Falkland Islands lie in Argentinian waters, UN commission rules

[Antlerp]

Bless the little Argies, you have to let them celebrate something 'positive' that has no impact on them for once in their miserable lives.

[DogGunn]

How does that work though? If the waters wholly surrounding the island are Argentinian than Argentina could legally blockade them under their own maritime law.

[shakadamus]

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50025529]it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.[/QUOTE]

The Falklands are a Protectorate, which by definition means it's independently run. A country defends its protectorate, but it doesn't own it. It has nothing to do with Colonialism, it's to do with the people on the island not wanting to be ruled by Argentina.

They held a referendum in 2013, where 1,517 votes were cast on a turnout of more than 90%, 1513 were in favour of staying a British Protectorate, while just three votes were against. ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750909[/url])

Argentina need to get over it.

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=Passing;50025450]Calling it now.

In the next few months, Britain will give this island to Argentinian as a sign of good will and their entire war will of been for nothing.[/QUOTE]

there would be a public outcry and possibly riots

any UK government that abandons the falklands will be a politically dead entity next election, and would have to deal with the unrest that would come about because of it

[editline]29th March 2016[/editline]

also i don't know why you're all responding to kommodore, he's not coming back to this thread after vomiting such a terrible opinion into the water

[Jon27]

Quite. Britain's investment in the Falklands these days is mostly down to the sacrifices already made in the fight to maintain their independence. It's about honouring the efforts and memories of the dead as much as about self-determination etc.

[shackleford]

The UN is nothing but frivolous nonsense.

[Download]

[QUOTE=shackleford;50025975]The UN is nothing but frivolous nonsense.[/QUOTE]

The UN: where despots can stand tall next to democracies.

[Thomo_UK]

We won't give it up not in a million years and they can't take it politically or by force so nothing has really changed.

[DogGunn]

[QUOTE=shackleford;50025975]The UN is nothing but frivolous nonsense.[/QUOTE]

It once had a purpose. But the UN is useless now.

[MuffinZerg]

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50025439]Yeah. The people of a land have a sovereign right to dictate how their government should work. They want to be British-ruled; so they get to be British-ruled — its international law 101.

But the ruling doesn't address that. Just that the waters are Argentinean.[/QUOTE]

So do you agree Crimea belongs to Russia?

Not to derail the thread, I mean the whole "people decide what government they belong to" doesnt mean shit in the modern world. The governments decide.

Crimea is the nearest example. Crime an people wanted to join russia, but UN and major Western powers don't care. Donbass people wanted to join Russia, but Russia didn't risk a full on war and didn't accept them.

However there are other examples.
Like what happened in Bosnia. A big chunk wanted to join Serbia, but UN didn't let them. UN also allowed serbs to be massacared, a UN general even suffered ptsd because he wanted to take action, but was forced not to.
Another example: Catalonia.
Another example: South Yemen.
Another: Nagorni karabah (armenia vs Azerbaijan conflict).
The list goes on and never ends.

I dont think there is a simple example of people freely deciding what government will rule their land.

The governments decide, this is reality 101. People arguably can affect the decisions of governments thus indirectly helping one government take them over, but it's far from being their choice.

[Download]

Given the referendum happened under the watchful eyes of an armed invader, no, they're really not compatible.

[smurfy]

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;50026045]So do you agree Crimea belongs to Russia?

Not to derail the thread, I mean the whole "people decide what government they belong to" doesnt mean shit in the modern world. The governments decide.

Crimea is the nearest example. Crime an people wanted to join russia, but UN and major Western powers don't care. Donbass people wanted to join Russia, but Russia didn't risk a full on war and didn't accept them.

However there are other examples.
Like what happened in Bosnia. A big chunk wanted to join Serbia, but UN didn't let them. UN also allowed serbs to be massacared, a UN general even suffered ptsd because he wanted to take action, but was forced not to.
Another example: Catalonia.
Another example: South Yemen.
Another: Nagorni karabah (armenia vs Azerbaijan conflict).
The list goes on and never ends.

I dont think there is a simple example of people freely deciding what government will rule their land.

The governments decide, this is reality 101. People arguably can affect the decisions of governments thus indirectly helping one government take them over, but it's far from being their choice.[/QUOTE]

I believe in self-determination and think that governments should respect and listen to independence movements within their territory, but I don't believe that it justifies a country invading and occupying part of another. I don't believe the Russian annexation of Crimea was justified and I don't believe that the Argentine invasion of the Falklands would have been justified even if the islanders had supported it. As far as I'm aware, nowhere in international law does it say it's okay to invade and annex another country's territory as long as the people living there say it's okay.

[editline]29th March 2016[/editline]

IMO self-determination pretty much trumps all. Catalonia should get a referendum, Crimea deserved a referendum and a peaceful handover to Russia if they had voted for it, and I think the UK does pretty good considering motherfucking Scotland got a referendum and we would have dissolved our entire 300-year-old union had they decided they wanted to go.

[MuffinZerg]

[QUOTE=smurfy;50026087]I believe in self-determination and think that governments should respect and listen to independence movements within their territory, but I don't believe that it justifies a country invading and occupying part of another. I don't believe the Russian annexation of Crimea was justified and I don't believe that the Argentine invasion of the Falklands would have been justified even if the islanders had supported it. As far as I'm aware, nowhere in international law does it say it's okay to invade and annex another country's territory as long as the people living there say it's okay.

[editline]29th March 2016[/editline]

IMO self-determination pretty much trumps all. Catalonia should get a referendum, Crimea deserved a referendum and a peaceful handover to Russia if they had voted for it, and I think the UK does pretty good considering motherfucking Scotland got a referendum and we would have dissolved our entire 300-year-old union had they decided they wanted to go.[/QUOTE]

Well the problem is that no sane government would allow a legal process of detaching a part of land. It only makes sense for any government to disallow such behavior because what is there to gain for a country in loosing people and resources?
Most constitutions clearly define that under no situation a part can seceed. Russian and Ukrainian laws likewise make seccessions non constitutuonal, so legally speaking Crimea illegally seceeded.

Any government will do anything to marginalize any seccession movenment.

So I see self determination as a vague construct one uses when committing a land grab (no matter justified or not).

There is a recent example of Scotland that got a fair referendum, but I don't know where to put it. We never saw the actual seccesion so it's still unclear to me whether any people on the planet can legally seceed.

[editline]29th March 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=download;50026056]Given the referendum happened under the watchful eyes of an armed invader, no, they're really not compatible.[/QUOTE]

Well we are talking about what people want. Legality is a different subject.

As for what people of Crimea wanted before, during and after the seccession, there are a number of gallup polls that indicate it.

[Download]

You have no way of confirming the vote was in any way accurate when it was perfored at gunpoint. Hell, I remember seeing photos of "militia" (probably spetznas) going around with guns and ballots to people's homes.

[editline]29th March 2016[/editline]

[quote]
Choice 1: Do you support the reunification of Crimea with Russia with all the rights of the federal subject of the Russian Federation?

Choice 2: Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine?[65]

The original in Russian read:

Choice 1: Вы за воссоединение Крыма с Россией на правах субъекта Российской Федерации?
Choice 2: Вы за восстановление действия Конституции Республики Крым 1992 года и за статус Крыма как части Украины?[65] [/quote]

Taken from Wikipedia.

Oh look, remaining part of Ukraine isn't even an option. One is for Crimean independence and the other from annexation.

[Fulcrum]

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;50026045]So do you agree Crimea belongs to Russia?

Not to derail the thread, I mean the whole "people decide what government they belong to" doesnt mean shit in the modern world. The governments decide.

Crimea is the nearest example. Crime an people wanted to join russia, but UN and major Western powers don't care. Donbass people wanted to join Russia, but Russia didn't risk a full on war and didn't accept them.

However there are other examples.
Like what happened in Bosnia. A big chunk wanted to join Serbia, but UN didn't let them. UN also allowed serbs to be massacared, a UN general even suffered ptsd because he wanted to take action, but was forced not to.
Another example: Catalonia.
Another example: South Yemen.
Another: Nagorni karabah (armenia vs Azerbaijan conflict).
The list goes on and never ends.

I dont think there is a simple example of people freely deciding what government will rule their land.

The governments decide, this is reality 101. People arguably can affect the decisions of governments thus indirectly helping one government take them over, but it's far from being their choice.[/QUOTE]

True and a diplomatic process should be offered in all of those cases. As you said diplomatic process won't be offered (or won't be fairly offered or in crimea's example other countries with political/military interests in the region will refuse to acknowledge the referendum) in situations like donbas or catalonia because those regions are economically (or in crimea's case militarily) important to those places.

The situation in the falklands is clear cut though. It's british and when offered a referendum 99% of them voted to remain so. The Argentinian government (previous one, the new one seems saner) doesn't have a leg to stand on. If they believe oil is there and want in on the black stuff they should do things diplomatically instead of making a mockery of themselves year on year.

[MuffinZerg]

[QUOTE=download;50026170]You have no way of confirming the vote was in any way accurate when it was perfored at gunpoint. Hell, I remember seeing photos of "militia" (probably spetznas) going around with guns and ballots to people's homes.

[editline]29th March 2016[/editline]

Taken from Wikipedia.

Oh look, remaining part of Ukraine isn't even an option. One is for Crimean independence and the other from annexation.[/QUOTE]

I never said anything about the referendum. I am talking about what people wanted.
Let's not argue. Just Google the polls. They are interesting.

[editline]29th March 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50026190]True and a diplomatic process should be offered in all of those cases. As you said diplomatic process won't be offered (or won't be fairly offered or in crimea's example other countries with political/military interests in the region will refuse to acknowledge the referendum) in situations like donbas or catalonia because those regions are economically (or in crimea's case militarily) important to those places.

The situation in the falklands is clear cut though. It's british and when offered a referendum 99% of them voted to remain so. The Argentinian government (previous one, the new one seems saner) doesn't have a leg to stand on. If they believe oil is there and want in on the black stuff they should do things diplomatically instead of making a mockery of themselves year on year.[/QUOTE]

Welp that's true.

[Download]

I did. The polls are all over the place.

[Morgen]

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;50026149]Well the problem is that no sane government would allow a legal process of detaching a part of land. It only makes sense for any government to disallow such behavior because what is there to gain for a country in loosing people and resources?
Most constitutions clearly define that under no situation a part can seceed. Russian and Ukrainian laws likewise make seccessions non constitutuonal, so legally speaking Crimea illegally seceeded.

Any government will do anything to marginalize any seccession movenment.

So I see self determination as a vague construct one uses when committing a land grab (no matter justified or not).

There is a recent example of Scotland that got a fair referendum, but I don't know where to put it. We never saw the actual seccesion so it's still unclear to me whether any people on the planet can legally seceed.

[editline]29th March 2016[/editline]

Well we are talking about what people want. Legality is a different subject.

As for what people of Crimea wanted before, during and after the seccession, there are a number of gallup polls that indicate it.[/QUOTE]

The UK would of done it with Scotland if they wanted it? The UK has let other colonies go peacefully. If they had a real referendum held to international standards it wouldn't be an issue. Iirc members of foreign nations was allowed to observe the polling in the Falklands if they wished. Ukraine was becoming more pro-EU at the time as well so they would of done it legally as well.

[Jordax]

[QUOTE=download;50026001]The UN: where despots can stand tall next to democracies.[/QUOTE]

The UN: where Saudi Arabia leads an human rights council.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;50025526]How would they even pull off a blockade lmao
With the navy that's been rusting in port due to lack of funding to operate more than 15 ships out of 40? The same navy that got one of their ships seized by fucking Ghana because they couldn't pay their debts, the navy that managed to sink their own destroyer in a harbor?[/QUOTE]

I imagine by swarms of angry argitinians and vets on fishing trawlers

[MuffinZerg]

[QUOTE=Morgen;50026244]The UK would of done it with Scotland if they wanted it? The UK has let other colonies go peacefully. If they had a real referendum held to international standards it wouldn't be an issue. Iirc members of foreign nations was allowed to observe the polling in the Falklands if they wished. Ukraine was becoming more pro-EU at the time as well so they would of done it legally as well.[/QUOTE]

Of course Ukraine would just go "fuck our constitution, fuck our strategic interests, hand Crimea over". I am not sure what UK would do, but I am pretty sure Ukraine wouldn't do that. I am not defending Russia, I am only saying whether referendum was legitimate or not, whether people wanted to join Russia or not, was irrelevant to what happened after when everyone used it to push their agendas.
How about Bosnia?

I am saying we live in a world where man serves government with an illusion that government serves man.

Britain really did let colonies go, but only when Britain wanted. It was Britain's decision, not the colony people's.

There is also a different path: France's. Colonies were freed, but they 100% depend on France. An illusion of choice.

[dunkace]

[QUOTE=Passing;50025450]Calling it now.

In the next few months, Britain will give this island to Argentinian as a sign of good will and their entire war will of been for nothing.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. If anything our government should be standing up and telling the UN to go fuck themselves with a 10ft barge pole.

[Britain]

If they go in round 2 for the Falkland Islands, as Harry Potter says, 'We'll take the lot'.

[Morgen]

[QUOTE=dunkace;50027725]Bullshit. If anything our government should be standing up and telling the UN to go fuck themselves with a 10ft barge pole.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The Prime Minister's official spokeswoman said: "At this stage we have yet to receive details of [the] report. It is important to note that this is an advisory committee. It makes recommendations, they are not legally binding."
And a Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "The UK Government remains in no doubt over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, nor of the right of the islanders to determine their own future."
[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35914839"]Source[/URL]

[David29]

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;50027684]Of course Ukraine would just go "fuck our constitution, fuck our strategic interests, hand Crimea over". I am not sure what UK would do, but I am pretty sure Ukraine wouldn't do that. I am not defending Russia, I am only saying whether referendum was legitimate or not, whether people wanted to join Russia or not, was irrelevant to what happened after when everyone used it to push their agendas.
How about Bosnia?

I am saying we live in a world where man serves government with an illusion that government serves man.

Britain really did let colonies go, but only when Britain wanted. It was Britain's decision, not the colony people's.

There is also a different path: France's. Colonies were freed, but they 100% depend on France. An illusion of choice.[/QUOTE]

You're clearly trying to push some sort of agenda, given the fact that the Falklands situation isn't really comparable to what happened in the Crimea. If I'm going to be perfectly honest, you seem to be too defensive about the whole thing.

[Jund]

[QUOTE=David29;50029209]You're clearly trying to push some sort of agenda, given the fact that the Falklands situation isn't really comparable to what happened in the Crimea. If I'm going to be perfectly honest, you seem to be too defensive about the whole thing.[/QUOTE]

he's just buttmad that people think crimea referendum wasn't legitimate grounds for russia's annexation because it was done at gunpoint from the mysterious ambiguously slavic green men™

[purvisdavid1]

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;50027684]Of course Ukraine would just go "fuck our constitution, fuck our strategic interests, hand Crimea over". I am not sure what UK would do, but I am pretty sure Ukraine wouldn't do that. [B]I am not defending Russia, I am only saying whether referendum was legitimate or not, whether people wanted to join Russia or not, was irrelevant to what happened after when everyone used it to push their agendas.[/B]
How about Bosnia?

I am saying we live in a world where man serves government with an illusion that government serves man.

Britain really did let colonies go, but only when Britain wanted. It was Britain's decision, not the colony people's.

There is also a different path: France's. Colonies were freed, but they 100% depend on France. An illusion of choice.[/QUOTE]

What does this convoluted mess mean?

[Pantz Master]

The UN doesn't mean shit. Its a government with no policemen. Unless Argentina wants to try and invade them, this means nothing.

[ramkeham]

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50025529]it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.[/QUOTE]

This is such a non argument, and you can really feel the edge coming off of it

[Tumama]

It's sad to see people still believing (and sometimes hoping for) there will be another war between my country and Britain, really, given the current state of our navy.
It's even sadder when the one's who want that are britons. Like asking for an excuse to
[QUOTE=Britain;50027743]...'(We'll) take the lot'.[/QUOTE]

You really want to punish our people for the dickwaving of a cunt we just kicked out?

I don't think this changes anything really. We just have more sea to patrol for those pesky chinese ships that are showing up more recently. As Starpluck and others said like 3 times, this only affects the waters around us.