The Falklands & the UK

[Johnmcd]

A simple study of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the Falkland Islands.

‘Based on a further interpretation on United Kingdom Parliament Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report.1998/9’<br>
1st Premise.
All British Overseas Territories are related to the UK only by their democratic will to remain so.

2nd Premise.
All British Overseas Territories that are self-determining can automatically declare independence from the UK. This choice of democratic emancipation is made legally clear under the Charter of the United to de-colonisation.

3rd Premise.
Any British Overseas Territory can, if it is their collective will, fully integrate with the United Kingdom. By doing so these territories must then abide by all laws and conventions that the UK has lawfully undertaken with the international community. British Overseas Territories will therefore contribute by electing their own representatives to UK Parliament in order to participate in the British Parliamentary process as full British citizens. This is democratic ideal is called ‘integration’ and accepted by the UN Charter as this would allow full voting rights and representation for those overseas inhabitants with the metropolitan country. It is their right to do so.

Some facts...

The Falklands Islands have no wish to be independent from UK. This is an unarguable fact. The islands also, confusingly, have no wish to ‘integrate’ with the United Kingdom where independence is internationally - legally available to them.

This must lead to the understanding that the Falkland elect, those who are selected, rather than elected, have another agenda far removed from the simple concept of being wholly self-determining and ultimately independent.

Well what is it?

I can offer this... The small, village sized island community, are all potential stake holders in every financial venture that is undertaken on the islands. They all stand to gain a share whether it be a ‘fishing licence bonanza’ or future mineral wealth in oil companies. It is safe today, to say, that many islanders are already ‘share’ millionaires. This brilliant position is not brought about by the freely elected islander councillors but by shrewd entrepreneurs who give not a toss to self-determining freedoms but have established companies on islands under the aegis of the ‘chameleon’ FIC that promises gold for all. The ‘get out’ clause being a British passport if all turns to nuts.

No doubt the various Falkland political parties and trade unions representatives will present vigorous opposition at the weekly Falkland Island Parliamentary sessions that obviously don’t take place.

Best wishes,
John.

The

[Sea Eagle]

John,

I see you are pushing your own political agenda again on the internal affairs of the Falklands. Personally I try to avoid that.

By the way Councillors do have public meetings.

I could not find the Foreign Affairs Committee Report you referred to. The Present "Fourth Report" on the Parliament Site is about Kosovo.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has no executive or legislative powers as far as I know and can only recommend or propose, the Government disposes.

There is no right or mechanism in existence as far as I know that permits Overseas Territories to integrate as part of the United Kingdom. This would require new legislation.

The same goes for Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

One wonders why on earth they would want to integrate and change their existing independence to do things their own way and become subservient to a body of law and regulation that is inappropriate and 'foreign' to them. The links are cultural and of kinship as partners in heritage and history, not subservience.

They are already building up a natural relationship with the mainland (Chile) which no doubt will develop in its own way in time. It could also develop in the same way with Argentina and Uruguay (as it once did with Uruguay) if Argentina would permit it to do so rather than being hung up on its own version of its history and insisting on backwards time travel rather than being innovative and moving forward.

The Falklands appear to be following, knowingly or by chance, the UN third option which you always forget to mention (Not in your political agenda?), which is Independence (i.e. Self Government) with Association to the UK (A chosen state). Also perfectly acceptable.

Regards,

Ernie

[Johnmcd]

Hi Ernie,

“I see you are pushing your own political agenda again on the internal affairs of the Falklands. Personally I try to avoid that”<br>
From that statement I see that you observe little. The internal affairs of the islands are the outward political expression that the UK feels obliged to support in the islanders defence of their own self-determination, much of which is clearly self-manufactured in order to rant and rave about so called Argentine exploitation, treachery and threat.

“By the way Councillors do have public meetings”<br>
I never said they did not! Of course they have meetings. I have regular meetings in my own village hall. But there are so many government acronyms affecting all aspects of island life. What political chamber can the ordinary islander enter into -
to democratically defend against dogmatic policy that is read to them for digest rather than for debate and passing into legislation or not. This is what I wrote about and you, once more, ignore. I find that disturbing.

How indeed are valid arguments pressed against ExCo legislation that any islander feels miffed about?

“The Foreign Affairs Committee has no executive or legislative powers as far as I know and can only recommend or propose, the Government disposes.”<br>
I agree. The Foreign Affairs Committee is largely reporting rather than enforcing. My thrust is that any British Overseas Territory can if they so collectively desire go their own way, what ever direction their self-determination takes them.

“There is no right or mechanism in existence as far as I know that permits Overseas Territories to integrate as part of the United Kingdom. This would require new legislation”<br>

Integration, from the report mentioned, is more to do with enhanced constitutional change previously offered to Gibraltar. Of course Gibraltar like the Falklands shy from this except when it might be in their interest for singular political purposes. The example was Gibraltar integrating with the SW of England for the recent European Parliamentary Election. The Reform Party of Gibraltar actually won a seat in the EU Parliament! If I was an islander, then I would be delighted that such an outcome could be possible. All they have to do is look closely at the huge positive benefits of integrating with the UK. The ‘bio’ of the Gib SW representative is given below.

“One wonders why on earth they would want to integrate and change their existing independence to do things their own way and become subservient to a body of law and regulation that is inappropriate and 'foreign' to them. The links are cultural and of kinship as partners in heritage and history, not subservience.”<br>
This is just an assumption that might have held some emotional gravitas back in the 1940’s or 50’s. No, not today. Britain is a multi-cultural society and the British white only appeal of the islands does not stand up to any scrutiny today in the UK. The island way of life and chosen politics are fast becoming alien to the UK. Not the other way round.

The choices lie with them and certainly not with us. My fear is that any probable choice that the ordinary islanders could lobby for are denied by the island political system - that is more geared up for simple monetary profit than true liberal democracy.

“They are already building up a natural relationship with the mainland (Chile) which no doubt will develop in its own way in time. It could also develop in the same way with Argentina and Uruguay (as it once did with Uruguay) if Argentina would permit it to do so rather than being hung up on its own version of its history and insisting on backwards time travel rather than being innovative and moving forward”<br>
This is not really true. For this to be realised then the islands must fully integrate with the SW Atlantic economy. Looking at last seasons poor fishery licensing round (this season looks poor too) It would be timely for the islands to do exactly this and start sharing EEZ sea areas while identifying NEW areas of conservation, not just ones that the Falklands Fishery Commission identifies. Like it or lump it, Argentina is the key to future sustained prosperity for the islands. Challenging realities face the islands as they dig deep into the preserved jam. (It is said that our critical faculty develops much later than our desire to know!)

“The Falklands appear to be following, knowingly or by chance, the UN third option which you always forget to mention (Not in your political agenda?), which is Independence (i.e. Self Government) with Association to the UK (A chosen state). Also perfectly acceptable”<br>
I see Falkland Island independence as the only possible route for the islands. They are naturally conservative and once being politically free from the UK will, in one sweep, deliver them free from comfortably believing that they must always rely on the UK. If independence is by association to the UK, then all the better. No doubt an independent islands will then do as the UK has done and then open up normal diplomatic relations with Argentina. That of course will mean that the islands Ministry of Propaganda will close down and give every islander breathing space to think for themselves.

Best wishes,
John.


Bio of the EU representative for the Reform Party of Gibraltar.

Lyana Armstrong-Emery was born in Nairobi in 1953, the daughter of a Geordie father and a Gibraltarian mother. After many years living, studying and working firstly in Latin America then in England, she settled permanently in her maternal homeland, Gibraltar, in 1987. She presently works as Manager for a Cruising Agency. She has two sons, one aged 26 working in Spain, the other 19 at University (UEA) in Norwich.
She has been involved in progressive politics almost since her arrival on 'the Rock' and has stood for election several times. She is currently the elected Leader of the local Reform Party, a grouping that regards itself as presenting a real alternative to the current orientation of all other parties in Gibraltar.
The Reform Party has developed close links with the Green Party of England and Wales and Lyana is delighted to be a Green Euro-candidate for the SW area, which for the first time includes Gibraltar.

[Sea Eagle]

John,

You said,

"then open up normal diplomatic relations with Argentina."

This is just a joke as you well know. Argentina wants and pursues dominance and control over the Falklands from expecting exclusive rights to flights to control access to pursuing its territorial claims, all the actions of the present Argentine administration shouts this from the roof tops.

Do take off your rose tinted spectacles and see things in their true light which is that a small community reacts by protecting itself the best way it can when confronted by a large bullying neighbour.

When did Argentina make a gesture of conciliation to the Falklands last?? (I do not mean patronising gestures demonstrating their ultimate control freakery like the 1999 agreement i.e. we are in charge of access to the Falklands so don't forget it. We give you permission for flights from Chile) Why was such an agreement needed this could have been done as a commercial agreement with the Falklands direct. I cant think of one conciliation gesture.

I put down a challenge to you again, provide me with detail of the so called undemocratic nature of the Falklands Government. In fact any Islander in support of your is welcome to mail me with details of their supression of democracy in complete confidence and I will publish it on this site without identifying the source.

So put or shut up about a democracy deficit.

Best wishes (in other respects)

Ernie

[Johnmcd]

Hi Ernie,
“...Argentina wants and pursues dominance and control over the Falklands from expecting exclusive rights to flights to control access to pursuing its territorial claims, all the actions of the present Argentine administration shouts this from the roof tops”<br>
Really? No, I don’t think they are - at least not in the way you postulate. “shouts for the roof tops” - indeed!) Since Argentina became democratic they have pursued their claim peacefully and diplomatically with the UK. The July 14 1999 Agreement would never have been possible otherwise. Additionally, it would be interesting to know from you why you believe this agreement is wrong? (or I’m I reading you wrong?)

The large bullying neighbour analogy really doesn’t wash anymore either. The tabloid type propaganda that comes out from the islands should be seen clearly against the back drop of the communication links Argentina requests. Are they demands? Do they amount to unreasonable coercion? Well, I’ve argued before that civil air links with Argentina are entirely reasonable (if you cut away the nonsensical political bickering) and would allow absolutely normal international air carriage that would benefit everyone, not least the island tourist trade. Let me reiterate from earlier postings: Island self-determination would not suffer one bit with an ‘easing off’ with their neighbour - loss of short term profits perhaps, cheap RAF flights etc, but never their fundamental rights of self-determination.

Another facet of more open links with Argentina might well be the bridging the political divide. By this I mean allowing more frequent Argentine visitors to the islands. Friendships will no doubt be forged - not symbolic ones, but the normal friendships that everyone enjoys. I read that after the Communications Agreement was signed in 1971 many Argentines came to the islands and stayed - made most welcome and went on to contributed socially and economically. One chap, I understand, actually opened up a Pub called the Victory Bar and marriages, across the divide, took place.

Of course I do understand that Communication Agreement was used by the Argentine military authorities of the day for political leverage right up until 1982.

But those days are gone and could hardly be repeated. None the less Argentina still wants to open up links, links that would of course be beneficial to all in the area.

The present Governor of the islands has already said that he wishes for better diplomatic links between the Falklands and Argentina. I would assume that he, as the UK’s official rep on the islands, wishes for more a courteous diplomacy instead of being viewed as the leader of die hard colonists.

For those other than Ernie reading this thread...

We can argue forever over the sovereignty claim. That only demonstrates nationalistic position - nothing more than an endless round of debate of morbid myth making. However, people do make a difference, whether they are wearing rose tinted glasses or not. We can be just as defiant in our common God given humanity as we can politically.

Best wishes,
John.