More Argie Bargie
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
Considering no nation was colonising the islands at the time the Argentinians arrived, and its proximity to their own lands, I'd accept a claim from them over the islands. We took it from them under duress, as far as I can see.
Interesting take on it - though not quite as outlined here TimelineNot sure proximity is a good guide - though I guess Denmark did lay claim to England for awhile (about 300 miles - same distance we are talking about for the FI) .
10 Pence Short said:
I believe in the early 1800s the Argentinians settled there until the British turned up again mob handed nearly 50 years after we had left, demanding ownership.
The Argentine Confederation garrisoned the islands in 1831, it did not colonise them. Their forces mutinied the following year and the British took back the islands a year later. It is worth pointing out at this stage that the Argentine Confederation was a disparate group of states and not a Nation State, indeed Buenos Aires overthrew the Confederation government and seceded from the Confederation in 1852. Buenos Aires remained an independent state until the Battle of Pavón in 1861. Thus Argentina as we know it did not come into being until 1861, well after the British re-occupation of the islands. In 1840 the Falklands became a Crown colony. 10 Pence Short said:
Rovinghawk said:
May I ask the basis for this valid claim, other than the fact that they happen to be nearby?
My understanding is that we abandoned the islands in the 1700s, leaving no more than a plaque behind. The Spanish then did similar.I believe in the early 1800s the Argentinians settled there until the British turned up again mob handed nearly 50 years after we had left, demanding ownership. Owing to the fact that they were outgunned (and their Navy was primarily British mercenaries), the Argentinians were forced to concede.
The impression I get is that the British were but one of a number of nations who came and went from the Falklands. The French had early control but willingly gave it to the Spanish. The Spanish left of their own volition, as did the British. It seems only when the Argentinians had made a proper effort at colonisation did the British then return and take it from them.
Considering no nation was colonising the islands at the time the Argentinians arrived, and its proximity to their own lands, I'd accept a claim from them over the islands. We took it from them under duress, as far as I can see.
10 Pence Short said:
My understanding is that we abandoned the islands in the 1700s, leaving no more than a plaque behind. The Spanish then did similar.
I believe in the early 1800s the Argentinians settled there until the British turned up again mob handed nearly 50 years after we had left, demanding ownership. Owing to the fact that they were outgunned (and their Navy was primarily British mercenaries), the Argentinians were forced to concede.
The impression I get is that the British were but one of a number of nations who came and went from the Falklands. The French had early control but willingly gave it to the Spanish. The Spanish left of their own volition, as did the British. It seems only when the Argentinians had made a proper effort at colonisation did the British then return and take it from them.
Considering no nation was colonising the islands at the time the Argentinians arrived, and its proximity to their own lands, I'd accept a claim from them over the islands. We took it from them under duress, as far as I can see.
Nearly but not quite. I believe in the early 1800s the Argentinians settled there until the British turned up again mob handed nearly 50 years after we had left, demanding ownership. Owing to the fact that they were outgunned (and their Navy was primarily British mercenaries), the Argentinians were forced to concede.
The impression I get is that the British were but one of a number of nations who came and went from the Falklands. The French had early control but willingly gave it to the Spanish. The Spanish left of their own volition, as did the British. It seems only when the Argentinians had made a proper effort at colonisation did the British then return and take it from them.
Considering no nation was colonising the islands at the time the Argentinians arrived, and its proximity to their own lands, I'd accept a claim from them over the islands. We took it from them under duress, as far as I can see.
1. We were the first to land there (1690).
2. An American claimed it for Argentina (1820) so do the yanks have a claim?2
3. After the Spanish left, and it was uninhabited until a German moved in (1826). Can they claim it?
4. Argies moved back in with a garrison (1831) and kicked out the German but they, in turn mutinied when we turned up (1832), so not really duress.
Other than you are bang on.
It's a bit of a legal minefield and is the reason neither Argentina or the UK will go to binding arbitration for fear of losing the Islands outright.
I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
Grumfutock said:
Nearly but not quite.
1. We were the first to land there (1690).
2. An American claimed it for Argentina (1820) so do the yanks have a claim?2
3. After the Spanish left, and it was uninhabited until a German moved in (1826). Can they claim it?
4. Argies moved back in with a garrison (1831) and kicked out the German but they, in turn mutinied when we turned up (1832), so not really duress.
Other than you are bang on.
As far as I can gather we claimed the islands in 1765 whilst, unbeknown to us, the French were already there. We left 11 years later 1776 and did not return in any official capacity until 47 years later in 1833.1. We were the first to land there (1690).
2. An American claimed it for Argentina (1820) so do the yanks have a claim?2
3. After the Spanish left, and it was uninhabited until a German moved in (1826). Can they claim it?
4. Argies moved back in with a garrison (1831) and kicked out the German but they, in turn mutinied when we turned up (1832), so not really duress.
Other than you are bang on.
Venet may have been German/French, but was a resident of Buenos Aires and settled there from 1818. It was with permission from the Argentinian government (as it is now) that he was granted fishing rights over the islands (in the knowledge of the British) in 1823. It took him until 1828 to get the settlement going, at which point Argentina granted him control of the islands and resources in restitution. They promised him freedom from taxes if he managed to get the colony going within 3 years. It is clear that the Argentian government felt they had authority to give what they did.
Venet left the islands in 1831 having captured 3 US ships, taking them to the mainland for their captains to stand trial. Whilst away the US raided the islands and Venet never returned, though the settlement continued. By 1832 The Argentines had decided on a new governor with the additional aim of starting a penal colony, but his staff mutinied and killed him. Tough break.
The British had grumbled from time to time throughout, but it was only in 1833 that we decided to reassert our ownership of the islands.
10 Pence Short said:
Grumfutock said:
Regarding Northern Island, yes we won.
And having spent well over 7 years serving in that little shin dig I can talk about this with some authority.
Do I need to point out the obvious?And having spent well over 7 years serving in that little shin dig I can talk about this with some authority.
As for the Falklands, is it really worth falling out over? We have happily ceded other territories in order to continue peacefully along the way. I don't think I could wholeheartedly support a war with Argentina in order to further establish our rights over some tiny little islands just off their coast.
im said:
We should put this to bed with proper negotiations. That doesn't neccessarily mean cede the islands but it probably does mean give up something in order to retain the peace. Any agreement could be ratified by the UN and held on file in perpetuity by them.
A bilateral petroleum treaty was signed in 1995, but Senor Kirchner tore it up in 2007; Menem, who was the argentine president who signed the agreement, also got some way toward a bilateral agreement on fisheries as that is another point of contention between the FI and Argentina. It's notable that Kirchner didn't do the tearing-up and foot stamping until the Argentine economy took a dive.im said:
It's a bit of a legal minefield and is the reason neither Argentina or the UK will go to binding arbitration for fear of losing the Islands outright.
I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
They won't go to the UN for arbitration as they know the 'right to self determination' will trump their (tenuous) claim - the UK has offered a number of times and they've always backed out.I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
Asterix said:
im said:
It's a bit of a legal minefield and is the reason neither Argentina or the UK will go to binding arbitration for fear of losing the Islands outright.
I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
They won't go to the UN for arbitration as they know the 'right to self determination' will trump their (tenuous) claim - the UK has offered a number of times and they've always backed out.I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
I can't find anything on the interweb about that - do you have a linky I can read.However, this article (and others) would appear to beg to differ...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/420359/UK-hold...
goldblum said:
I'm afraid I've never heard of them.
And you didn't think of googling them for a brief overview before replying? Weak.I notice you still haven't answered what your opinion is of the Argentinian argument or their actions to date. I suspect you are not arguing objectively and instead seek to deny the British F.I rights on the basis of some personal grievance about other matters, the same goes for im too.
What is there to discuss?
"Can we have them back?"
"No"
"Can we have a share of the oil & fishing rights?"
"No"
"It's so unfair! I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!"
It reminds of a similar scenario where some land was first discovered by a Spaniard or Portuguese or it may have been a Dane or similar.....anyway, that's not really important. So this land (lets call it "America") wasn't actually settled by anyone until the British arrived several hundred years later and built a colony there. Then the USA (well, they weren't really the USA as it didn't exist then but parts of it that were to become the USA) forcibly removed British rule from the land and proceeded to repopulate it with their own citizens. Now most of these occupying families are 10 or more generations old and fervently claim to be USA citizens and wish to continue being so....
However, none of that takes away the fact that Virginia is rightfully ours! It should be returned immediately to the British Government! Or at the very least, we should be negotiating fishing rights and a share of other natural resources.....
"Can we have them back?"
"No"
"Can we have a share of the oil & fishing rights?"
"No"
"It's so unfair! I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!"
It reminds of a similar scenario where some land was first discovered by a Spaniard or Portuguese or it may have been a Dane or similar.....anyway, that's not really important. So this land (lets call it "America") wasn't actually settled by anyone until the British arrived several hundred years later and built a colony there. Then the USA (well, they weren't really the USA as it didn't exist then but parts of it that were to become the USA) forcibly removed British rule from the land and proceeded to repopulate it with their own citizens. Now most of these occupying families are 10 or more generations old and fervently claim to be USA citizens and wish to continue being so....
However, none of that takes away the fact that Virginia is rightfully ours! It should be returned immediately to the British Government! Or at the very least, we should be negotiating fishing rights and a share of other natural resources.....
im said:
Asterix said:
im said:
It's a bit of a legal minefield and is the reason neither Argentina or the UK will go to binding arbitration for fear of losing the Islands outright.
I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
They won't go to the UN for arbitration as they know the 'right to self determination' will trump their (tenuous) claim - the UK has offered a number of times and they've always backed out.I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
I can't find anything on the interweb about that - do you have a linky I can read.However, this article (and others) would appear to beg to differ...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/420359/UK-hold...
Argentina, it direct conflict with the UN charter for self determination refuses this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uk-does-not...
im said:
Asterix said:
im said:
It's a bit of a legal minefield and is the reason neither Argentina or the UK will go to binding arbitration for fear of losing the Islands outright.
I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
They won't go to the UN for arbitration as they know the 'right to self determination' will trump their (tenuous) claim - the UK has offered a number of times and they've always backed out.I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
I can't find anything on the interweb about that - do you have a linky I can read.However, this article (and others) would appear to beg to differ...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/420359/UK-hold...
...I've heard some bonkers stuff on here but now we really are 'through the looking glass' 
Asterix said:
im said:
Asterix said:
im said:
It's a bit of a legal minefield and is the reason neither Argentina or the UK will go to binding arbitration for fear of losing the Islands outright.
I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
They won't go to the UN for arbitration as they know the 'right to self determination' will trump their (tenuous) claim - the UK has offered a number of times and they've always backed out.I'm not sure we'd have to actually give them up in order to placate Argentina. To my mind all they REALLY want is a share of the future spoils from the vast untapped reserves around that area and will ultimately do a deal on that basis.
Its also IMHO the REAL reason we are standing firm...we don't want to share as it will look like an admission that they are right to make the territorial claims in the first place.
I can't find anything on the interweb about that - do you have a linky I can read.However, this article (and others) would appear to beg to differ...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/420359/UK-hold...
wiki said:
Following World War II, the British Empire declined and colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean gained their independence. Argentina saw this as an opportunity to push its case for gaining sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and raised the issue in the United Nations, first stating its claim after joining the UN in 1945. Following the Argentine claim, the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in The Hague (1947,[36] 1948[37] and 1955;[38] on each occasion Argentina declined.
In 1965, the United Nations passed a resolution calling on the UK and Argentina to proceed with negotiations on finding a peaceful solution to the sovereignty question which would be "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."[39]
My apologies - it wasn't the UN. It was The Hague they declined.In 1965, the United Nations passed a resolution calling on the UK and Argentina to proceed with negotiations on finding a peaceful solution to the sovereignty question which would be "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."[39]
However, the interesting wording by the UN is 'and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)'
They know they don't have a leg to stand on.
The lobbying of the UN that Kirchner is doing want's outright control of the Islands regardless of what the British Islanders want.
Edited by Asterix on Tuesday 15th April 15:56
DMN said:
Asterix should have been a little clearer. We've said we will go to the UN when all THREE parties are allowed to take part. The UK, Argentina, and the Falkland Islands Government.
Argentina, it direct conflict with the UN charter for self determination refuses this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uk-does-not...
I was aware of that particular conundrum, I thought Asterix was saying that Argentina was avoiding bi-lateral talks not tri-lateral talks.Argentina, it direct conflict with the UN charter for self determination refuses this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uk-does-not...
To all those moaning that the islanders are British and it is their home...well we'll depopulate an island of its people when it suits us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Chago...
im said:
I was aware of that particular conundrum, I thought Asterix was saying that Argentina was avoiding bi-lateral talks not tri-lateral talks.
To all those moaning that the islanders are British and it is their home...well we'll depopulate an island of its people when it suits us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Chago...
What's your point?To all those moaning that the islanders are British and it is their home...well we'll depopulate an island of its people when it suits us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Chago...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff