (much less to state "it is in your benefit to deal with us"), it's not dislike, It's just the facts. One can't take that attitude seriously.

It would be in the benefit of the Falklands to trade with Argentina, not the other way around. But it's not going to happen there is simply too much damage on both sides of the equation.

Quoting Derico (Reply 41): Well, if this doesn't sum up the height of hubris, then nothing does

It's nothing to do with pride. Peace and freedom (which includes freedom to trade) makes the world a better place. Force and coercion make it worse. I'm keen to see the former practised as much as possible, regardless of the scale - it's about principle. Putting petty nationalism in front of prosperity is disgusting imo.

Falkland GDP per capita is almost 4 times higher of than that of Argentina's so i'm sure a bit of extra business for some Argentine citizens/companies would be welcome. It would also benefit the Falklanders.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 43): They can import absolutely everything from places like Montevideo, or even from some Chilean cities, with the advantage of better prices ( there are big differences in pricing at each side of the Andes and each shore of Rio de La Plata, and Argentina is always the most expensive ), better quality ( you Know, between a genuine Sony or Samsung product, and a bunch of Chinese pieces assembled in Tierra del Fuego with a "Made in Argentina" label, the decision is very easy ).... and all that without being harassed and/or threatened every time there is a shipment with destination Port Stanley.

Then I guess it is not in Argentina's benefit to trade with the Falklands.   

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37): Nonsense.

Oh really? Do tell, why?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37): No it isn't. It is in the benefit of Argentina to get over it and trade feely with the islands.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 45): Falkland GDP per capita is almost 4 times higher of than that of Argentina's so i'm sure a bit of extra business for some Argentine citizens/companies would be welcome. It would also benefit the Falklanders.

So what made you change your mind?

Quoting finnishway (Reply 38): There is only one way for Argentina to get Falklands and that is war and that war they would lose.

Oh please. Drop the mesiahnism and try to be more practical. Nobody benefits from the status quo.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 47): Oh really? Do tell, why?

Errr. Try reading the post?

Quoting AR385 (Reply 47): So what made you change your mind?

I haven't. Not sure why you think i have tbh.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 45): It's nothing to do with pride. Peace and freedom (which includes freedom to trade) makes the world a better place.

Free trade is not very popular in Argentina. We have an ongoing trade war with every conceivable trading nation and block, both at the WTO and bilateraly (European Union, Japan, Mexico, United States, India, China, even within Mercosur). The 2001 crisis destroyed Argentine's faith in trade and capitalism for at least 2 generations. If we as a country have decided to take up economic battles with the entities stated above, which are likely 90% plus of world GDP and trade, I think there is zero chance of trade with the Falklands.