ChatterBank0 min ago
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
from the BBC report - // In a newspaper interview with La Nacion, a daily newspaper in Argentina, he proposed that the UK hand over the Falklands to his South American country in a similar way to how Hong Kong was given back over to Chinese rule in 1997. //
in 1997 the lease on the New Territories expired and would not be renewed. Although Hong Kong Island was British "In Perpetuity" it would have been ungovernable without the New Territories - hence it was handed back. No similar situation exists with the Falkland Islands.
What does he mean by "non-negotiable sovereignty" I wonder.
Sounds like he's playing to the crowed, he won the election but fails at history;
The Falkland Islands have never had any native inhabitants and no indigenous people have ever been displaced, instead the Islands were entirely unoccupied until 1765, when they were first claimed by the British who established a garrison at Port Egmont.
On top of which, we had a war which they started & lost.
KHANDRO, it seems the French got there before the British.
From Wikipedia, "The Falklands remained uninhabited until the 1764 establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville and the 1765 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by Captain John Byron; the latter settlement being expanded by British captain John MacBride a year later."
They should stop brainwashing each new generation of their children into believing the lie that they have any sovereignty over the islands, at all. Until they curb their envy and greed they will continue to create a barrier between nations. (Perhaps they should concentrate on brushing up cheating for the football world cup instead, their team, at least, has form there.)
I take it that the Argentine president was speaking in Spanish ...
Basically, there was a period of colonialisation when a lot of "stuff" (good and bad, mainly bad) happened back in the day. Britain colonised the Falklands. Spain colonised Argentina. Later, Argentina won independence from Spain, through a civil war. Now the Spanish-speaking, independent Argentina wants to "get back" something that was never theirs in the first place. Good luck with that ...
Now the Spanish-speaking, independent Argentina wants to "get back" something that was never theirs in the first place. Good luck with that ...
The problem is that the United Nations, which has a "...cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms" considers the Falkland Islands to be a "colony" of the UK. What I don't quite understand is that, in seeking its "cherished aim", the UN is quite happy to see the UK give up its rights to the Falklands and instead see them colonised by Argentina. For the fact is that the islands were uninhabited when the French first settled there in the 1760s and they were laid vacant again in 1811 (although by then Britain had formally laid claim to the islands).
No Argentinians have ever been expelled from the islands (apart from their invasionary force in 1982) and their claim to them is based solely on geographical proximity. Yet the UN bases its claim that the British colonised the islands when in fact all they, the French and Spanish have done throughout the islands history was to occupy some uninhabited territory. It seems quite willing to support the expulsion of (or the enforced foreign rule over) the people there (who are overwhelmingly supportive of the current arrangements.
The UN should brush up on ts history and not accept the Argentinian version of events (which they ruthlessly instil in their children). Meanwhile the UK should tell the UN and the Argentinans to go forth and multiply.