Henners91 wrote:
I'm not aware of the *English* explorers making any formal claim.
You are now. The first English/
UK claim dates from 1690. The expedition of Captain John Strong was the first recorded landing on the islands, there were previous sighting, but not landings. The islands were claimed at the time. The second recorded landing occured in 1701.
Henners91 wrote:
The Spanish possessed the old French settlement (it had Louis in the name...), which they renamed Puerto Soledad. It was administered from Buenos Aires.
That settlement was also abandoned in 1811,
Henners91 wrote:
Well, my point above once again shows that the Argentines had a basis for claiming they were a successor state. The complicating issue is that Spain contested this and continued to claim the islands.
Argentina cannot inherit what isn't belonging to those they claim inheritance from. The
UK has the earliest claim, the only possible counter claimants are the French who abandoned their claim.
Henners91 wrote:
Vernet sought permission of the United Provinces of the River Plate (ta for the name, forgot it) when he set up this colony, as he was doing it under their sovereignty. I've read that he would have preferred British protection, mind, but I didn't explore that issue.
He also sought permission from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. This was granted for the purposes that Vernet originally described, seal hunting.
This can be easily identified as petitioning the United Provinces to establish a colony under their administration while concurrently obtaining permission from the lands owners.
Henners91 wrote:
Again, the English didn't claim the islands. The French were the first to settle them. The issue of discovery itself is highly contested, but with no competing claims it's irrelevant.
Actually the English did, in 1690. It doesnt support your opinion that but those happens to be the facts.
Henners91 wrote:
I am merely making the point that our legal claim is weaker; whereas our moral position I find to be the overriding cause.
The moral position of self-determination is inalienable and overwhelming.
The legal claim is also strong.
1. English sailors may have been the first to sight the islands in 1592, though this was not documented. The first recorded sighting was in 1600 by a Portuguese ship which did not stop and make a claim.
2. The
UK via England were the first to set foot on the islands and named and claimed them in the process.
3. The
UK founded an early settlement concurrently with a French/Spanish settlement. Neither was initially aware of the other and the settlements were on different islands enabling two valid claims. For early settlement. The Brtish settlement was destroyed by the Spanish but restored under treaty. Thus at a very minimum legitimising the
Uk's joint claim with Spain (purchased from France).
4. The Spanish did however abandon their colony in 1811 and did not formally transfer their claim to any other party, thus voiding any half-claim remaining. Spain abandoned its settlement prior to the existence of Argentina. You dojnt inherit what someone relinquishes
before they pass on.
5. The current and ongoing settlement was founded with British permission, and thus allowed to proceed, but without any form of permission from the
UK for the colony to become United Provinces territory.
When the current and ongoing settlement was militarised by the Untied Provinces (Argentina) the claim was formally nullified by the territories lawful owners, yet the legitimate settlement was allowed to continue.
6. The United Provinces did not pay for the inhabitants of the settlement, The British government honoured their wages (thus shouldering financial liability for them) and the settlers (with exception of two persons) accepted those conditions.
7. Sovereignty issues were not raised in any form between 1849 and 1941 by which time several generations of islanders lived on the islands,
Henners91 wrote:
You're removing my point from its historical setting; how much of this stuff you've mentioned has come about since 1982?
None. But this is because they cannot occur because the islands were liberated.
Henners91 wrote:
With regards to oil wealth, do you really think the Falklands are going to benefit from it in its entirety? I highly doubt it will be privatised in the hands of the islanders themselves; they'll just benefit from the economic activity.
Not in its entirity, like with the fishing rights they will sell rights for others to exploit the resources. Those monies raised belong to the Falklands.
Henners91 wrote:
I would attribute the same to your highly partisan and rose-tinted view of things... ultimately resting on wilful ignorance of Spanish settlement.
The Spanish settlement was purchased from a third party the French, and thus gave the
UK the longest concurrent claim. The
UK settlement was restored under treaty after it was destroyed by the Spanish, the Spanish settlement was never restored by Spain. Vernet's settlement was not a restoration of the French/Spanish settlement.
Thus the Spanish settlment is irrelevant to current claims as it refers to a dead claim. Spain has no current claim, let alone one that can be 'inherited by Argentina.
'Highly partisan'. 1690 came from 1764 last time I checked. The
UK has first claim in international law, now and of the time, QED.
Henners91 wrote:
Nevertheless, in theory, we are on the same side... it just seems to me that my decision to approach the issue with an open mind and actually analyse the Argentine argument makes me a monster in the eyes of my fellow countrymen, eh? I'd suggest reading, but I have just checked and Wikipedia does have all the info on Puerto Soledad that is required so what is (at least my) the internet's primary source of debating material isn't deficient in this area
1690, let your 'open mind' absorb the relavant facts.
Henners91 wrote:
I might be getting this wrong as I am strictly straining my recollections, but I also believe that the UN later decided it was infeasible for the Falklands to gain independence; that's when they directed the UK and Argentina to enter negotiations on sovereignty as the 'next best thing' so to speak.
The islands are on the
de-colonisation list as they are run by a governor rather than an integral leader. This can be solved by offering the islanders full membership of the
UK and allowing them to elect a an island council as local government and
MP's for parliament. Its essentially the same as Argentina absorbing them, but with greater public approval from the inhabitants. Argentina will of course howl if the Falklands becomes part of the
UK, but it would solve the problem.