Argentine protesters rally outside British Embassy in Buenos Aires

RobitTV

Riot police and protesters are squaring off outside the British Embassy in Argentina amid an escalating diplomatic dispute over the Falkland Islands.

A small crowd of demonstrators turned out today following yesterday's trouble when Argentine politicians accused David Cameron of being ‘ignorant’ as the diplomatic row over the Falkland Islands worsened

The spat revived the rhetoric of the 1980s amid growing rifts ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.

News article

Argentina has no legal claim on the islands, that's that.

sarkozy

"Riot police" ... "small crowd" ... sounds like gingoistic rubbish to me.

The Acting President's words don't strike me as inflammatory:

‘We believe it’s a clumsy, historically misinformed and inappropriate thing to say. We’re astonished by such ignorance. Maybe he should re-read his history books to understand what colonialism is.’

I think that's a fairly honest, uninflammatory, pass-remarkable thing to say.

In 1982, the Argentine military dictatorship used the war to distract Argentinians from how they were ruining the country. Thatcher was happy for the distraction from her war on trade unions. This time, it appears to me it's Cameron who's looking for the distraction from his government's comical handling of the UK economy, and of diplomacy.

Honestly, a 'riot' involving a 'small crowd'? While in Buenos Aires, I had the pleasure of attending a march against Argentinian government cuts to education. A very lively affair, and fairly routine.

And your opinion on this issue is?

Jorah

sarkozy wrote: »

This time, it appears to me it's Cameron who's looking for the distraction from his government's comical handling of the UK economy, and of diplomacy.

Actually, Cameron is just responding to a string of comments made over the past year by the Argentinians. Recently, Latin American nations started to ban boats from their ports that carried the Falklands flag.

Cameron was asked during Prime ministers questions about the situation and he made a show of strength for the UK's position on the Falklands.

woodoo

The Falklands sounds like a kip. It has about 3000 people and the average summer temperature is 13 degrees , ave winter 4 degrees. Hardly worth squabbling over.

tim_holsters

Is it true that Cameron accused the Argies of behaving in a colonial fashion the other day?

Bit rich if true.

Jorah

sarkozy wrote: »

Honestly, a 'riot' involving a 'small crowd'? While in Buenos Aires, I had the pleasure of attending a march against Argentinian government cuts to education. A very lively affair, and fairly routine.

My favourite:

Jorah

tim_holsters wrote: »

Is it true that Cameron accused the Argies of behaving in a colonial fashion the other day?

Bit rich if true.

How is it "rich"?

The UK supports the right to self determination within all its territories. The people get to decide their constitutional status by majority vote.

Argentina are trying to threaten and bully the citizens of the Falkland islands into joining Argentina so they can gain access to their resources. That is textbook colonial action.


Oh wait let me guess, because Britain had an empire we're not allowed to mention this? Pathetic.

junder

Funny how self determination is ok when people want to leave the uk but wrong if people wish to stay within the uk.

sarkozy

Jorah wrote:

That is textbook colonial action.

And what the UK is doing isn't?

It's not colonisation by definition. But nothing has happened, this is rhetoric and Argentina has a legitimate case in determining where it can, within international law, exploit its sovereign natural wealth even within the status quo.

Those photos you've posted - there's a constant sit-in protest in Plaza de Mayo raising awareness of a view held by certain members of Argentinian civil society. So they have a bit of a protest, who doesn't in Argentina?

Batsy

sarkozy wrote: »

This time, it appears to me it's Cameron who's looking for the distraction from his government's comical handling of the UK economy, and of diplomacy.

The British Government is handling the economy very well and is handling it in line with every other European govermnment, who are making necessary cuts.

It's very noticeable that no European government is doing what Britain's Labour Party wants to do, which is to spend more money. But, as Conservative chairman Baroness Warsi said on last night's Question Time, if a person runs up credit card debts then spending more money is not the way to reduce those debts.

And the British people agree with her. Polls show that the British people think the Government are handling the economy better than the Labour Party - the ones who ruined the economy in the first place - would.

So the Government's handling of the economy is very sensible rather than comical and will help us to eventually get back to prosperity again.

Batsy

sarkozy wrote: »

And what the UK is doing isn't?

Nope. What the UK is doing is NOT colonialism. The Falkland Islanders wish to remain British and, as long as they wish to be so, then the islands will be British. And, as long as they are British, Britain is responsible for the islands' defence.

I don't see why we should hand the islands - which were discovered and settled by the English and then the British before Argentina came into existence - against the people's wishes. It would be against international law for a start.

Border-Rat

Why do English trolls sign up to Irish discussion forums?

Manach

Border-Rat wrote: »

Why do English trolls sign up to Irish discussion forums?

Because we are all European citizens now?
As well that the Argentinians are mobilising public/politic opinion in Latin American to press their claims to the Islands, so the English might be looking to see similar support from her European allies in reaction to this.

Lemming

Border-Rat wrote: »

Why do English trolls sign up to Irish discussion forums?

Evidently just to gain pleasure in winding you up. Just you.

I have to agree that this is all on the Argentinians shoulders. In any political interviews I've watched they keep saying the same thing about wanting negotiations and dialogue. But the only answer they seem to want to accept is a total hand-over regardless of the wishes of the island natives; who, as it has been pointed out, are under British jurisdiction and wish to remain part of the UK. Self-determination and all that, but then again that's a subtlety I wouldn't expect extreme sorts (left, or right it doesn't matter, they're so far apart they're identical) to grasp.

In the face of these false platitudes of "lets talk" which really mean "give us what we demand", combined with howls of colonial accusations whilst trying the same on, I would expect any right-minded person to keep the Argentinians at arms length.

losthorizon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXKuZ3UnnxM

Pacifist Pigeon

I don't see why the Argentines care so much about the Falklands. Most of the islands inhabitants are of British descent and want the islands to remain a British overseas territory.

Batsy

Manach wrote: »

Because we are all European citizens now?
As well that the Argentinians are mobilising public/politic opinion in Latin American to press their claims to the Islands, so the English might be looking to see similar support from her European allies in reaction to this.

The British (not the English) don't need support from our European "allies." We've got right on our side. And UN law, too.

Batsy

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I don't see why the Argentines care so much about the Falklands. Most of the islands inhabitants are of British descent and want the islands to remain a British overseas territory.

On Question Time last night Germaine "Every man is a potential rapist" Greer was questioning why the Falkland Islands don't have representation at Westminster. She said that the Falklands, rather than remaining a mere Overseas Dependent Territory, should be made an actual part of the UK and have one or more representatives at Wesminster.

But I don't think there's any need to go that far. The Falkland Islands have their own parliament so their people are represented in that.

jimmycrackcorm

Jorah wrote: »

How is it "rich"?

The UK supports the right to self determination within all its territories. The people get to decide their constitutional status by majority vote..

unless of course its Hong Kong.

sarkozy

Batsy wrote: »

On Question Time last night Germaine "Every man is a potential rapist" Greer was questioning why the Falkland Islands don't have representation at Westminster. She said that the Falklands, rather than remaining a mere Overseas Dependent Territory, should be made an actual part of the UK and have one or more representatives at Wesminster.

But I don't think there's any need to go that far. The Falkland Islands have their own parliament so their people are represented in that.

The thing is, Batsy, I don't actually care about the Malvinas Islands or who owns it. You can lament for Britain's lost empire all you want. In a classic example of inverted colonialism, you (and Cameron) are turning this unimportant issue into a manufactured conflict to justify the UK's colonial history with reference to 'self-determination' as a cloak for raw interest in oil.

Again, I don't care about the people on the Malvinas Islands.

What I care about is the Daily Mail stoking the fires of gingoism. If that's also happening on the Argentine side, I condemn it, but I'm not convinced it is. I haven't seen any links to 'agressive' Argentinian statements on the issue.

And if this is about oil/gas being discovered, then let's be honest about it.

But I would defer to the Argentines on lessons from colonialism - the effects of Spanish colonisation and continuing effects of US intervention are still felt. And this is something Irish people, too, have an understanding of.

Batsy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

unless of course its Hong Kong.

Britain only got Hong Kong in 1898 on a temporary loan until 1997. We duly handed it back in 1997.

Batsy

sarkozy wrote: »

In a classic example of inverted colonialism, you (and Cameron) are turning this unimportant issue into a manufactured conflict to justify the UK's colonial history with reference to 'self-determination' as a cloak for raw interest in oil.

Unimportant to you maybe. But not unimportant to the people of the Falkland Islands. The people of the Falkland Islands have no wish to be ruled by Argentina. And why should they? The islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed. I don't see why we shoud hand them to Argentina, against the wishes of the islands' people and government, just to make a few Irishmen happy.

And I have no need to "justify" Britain's presence on the islands. It was an Englishman who first sighted the then unnihabited and unclaimed islands and the British and French who first colonised them. It wasn't the Argies or their Spanish ancestors who first settled the islands. And self-determination is not being used as claok for raw interest in oil. Oil was only discovered at the islands in 2010 and Britain was allowiong the islanders to have self-determination long before that.

Again, I don't care about the people on the Malvinas Islands.

We've already established that by you wanting the islands to be given to a foreign power which has never owned them before and which didn't even exist when Britain first claimed and settled them. Thankfully for the Falkland Islander it matters not what a few Irishmen think. They can rest assured that Britain will NOT give the islands to the Argies so long as they want to remain British.

In response to Argentina's latest sabre-rattling, Falkland Islands politician Dick Sawle said: 'If we have the right to self determination, Argentina must respect the wishes of the Falklands people and leave us in peace'. 'It is very clear that the Islanders to not want to be part of Argentina or be ruled by Argentina.

What I care about is the Daily Mail stoking the fires of gingoism.

If a few ignorant Argentinian lefties weren't burning Union Flags outside the British Embassy in Buenos Aires then the Daily Mail and all other UK newspapers won't be returning on it.

sarkozy

Batsy wrote: »

Britain only got Hong Kong in 1898 on a temporary loan until 1997. We duly handed it back in 1997.

Wrong. The Qing Dynasty ceded Hong Kong Island to Britain in perpetuity in 1842 after the first Opium War waged by Britain. It was in 1848, after the Second Opium War, that the 99-year lease was taken out on Lantau Island, Kowloon and Stonecutter's Island.

It was only in 1983 that Hong Kong was demoted from its status as a British Crown Colony to 'Dependent Territory'.

In other words, Hong Kong was obtained through a Government-sanctioned trade war, fomented with the intention of crow-barring open the Chinese economy to British goods (initially opium).

Giving back the former colony was due to a new geopolitical strategy with a clearly emerging global power rather than altruism of any sort. The Sino-British agreement setting out the transfer - the island's autonomous status, governance system and status as a free port - prove that.

Unimportant to you maybe. But not unimportant to the people of the Falkland Islands.

Are you from the Malvinas Islands? Why do you care?

The islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed.

Those claims seem to be disputed. The first reliable sighting is attributed to a Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600; it was in 1690 that Briton Captain John Strong sighted them and landed there.

However, 'East Falkland' was first settled by the French under Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. It was at least a whole year later that 'West Falkland' was settled by under captain John Byron, who seemed unaware of the French presence. Shortly after, France ceded its claim to Spain who attacked 'Port Egmont' and placed it under the authority of the Buenos Aires colonial administration.

In 1770, Spain temporarily expelled Britain from the islands altogether and this nearly brought the two countries to war but, believing it to not be in Spain's strategic interests, signed Port Egmont (but not the whole archipelago) to Britain. But feeling the effects of the American Revolution, Britain ended its presence there in 1774, leaving behind a plaque asserting her continued claim; the Spanish did the same, by the way, but left its Governor and a small presence there until 1806 and a plaque staking her claim there.

In between then and 1828, an Argentine, 12 years after Argentinian independence was declared, settled the islands with permission of Spain and France. Between 1832 and 1840, settlement claims to-and-froed between Argentina and Britain, and it was only after the establishment of a Naval Port there that led to Britain finally establishing it a permanent colony.

I believe this evidence complicates you claim that "[t]he islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed."

Lemming

sarkozy wrote: »

Wrong. The Qing Dynasty ceded Hong Kong Island to Britain in perpetuity in 1842 after the first Opium War waged by Britain. It was in 1848, after the Second Opium War, that the 99-year lease was taken out on Lantau Island, Kowloon and Stonecutter's Island.

It was only in 1983 that Hong Kong was demoted from its status as a British Crown Colony to 'Dependent Territory'.

In other words, Hong Kong was obtained through a Government-sanctioned trade war, fomented with the intention of crow-barring open the Chinese economy to British goods (initially opium).

Giving back the former colony was due to a new geopolitical strategy with a clearly emerging global power rather than altruism of any sort. The Sino-British agreement setting out the transfer - the island's autonomous status, governance system and status as a free port - prove that.

That's fascinating and all, but what does the history of Hong Kong between the UK & China have to do with the Falkland Islands exactly? You are comparing apples to oranges. Whole different set of circumstances in the history of the region.

sarkozy wrote: »

In a classic example of inverted colonialism, you (and Cameron) are turning this unimportant issue into a manufactured conflict to justify the UK's colonial history with reference to 'self-determination' as a cloak for raw interest in oil.

The latest round of sabre-rattling was started by the Argentinians, and their rounds of Mercusor to get neighbouring countries to agree to an economic trade blockade of any ships flying the Falkland Islands flag. That is an extraordinarily aggressive piece of real-politik by any standards.

And that's on top of frequent, albeit localised noises that they keep making that European news sources typically don't pick up on, because it's usually the same old tune.

Again, I don't care about the people on the Malvinas Islands.

You keep saying that, and I note the use of 'Malvinas'. I think you do care albeit only in so much as willfully trolling anyone who doesn't subscribe to "I'll follow any side that isn't the British position". Your stated position is a classic case of "I'm not a racist but ... "

Yahew

junder wrote: »

Funny how self determination is ok when people want to leave the uk but wrong if people wish to stay within the uk.

Given that there is a referendum on Scotland's position this is not true.

LordSutch

Cork boy 55

I saw on euronews that the protest was orgnaised and staffed by a far-left group(i thought the news reader was about to saw far-right) i was surprised that a far-left group
would be stoking up nationalist feelings they are usually internationalist and open borders and all that
It was the Argentine socailst workers party or something like that
All red flags and all fairly small protest, they had a good chant.

irishh_bob

Batsy wrote: »

On Question Time last night Germaine "Every man is a potential rapist" Greer was questioning why the Falkland Islands don't have representation at Westminster. She said that the Falklands, rather than remaining a mere Overseas Dependent Territory, should be made an actual part of the UK and have one or more representatives at Wesminster.

But I don't think there's any need to go that far. The Falkland Islands have their own parliament so their people are represented in that.

knowing greer , she is probabley in favour of returning the falklands to argentina , not because of any love for that country but because she nearly always goes against popular mainstream sentiment , shes an arrogant cow who like most of her kind , despises middle england , ireland , australia , america or any countrys middle class for that matter

Jonny7

Ah I think most Argentinians will be embarrassed (if not mortified) by the protests, very small, only 100 people I believe, all organised by one group.

The whole thing is just silly old fashioned jingo-ism.

Cookie_Monster

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I don't see why the Argentines care so much about the Falklands. Most of the islands inhabitants are of British descent and want the islands to remain a British overseas territory.

natural resources, there are huge oil fields under the Falklands territorial waters

Jorah

Border-Rat wrote: »

Why do English trolls sign up to Irish discussion forums?

1) I'm not a troll.

2) I signed up here because I love Ireland, I like the look of this forum and I believe the internet to be a place not exclusive to certain nationalities.

snafuk35

sarkozy wrote: »

Wrong. The Qing Dynasty ceded Hong Kong Island to Britain in perpetuity in 1842 after the first Opium War waged by Britain. It was in 1848, after the Second Opium War, that the 99-year lease was taken out on Lantau Island, Kowloon and Stonecutter's Island.

It was only in 1983 that Hong Kong was demoted from its status as a British Crown Colony to 'Dependent Territory'.

In other words, Hong Kong was obtained through a Government-sanctioned trade war, fomented with the intention of crow-barring open the Chinese economy to British goods (initially opium).

Giving back the former colony was due to a new geopolitical strategy with a clearly emerging global power rather than altruism of any sort. The Sino-British agreement setting out the transfer - the island's autonomous status, governance system and status as a free port - prove that.


Are you from the Malvinas Islands? Why do you care?


Those claims seem to be disputed. The first reliable sighting is attributed to a Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600; it was in 1690 that Briton Captain John Strong sighted them and landed there.

However, 'East Falkland' was first settled by the French under Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. It was at least a whole year later that 'West Falkland' was settled by under captain John Byron, who seemed unaware of the French presence. Shortly after, France ceded its claim to Spain who attacked 'Port Egmont' and placed it under the authority of the Buenos Aires colonial administration.

In 1770, Spain temporarily expelled Britain from the islands altogether and this nearly brought the two countries to war but, believing it to not be in Spain's strategic interests, signed Port Egmont (but not the whole archipelago) to Britain. But feeling the effects of the American Revolution, Britain ended its presence there in 1774, leaving behind a plaque asserting her continued claim; the Spanish did the same, by the way, but left its Governor and a small presence there until 1806 and a plaque staking her claim there.

In between then and 1828, an Argentine, 12 years after Argentinian independence was declared, settled the islands with permission of Spain and France. Between 1832 and 1840, settlement claims to-and-froed between Argentina and Britain, and it was only after the establishment of a Naval Port there that led to Britain finally establishing it a permanent colony.

I believe this evidence complicates you claim that "[t]he islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed."

The Falklands Islanders have made it clear they wish to be British citizens and have refused to join Argentina. The Argentines tried to force them to do so in 1982 and they were sent packing by the British. Therefore the Falklands are rightfull British. The Argies can get stuffed. If they want another war then the British will have right on their side and I'm pretty sure they will use military force again if their position is threatened.

sarkozy

So, apart from the facts above, and clearly the precedence of 'self-determination' in international law (a much more slippery thing than commoners understand), you'll continue with the nationalistic nonsense? As bad as the 'Argies', then.

May I remind you that in 1982 Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship which the UK, until that point, publicly supported as it did Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile. Now Argentina is a democracy.

Lemming

sarkozy wrote: »

May I remind you that in 1982 Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship which the UK, until that point, publicly supported as it did Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile. Now Argentina is a democracy.

And? Your point regarding today is?

sarkozy

Lemming wrote: »

And? Your point regarding today is?

And ... a simple historical corrective to the one-sided accounts of the Falklands question on this thread to date. The blasé account of the 1982 Falklands invasion by the Argentinian junta is inaccurate and misleading to perpetuate the myths I set out above.

I'm deafened by the silence met by Britons or supporters on this thread since I corrected the claim that the UK were the first and only to lay claim to the islands.

Clearly, politics is never so clear-cut.

goose2005

Why don't the Argies return Argentina to the Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Diaguita, Mocoví, and Huarpe?

goose2005

goose2005 wrote: »

Why don't the Argies return Argentina to the Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Diaguita, Mocoví, and Huarpe?

I'm a firm believer that the Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Diaguita, Mocoví, and Huarpe should in turn return Argentina to the Dinoasaurs, who should probably be handing it back to the smaller lizards, who should be handing it back to the fish, who should be handing it back to the bacteria.

sarkozy

goose2005 wrote: »

Why don't the Argies return Argentina to the Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Diaguita, Mocoví, and Huarpe?

Well, at the very least, the state needs to acknowledge past genocides against the native peoples and improve ethic groups' rights. This is something people talked to me about while in Argentina.

junder

sarkozy wrote: »

And ... a simple historical corrective to the one-sided accounts of the Falklands question on this thread to date. The blasé account of the 1982 Falklands invasion by the Argentinian junta is inaccurate and misleading to perpetuate the myths I set out above.

I'm deafened by the silence met by Britons or supporters on this thread since I corrected the claim that the UK were the first and only to lay claim to the islands.

Clearly, politics is never so clear-cut.

You have presented a single Historical account, thing is it's not hard to find alternative accounts the refute yours for example

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf

http://www.falklands.info/history/history1.html


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands

All very interesting but does not negate the fact that the present occupants of the falklands wish to remain British

Batsy

Jorah wrote: »

1) I'm not a troll.

You're considered a troll by many on this forum if you don't believe that the Falkland Islands should be given to Argentina - a country which has never owned the islands - even though the Falkland Islanders wish to be British.

Batsy

I'm deafened by the silence met by Britons or supporters on this thread since I corrected the claim that the UK were the first and only to lay claim to the islands.

Britain and France both have better claims to the Falklands than Argentina does as they sighted and colonised the islands before Argentina even existed.

Britain has a better claim than France because France abandoned its colony and gave it to the Spanish.

The dirty Spanish - the ancestors of the Argies - then tried to kick the British off the islands so that they can own the whole lot, despite the fact that the British were there first.

When English explorer John Davis, commander of the Desire, one of the ships belonging to Thomas Cavendish's second expedition to the New World, separated from Cavendish off the coast of what is now southern Argentina, he decided to make for the Strait of Magellan in order to find Cavendish. On 9 August 1592 a severe storm battered his ship, and Davis drifted under bare masts, taking refuge "among certain Isles never before discovered." Consequently, for a time the Falklands were known as "Davis Land" or "Davis' Land."

In 1594, they were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."

In 1600, Sebald de Weert, a Dutchman, visited them and called them the Sebald Islands (in Spanish, "Islas Sebaldinas" or "Sebaldes"), a name which they bore on some Dutch maps into the 19th century.

English Captain John Strong sailed between the two principal islands in 1690 and called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland (1659–1694), who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition and later became First Lord of the Admiralty. From this body of water the island group later took its collective name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands

And here's a bit about how the islands became British. Basically, the French settled the islands first. The British, not even realising the French were there, came along and claimed parts of the islands for Britain. Then the French gave their Falklands territory to the Spanish - fair enough - but, unbelievably, the dirty Spanish (the ancestors of the Argies) then tried to kick the British, who were there before them, off the islands so that they can have the whole lot.

France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast in 1764. The French name Îles Malouines was given to the islands – malouin being the adjective for the Breton port of Saint-Malo. The Spanish name Islas Malvinas is a translation of the French name.

In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. These events were nearly the cause of a war between Britain and Spain, both countries having sent armed fleets to contest the barren but strategically important sovereignty of the islands. In 1766, France agreed to leave, and Spain agreed to reimburse Louis de Bougainville, who had established a settlement at his own expense. The Spaniards assumed control in 1767 and re-named Port St. Louis as Puerto Soledad.

Meanwhile, the British presence in the west continued, until interrupted by Spain during the Falkland Crisis* from 10 July 1770 to 22 January 1771. As a result of economic pressures stemming from the upcoming American War of Independence, Britain unilaterally chose to withdraw from many overseas settlements in 1774. On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lt. Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, while leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands


* The Falkland Crisis, 1770

In June 1770, the Spanish governor of Buenos Aires sent five frigates to Britain's Port Egmont, landing some 1600 marines. The small British force present, left under the command there of George Farmer, promptly surrendered. When Parliament assembled in November, the MPs, outraged by this insult to national honour, demanded action from the North government. Many were angered by what they saw as Britain's failure to prevent France from annexing Corsica in 1768 and feared a similar situation occurring in the Falklands. The Foreign Office "began to mobilise for a potential war".

Amid this flurry of threats and counter-threats, the Spanish attempted to strengthen their position by winning the support of France, invoking the Pacte de Famille between the two Bourbon crowns. For a time it looked as if all three countries were about to go to war, especially as the Duc de Choiseul, the French minister of war and foreign affairs, was in a militant mood. But Louis XV took fright, telling his cousin Charles III that "My minister wishes for war, but I do not." Choiseul was dismissed from office, retiring to his estates, and without French support the Spanish were obliged to seek a compromise with the British.

In January 1771, the British were allowed to restore the base at Port Egmont (which they set up before the Spanish arrived on the islands).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands


Eventually the islands became the sole possession of Britain and that has been the case ever since, except a brief period in 1982 when Argentina invaded them.

Port St. Louis/Puerto Soledad is now Port Stanley, the islands' capital.

Batsy

sarkozy wrote: »

Giving back the former colony was due to a new geopolitical strategy with a clearly emerging global power rather than altruism of any sort. The Sino-British agreement setting out the transfer - the island's autonomous status, governance system and status as a free port - prove that.

Hong Kong Island and Kowloon - two of the three provinces that make up Hong Kong - were given to Britain in perpetuity. The other province - the New Territories - was leased to Britain for 99 years in 1898. In 1984 the British and Chinese signed a declaration in which the whoke of Hong Kong would be returned after the 99 years was up. This is because Hong Kong's shipping ports, reservoirs and other vital installations were all in the New Territories. Had only the New Territories been returned to China, it would also have been difficult to accommodate those New Territories residents moving to the Kowloon Peninsula and Hong Kong Island.

Are you from the Malvinas? Why do you care?

They are not called the Malvinas. They are called the Falkland Islands. Malvinas is the Spanish name for the islands, which was adopted AFTER the islands took the English name Falkland Islands. Do you also go around calling Germany "Deutschland" and Ivory Coast "Cote d'Ivoire"?

And I care about the Falkland Islanders because the islanders are British and I don't want my government giving their islands to a foreign power against their wishes.

Those claims seem to be disputed. The first reliable sighting is attributed to a Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600; it was in 1690 that Briton Captain John Strong sighted them and landed there.

When English explorer John Davis, commander of the Desire, one of the ships belonging to Thomas Cavendish's second expedition to the New World, separated from Cavendish off the coast of what is now southern Argentina, he decided to make for the Strait of Magellan in order to find Cavendish. On 9 August 1592 a severe storm battered his ship, and Davis drifted under bare masts, taking refuge "among certain Isles never before discovered." Consequently, for a time the Falklands were known as "Davis Land" or "Davis' Land."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands

However, 'East Falkland' was first settled by the French under Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. It was at least a whole year later that 'West Falkland' was settled by under captain John Byron, who seemed unaware of the French presence. Shortly after, France ceded its claim to Spain who attacked 'Port Egmont' and placed it under the authority of the Buenos Aires colonial administration.

So, basically, what that article says is Britain and France settled the islands BEFORE Spain did. Then France gave their part of the islands to Spain. Fair enough. But then the Spanish decided to kick the British out of the islands by attacking Britain's Port Egmont, even though the British were there before them, so that they could have the whole of the islands to themselves. Tut tut tut. That isn't something that would make me proud to be Spanish.

In between then and 1828, an Argentine, 12 years after Argentinian independence was declared, settled the islands with permission of Spain and France.

And that occurred several decades AFTER the British established their colony at Port Egmont.

I believe this evidence complicates you claim that "[t]he islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed."

I don't think it even matters whether parts of the islands have ever been Argentinian. History shows that the British sighted and settled the islands BEFORE the Spanish and the Argies.

Batsy

Yahew wrote: »

Given that there is a referendum on Scotland's position this is not true.

I think he's referring to the fact that many of those on here who support a Scottish independence referendum - and therefore support the Scots deciding the political status of their country - are against the Falkland Islanders having the same sort of say about their own nation.

Batsy

irishh_bob wrote: »

knowing greer , she is probabley in favour of returning the falklands to argentina , not because of any love for that country but because she nearly always goes against popular mainstream sentiment , shes an arrogant cow who like most of her kind , despises middle england , ireland , australia , america or any countrys middle class for that matter

Also on the show was another lefty - the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas.

She told us all matter-of-factly that the Falklands should be "returned" to Argentina and that Britain should not be so "colonialist." In other words, she didn't care about the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. She just wanted Britain to betray them (they are British citizens) and hand their islands over to a foreign power.

It just beggared belief.

irishh_bob

Batsy wrote: »

Also on the show was another lefty - the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas.

She told us all matter-of-factly that the Falklands should be "returned" to Argentina and that Britain should not be so "colonialist." In other words, she didn't care about the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. She just wanted Britain to betray them (they are British citizens) and hand their islands over to a foreign power.

It just beggared belief.

yes but caroline lucas is nice , besides , greer is not a lefty per say , she doesnt give a sh1t about underpriveledged people but is willing to get behind trendy lefty ( ish ) causes to feed her gigantic ego

Yahew

irishh_bob wrote: »

yes but caroline lucas is nice , besides , greer is not a lefty per say , she doesnt give a sh1t about underpriveledged people but is willing to get behind trendy lefty ( ish ) causes to feed her gigantic ego

Germaine actually comes out with a lot of sense. In her first reply on Thursday she said that people who think that banks - in their present form - need to be regulated were missing the point of why a lot of people are hired by banks - to get around the regulation.

Green Party, Caroline Lucas.

She told us all matter-of-factly that the Falklands should be "returned" to Argentina and that Britain should not be so "colonialist." In other words, she didn't care about the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. She just wanted Britain to betray them (they are British citizens) and hand their islands over to a foreign power.

3,000 is not enought for self-determination. Whats the limit? I dont know but a country must be sustainable to have that right. Otherwise we would have villages who had rights to succeed.

( We should lose Cork, fair enough)

goose2005

Batsy wrote: »

Also on the show was another lefty - the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas.

She told us all matter-of-factly that the Falklands should be "returned" to Argentina and that Britain should not be so "colonialist." In other words, she didn't care about the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. She just wanted Britain to betray them (they are British citizens) and hand their islands over to a foreign power.

It just beggared belief.

It's odd that she's OK with imperialism, so long as it's Spanish. The Falkland islanders have lived there for over 150 years, about the same as the Chagossians, but: (http://www.chagossupport.org.uk/greens-totally-committed-to-chagossians-right-of-return-883)

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP has today reiterated her party’s “total commitment” to the Chagossians’ right of return, adding her support for the principle that the Chagossians “must have control over any decisions that affect the future of the islands and the islanders.”

Unbelievable. The Chagossians are black and the British are white, so the Chagossians are in the right. The Argentines are brownish and the Falklanders are white, so the Argentines are in the right.

irishh_bob

Yahew wrote: »

Germaine actually comes out with a lot of sense. In her first reply on Thursday she said that people who think that banks - in their present form - need to be regulated were missing the point of why a lot of people are hired by banks - to get around the regulation.



3,000 is not enought for self-determination. Whats the limit? I dont know but a country must be sustainable to have that right. Otherwise we would have villages who had rights to succeed.

( We should lose Cork, fair enough)

id hardly call her thesis on the banking sector revelationary

irishh_bob

goose2005 wrote: »

It's odd that she's OK with imperialism, so long as it's Spanish. The Falkland islanders have lived there for over 150 years, about the same as the Chagossians, but: (http://www.chagossupport.org.uk/greens-totally-committed-to-chagossians-right-of-return-883)



Unbelievable. The Chagossians are black and the British are white, so the Chagossians are in the right. The Argentines are brownish and the Falklanders are white, so the Argentines are in the right.

ive been to argentina , while thier not WASP,s , argentinians are the whitest people in south america and the most european in culture

Yahew

irishh_bob wrote: »

ive been to argentina , while thier not WASP,s , argentinians are the whitest people in south america and the most european in culture

they're mostly full Spanish. That would make them white, not brown.

irishh_bob

Yahew wrote: »

they're mostly full Spanish. That would make them white, not brown.

a large percentage of them are of italian ancestry