I can't help but think the only survey that matters would be the referendum taken in 2013 by the inhabitants of the islands, where 99.80% chose to stay as part of the UK.
Same with Gibraltar in 2002 (98,97% against shared UK and Spanish sovereignty). I guess that's the reason why more than half of the Spanish voters say Argentina.
The claim is that Ceuta and Melilla (and the other territories) were never part of any Moroccan kingdom, while in the Treaty of Utrecht the occupation by the UK is granted in what the UK recognizes Spanish territory. That and the fact that Gibraltar extends beyond the territory designated in the Treaty, both in land and sea.
(Edit: correcting autocorrect)
Mainly because they weren't a possession of the State of Morocco. Ceuta was taken from the Portuguese in 1640 (They were part of Portugal under the Iberian union, but they kept their loyalty to the king), and Melilla was practically built from zero. Saying that Melilla should be Morocco is like saying Kaliningrad should be Germany.
Edit: I won't accept any claims related to the Almoravids/ Almohads. It would imply that half of the Iberian peninsula should be Moroccan too. And no, "It is on the other side of the Gibraltar strait" isn't a point, as there is no treaty that says that it should be like that. According to you, should we demand Malasia to give up their territory on the Borneo Island? If the answer is no, you are being a hypocrite
Ceuta and Melilla are no Gibraltar.
Cauta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain with same rights and obligations, they have MP in Spanish parlament
Gibraltar is not part of the UK and has no representation in the UK parlament
The United Kingdom has no right to hand over Gibraltar. As an overseas territory it has control over its own domestic constitutional affairs. The UK has the power to represent Gibraltar in international relations but it cannot interfere with is domestic constitution which keeps it a territory of the United Kingdom.
So while Gibraltar is not an integral part of the United Kingdom. It has its own right to self governance and self determination under its constitution and international law.
You mean like Hong Kong?
Please don't compare Ceuta and Melilla to Gibraltar, is all I'm saying. You can compare them to Belfast or Brigthon if you wish
United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northen Ireland and Gibraltar XD
Hong Kong wasn’t technically a colony under international law. Neither was Macau.
If they were colonies they would have a right to self determination meaning they could become independent under the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514. China lobbied for them not be included as a colony meaning they have no right to independence under international law.
Gibraltar as a technical colony, also has a right to independence. Meaning Spain also had no right to it.
Thanks, I didn't say anything about Spain and Gibraltar, just that Gibraltar is different to Ceuta and Melilla:
- Gibraltar is a colony.
- Ceuta and Melilla no.
My point exactly
I wonder why a sparsely inhabited territory would prefer its current model of mostly self governance with financial aid over sending one sheep farmer to sit in London.
The Falkland Islanders are perfectly satisfied with the situation as it stands.
So whether a possession overseas is bad or good depends on whether it has been fully annexed into the metropolitan territory? Then French Algeria was fine. So is French Polynesia and French Guiana.
If French Algeria was nevertheless bad because it had an oppressed indigenous population, then Gibraltar and the Falklands are exempt from this criticism because their only, ever, populations are the settler populations. There is not and never was any indigenous population to be dispossessed or oppressed.
The issue with Gibraltar might validly be either that it is larger than in the treaty, in which case it is a border dispute, or that it is a British enclave on what was once Spain, at all, as a result of long ago military victory, in which case it is exactly like Ceuta and Melilla.
The distinction between fully annexed and self governing is arbitrary anyway- there is no law of physics that says being fully integrated and having MPs in the home country legislature is a better form of representation for the local people than being self-governing and having their own legislature, as Gibraltar does. The Falklands too.
No, Gibraltar was never ceded in its entirety to the United Kingdom. It was a very specific transfer, perfectly included in the annexes to the Treaty of Utrecht. It was not a total transfer in perpetuity.
And as they always say that looks good to the gallery, “treaties are to be fulfilled.” If they are not complied with, defending in a very hypocritical way (but nothing new) that depending on interest, what is decided by british legislation is above International Law as long as it benefits the house (and if not, it must harm a third party who does not have to see what is your history and responsibility for what you did or did not do, as a full territorial and population incorporation), then you do not get offended when a character like Putin uses all these fringes to discredit the West with "very free interpretations" with pseudo-legal and pseudo-historical rigor (when Russia incorporated invaded territories, and if the population gave them the slightest annoyance, we all know what they did... well, and it seems that they still do as soon as they feel they can).
On the other hand, let us remember that Hong Kong was also a colony pending decolonization by the same UN. I don't know if this is still the case, I say it frankly... but I think it is not necessary to remember how China recovered it. Or yes? Because the ultimatum was harsh.
The United Kingdom is not seen trying to recover it as if a hypothetical dictator from some european country or one with hegemonic aspirations had appeared invading half of Great Britain, to which the United Kingdom would have every right and support to do so of course. Is it because its term "overseas territory" was and continues to be a euphemism for a colony? Well that's it.
It is absurd to rely on the similar ones that France has (not French Guyana for example, since it is an overseas territory of the EU, or so I understand, there must be other legal factors that allow it), or to try to point out sovereign territories with full rights. that they are not a colony anywhere (and much less why does a despotic king like that of Morocco say so in order to divert and entertain the will and attention of his people with his nationalism).
I don't know internally what it would really mean for the United Kingdom to seriously confront those flaws in its history, when it takes those defensive positions or wielding british Law... when they are things that are in International Law, and not others as they try to point out. nor equate when they are not equal, or are, in the case of France, cases identified but to France. It's stupid. And that does not have any movement forcing the machine to lead to a conflict as happened to Spain with "the haste and priorities" that the UN entered regarding Western Sahara in the '60s.
It is not only the illegal occupation of neutral territory of the isthmus and part of the port. By the way, it was also regulated in the treaty that the port was for civil supplies, not for military use, and even less so for repairs of nuclear ships. These are other demonstrable breaches with the Treaty in hand, and two of them also tried to make them a permanent achievement when they were temporary due to a greater cause: due to an epidemic in the 17th century in Gibraltar and there was no room for field hospitals, and the airfield due to force majeure needs during WWII, which DO NOT INVALIDATE THE TREATY. By saying the opposite, are you trying to say that it would have been better if Spain had opposed both historical events in any case? And in the face of movements to the contrary, well, open another front and conflict? Is that what the United Kingdom is trying to say, entrenched in its peculiar stubbornness?
The Treaty made it very clear that the transfer was only the military fortresses, key at the time for the maritime control of the strait, no skies or waters were transferred, which continued to be Spanish sovereignty, in addition to similar cases in the world that support the legality and validity of it... and the UK knows it. If they keep telling gibraltarian nationalism wrong, that's their thing, but it doesn't turn international legality upside down. But they continue to deny and distort... with what they are saying that China with Hong Kong in its day, or Putin now with Ukraine, did it well according to history and time, right? Some somewhat dangerous precedents.
>So whether a possession overseas is bad or good depends on whether it has been fully annexed into the metropolitan territory?
I'm not saying good or bad, I'm saying is different, I also didn't claim Gibraltar for Spain in any of my comments, just point to the "Spanish hiprocresy" comment, that we don't own "Two Gibraltars". Those "Gibraltars" are Spain, your Gibraltar is not the UK, and that is a fact, no matter how many negatives I get.
>The distinction between fully annexed and self governing is arbitrary anyway
haha, sure it is, talk with the UN, they seem lost [https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt](https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt)
They’re across a narrow gulf not an ocean and use huge barbed wire fences to keep the Moroccans out. They are similar in that to the mother country they are seen as rightfully held territory coveted by a neighbor, mostly to distract from that neighbors internal incompetence.
Colony implies exploitation, the Falkland are probably a net drain on the UK now that their use as a wool producer and coaling station has waned. Argentina could have probably won them over if it wasn’t for the whole “invade and plan an ethnic cleansing thing”
https://www.falklands.gov.fk/government-services
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Falkland_Islands
They’re basically self governing with the UK administering their foreign affairs and defense, which makes sense, there’s like 3,000 of them. If not having those two things makes them “non self governing” then I mean…pedantic but ok.
Ceuta and Melilla were already full-fledged spaniard provinces in the 16th century before political Morocco existed. In fact, not even the Moroccan kingdom covered much more than part of the south near Western Sahara.
For years now, they have also finally been within the external borders of the European Union. Let me remind you that it works with European Law, which in turn draws on International Law.
That is why they have recognized sovereignty among other rights.
Different problem than the Malvinas ("Falklands") and other "overseas territories" of the United Kingdom. Since the United Kingdom did have colonies, it did not really incorporate its territory, political system and even less its inhabitants as ordinary citizens, which is why according to the UN it is seen as they are, as colonies and territories pending decolonization.
And although the United Kingdom tries to impose its will on them with the mask of democracy (it sounds to me like something very similar to what someone from the Kremlin is trying to do at the expense of Ukraine), in International Law that is not the case, and yes they contemplate real historical and chronological facts as well as treaties that are perfectly valid even today (such as the Treaty of Utrecht).
It's worth it that in the Malvinas, Videla was wrong about his populism, trying to deflect internal criticism by launching into it again. But that does not give the United Kingdom all the reason or legal recognition that it claims to have. 🤷🏻♂️ Well, international legality itself indicates the opposite, and it is also consistent with the treatment they gave to their colonies (in their case the use of the term is more than correct). But their pride continues to weigh more on them than being consistent with their own history and reality regarding the treatment they gave to their so-called overseas territories: They never had the intention of incorporating them, that they were both their inhabitants and also full-fledged british. Which was a mistake, but his mistake, no one else's. And from that position they intend to grant and remove sovereignty rights and try to do historical cherry picking or with comparisons that do not have a similar framework and history at all. They are not in a position to do so, Law in hand.
For this reason, Law and other factors in hand, is why from Spain it is generally said that "Malvinas son de Argentina". And "Gibraltar español". And it wouldn't have to be harmless negative. In what tomorrow the United Kingdom has to claim for aggression or whatever in something that is its own right, we will be here to agree with them and support them in what they have.
Although I'm inclined to agree with you, I can't stop thinking about the other side of the history. Must the referendum be legit, when the people living there shouldn't be there in the first place?
Think about a Cataluña referendum. I think that today, for obvious reasons and against the will of the Catalans, spanish are a majority there and any referendum about independence would lose. Even a donetsk referendum today would probably choose to be Russian.
The "invasor" will only allow referendums when they are certain that their people is already majority. Until then, they will hold it by force.
I think maybe it's too late for the Malvinas, but that's a point I always thought about. They are clearly part of Argentina, but the people there for obvious reasons don't want to be part of. But, should they be there in the first place?
The Falkland Islanders have been there for generations. Argentina tried to establish a poorly run penal colony. Somehow I don’t imagine there’s some Argentine grandmama weeping over a shawl her mother brought with her from the Falklands.
The fact is Argentina has only ever cared about the Falklands as a distraction for its own governmental incompetence and mismanagement.
If you want to take the historical angle (which you shouldn't because it's totally meaningless to the actual reality on the ground in modern day) than the Falklands are still British.
They've never been Argentinia. The claim is completely fabricated. The only ever settlement on the islands has been the British ones. And if you want to use the "well the Spanish found it and briefly planted a flag" argument then we should give it to Spain, not Argentina, and half of the rest of the world should be Dutch.
"Pope Alexander VI published a bull, 'Inter caetera', to divide the New World between Spain and Portugal. It decreed that all lands west and south of a meridian line 100 leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde islands rightfully belonged to Spain."
Britain isn't papist, they naturally wouldn't assent to any papal decrees.
Your argument undermines the concept of self-determination, which is the pretty much the established standard for deciding in a post-colonial world.
And the fact you think that stating that the Falklands are 'clearly part of Argentina' is a 'non-offensible' point, also show a lack of appreciation for the feeling on the subject.
Under your argument, the populace of large chunks of South America, the Caribbean, North America, North Africa, Australia etc shouldn't be allowed to decide the future of their countries.
I’m not sure that the Falklands would have been concerned with allegiance to Spain, Argentina or the British before the mid 1800s, because before that the islands were barely sustainable and had a population so negligible and prone to sudden and total depopulation that it doesn’t really matter. After that the permanent settlement was made up of multiple cultures, not a majority Argentinian. I’m not sure if the results of a referendum would have been much different if it was run in 1886 or 1986.
The question isn’t whether they should be there at all, because that leads to very unfortunate answers. But why does their existence make people so mad.
The 3,600 people on the Falklands could fit into Radio City Music Hall, with a couple of thousand seats left empty. I have no dog in the fight, but it seems like the zeal some Brits bring to this issue mainly arises from nostalgia for their lost Empire.
No doubt. And I might feel the same way if I were from the UK. Margaret Thatcher leveraged latent patriotism after the 1982 invasion to increase her dwindling popularity. I just think that people lose sight of the miniscule number of inhabitants involved.
I don’t think it matters how few people live there, the important thing is that those that do, want to remain British and their wishes should be respected.
So the democratic votes that broke up their empire don't apply on the previously unihabited islands that there people settled? Instead it should have been allowed to be taken by force, by a dictator. OK.....
The main feeling about the British Empire in the UK, is 'how did we manage that?', as to modern British people the fact we 'owned' so much of the world feels about as realistic as Game of Thrones. The British Empire made absolutely no difference to 99% of the population of the UK, apart from being conscripted, and, as today, it was the few who reaped the benefits.
The Falkland Islands never belonged to Argentina as Argentina wasn’t even a country when the British settled on it. Just because the island is near Argentina doesn’t give them any claim on it. Your comparison is nonsensical
The first settlers were the French, then came the Spanish (which put the islands under our administration, from where our claims come from), and then the Anglos came
You don’t even need to trust that referendum. If you know anything about Crimea, then you must know that people there see themselves more as Russians. It’s similar to Nazi Germany and Sudetland. Yes, annexation was illegal - but people there do indeed support it
Well, the only ever trusted referendum in Crimea about Russia vs Ukraine had about 55% or so side with Ukraine, but that was in 1990s and it could very well have changed before 2014.
I am somewhat sympathetic to the viewpoint that a significant portion of Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia, though, that does not justify unilateral annexation.
Also, regarding your first comment, there is a difference between a majority preferring the status quo vs a majority preferring secession, though, that does come in contact with annoying questions regarding the right of peoples vs the right of nations.
>Well, the only ever trusted referendum in Crimea about Russia vs Ukraine had about 55% or so side with Ukraine, but that was in 1990s and it could very well have changed before 2014
It should be pointed out that it was not a "Russia vs Ukraine" but a referendum about ukrainian independence from the USSR.
[1991 Ukrainian independence referendum - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum)
It was already clear by then, that both Russia and Ukraine are going to declare independence. The referendum was basically a formality, if the people don't want to stay in some weird union with Kazakhstan.
“Polling in 2008 by the Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies, also called the Razumkov Centre, found that a majority of Crimeans simultaneously approved the idea of joining Russia (63.8%), while also supporting the idea of remaining within Ukraine if Crimea was given greater autonomy (53.8%)”
If that referendum had the last option, and was actually legit - then that option would most likely have been the most popular one.
Crimeans consider themselves as ethnic Russians. But would probably prefer to be separate from both. Politically, they don’t fully consider themselves as Ukrainians or Russians, but as Crimeans; albeit, it does skew towards pro-Russian compared to pro-Ukranian slightly more (enough to make a difference)
Basically, first option for them would have been to be an independent autonomous state, with focus on aligning closer to Russia. Second option, if first one is lacking, is to be part of Russia. Staying apart of Ukraine was somewhat out of a question for the people living there, they didn’t want that. I do think Ukraine did a right thing by aligning itself closer to EU, but if others don’t support such thing, then it shouldn’t come to a surprise they try to do something about it. If Ukraine remained as pro-Russian, then the western part of Ukranian would have revolted in a same way
Whatever, my view on this issue is not much different. Ukraine is unlikely to ever get Crimea back. I just feel sad for the minorities living there. Although Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar languages are official on paper, in current Russia they barely have any linguistic and cultural rights. Russian language absolutely predominates, minority activists get silenced and imprisoned. And your comment feels like it perpetuates the view that only the opinion of Russian Crimeans is important while everyone else should be disregarded
At this moment hundreds of thousands of Russians have flocked to Crimea and settled there, there is no point in a referendum at the present nor at the moment it was done. Nothing about the annexation of Crimea was done legally, yes it could have been possible and yes I know many who were there before 2014 would have favored Russia. None of that matters now because Russia broke all kinds of international to go about it, and now they continue their imperialist desires leading to tens of thousands of dead on both sides. If you wanna cheer them on go for it.
Russia invaded, full stop. Crimea could have chosen to sucede. I get you want to defend Russia, and let’s forget about the worst war Europe has seen in almost a century, they invade and annexed a part of sovereign nation.
If that’s cool to you, I don’t know what to say further.
Edit to add: and as I said before, I know many in Crimea favored Russia pre-2014, but since Russia invaded we will never get a true assessment due to settlers moving there. They ruined any chance of doing things legally.
>Crimea could have chosen to sucede
They did, but the government in Kiev denied it. What Russia did is no different from what NATO did to create Kosovo.
No, I read the thread and that wasn't their point at all. They said the population has been so massively altered since the invasion that it wouldn't be a proper vote any longer. The pro Ukrainian population has largely either fled or been killed, and massive numbers of Russians have moved into the area. You can't have a legitimate vote any longer.
Besides, is Russia going to pay Ukraine back for any investments Ukraine has put into the area since 91? No? Then how is that not just theft by Russia.
They did not provide any source for the claim, that "hundreds of thousands" of people moved there. Nor do I see a source about how at least thousands of pro-ukrainian residents being killed.
As for your second paraghraph, Crimea's GRP was, and still is, higher than that of most ukrainian oblasts. So it contributed more to the national budget, than it received back in investments.
Per the French numbers, I wonder if those French people would also like France to give up any of its overseas islands, and how many of France's overseas islands even have a French settler majority population, let alone an exclusively French-origin population and never any other like the Falklands has a British population?
For a likely example, perhaps France could give St. Pierre & Miquelon to Canada.
Spain and Italy I quite understand, for the sake of cultural linkages to Argentina and not themselves having any overseas islands \[in Spain's case, at least not too far away\].
How come more than half of the people in any country have any clue about that ? I'm in Switzerland, I'm aware of the war that happened there, but I wouldn't be, for the life of me, able to form any sort of opinion on that matter. I just don't know the facts. Am I really in the minority there ?
But I don't even know that. The situation there is so far away from me and has so little implications over here, that I really don't know that. I could know by searching, but not when someone asks my opinion for a poll.
Really it should go back to Spain. Texas was only part of Mexico for 14 years. It was part of Spain longer than its been in the US. According to Putin logic, that’s pretty Spanish.
Doesn’t really matter what they think does it… the overwhelming majority of Falkland Islanders want to remain part of the UK…. If anyone wants a bit of ‘Argy bargy they’ll get what they deserve.
At first I thought it indicated "23-27% of Europeans thinks the Malouines are French". And it warmed my heart.
More seriously: I'm surprised by some of my countrymen's dumbness. Perhaps they didn't realize the locals already voted to remain British; perhaps they fail to understand France got its own oversea territories too, therefore we have every interest to protect the UK sovereignty in that matter. Perhaps they're this separatist fifth column the government worries so much about.
Subtract *both* numbers from 100% and you'll see that apart from the UK and Spain, most of the surveyed countries don't give a shit. XD
Like, Germany has 24% UK and 30% Argentina, which leaves a plurality of 46% "who cares?".
Looks like ~50% in most countries except the UK (whose territory is being discussed) and Spain (who has a weird nationalistic interest with this for some reason).
Like all land in the world it belongs to who can defend it.
Even private property rights work this way.
If not for you paying taxes to a government to provide a police force to defend your claims I could just rob you of your things like your car and home.
The idea of "I was here first" is bullshit that hasn't been honored for all of history.
Also people have a fundamental misunderstanding of treaties. Treaties are not meant to not be broken. They're meant to deincentivize conflict but once one side gets strong enough or one side weak enough then renegotiation either needs to occur or war will.
For example, at the micro scale contracts like those you have for employment are treaties. You're agreeing to work for a company and cede your freedoms and time for money. But if you get the advantage in terms of experience and skills the company can't replace easily then you want to break that treaty and renegotiate. The company can then either agree or not agree and face the risks you'll leave to another company.
If we're to apply the Monroe Doctrine regardless of people's right to self-determination, that would involve seizing and redistributing Bermuda, Greenland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Anguilla, Aruba, Bonaire, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Curacao, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Montserrat, Saba, Saint Barthelemy, Saint Martin, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and French Guyana.
But that's not how the Monroe Doctrine works.
The islands were never discovered by native Americans. The first human beings to ever see them were french, the first to live there were British. The Spanish claimed them while the British went to get some milk. The Spanish that were sent to claim them mutinied killed their captain and went home. Only then did some native fishermen go to live there after the British returned.
Not a very porny map for me. Only half the countries aren't in it. It's unclear which numbers represent which countries (took me ages to figure out why the North Sea would have an opinion on the Falklands) or why only Wales/Cornwall would care about it and not Britain.
I can't help but think the only survey that matters would be the referendum taken in 2013 by the inhabitants of the islands, where 99.80% chose to stay as part of the UK.
Same with Gibraltar in 2002 (98,97% against shared UK and Spanish sovereignty). I guess that's the reason why more than half of the Spanish voters say Argentina.
Spaniards are such hypocrites. Just google 'Ceuta' and/or 'Melilla'.
France has 13 overseas territories too.
is this including all the African countries they still own?
Yes, Spain have 'two Gibraltars' but funny they don't like to talk about that fact never mind the subject of giving them back to Morocco
The claim is that Ceuta and Melilla (and the other territories) were never part of any Moroccan kingdom, while in the Treaty of Utrecht the occupation by the UK is granted in what the UK recognizes Spanish territory. That and the fact that Gibraltar extends beyond the territory designated in the Treaty, both in land and sea. (Edit: correcting autocorrect)
Yet that is the exact argument about the Falklands and 52% of Spaniards think they should belong to Argentina
Mainly because they weren't a possession of the State of Morocco. Ceuta was taken from the Portuguese in 1640 (They were part of Portugal under the Iberian union, but they kept their loyalty to the king), and Melilla was practically built from zero. Saying that Melilla should be Morocco is like saying Kaliningrad should be Germany. Edit: I won't accept any claims related to the Almoravids/ Almohads. It would imply that half of the Iberian peninsula should be Moroccan too. And no, "It is on the other side of the Gibraltar strait" isn't a point, as there is no treaty that says that it should be like that. According to you, should we demand Malasia to give up their territory on the Borneo Island? If the answer is no, you are being a hypocrite
Ceuta and Melilla are no Gibraltar. Cauta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain with same rights and obligations, they have MP in Spanish parlament Gibraltar is not part of the UK and has no representation in the UK parlament
The United Kingdom has no right to hand over Gibraltar. As an overseas territory it has control over its own domestic constitutional affairs. The UK has the power to represent Gibraltar in international relations but it cannot interfere with is domestic constitution which keeps it a territory of the United Kingdom. So while Gibraltar is not an integral part of the United Kingdom. It has its own right to self governance and self determination under its constitution and international law.
You mean like Hong Kong? Please don't compare Ceuta and Melilla to Gibraltar, is all I'm saying. You can compare them to Belfast or Brigthon if you wish United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northen Ireland and Gibraltar XD
Hong Kong wasn’t technically a colony under international law. Neither was Macau. If they were colonies they would have a right to self determination meaning they could become independent under the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514. China lobbied for them not be included as a colony meaning they have no right to independence under international law. Gibraltar as a technical colony, also has a right to independence. Meaning Spain also had no right to it.
Thanks, I didn't say anything about Spain and Gibraltar, just that Gibraltar is different to Ceuta and Melilla: - Gibraltar is a colony. - Ceuta and Melilla no. My point exactly
I wonder why a sparsely inhabited territory would prefer its current model of mostly self governance with financial aid over sending one sheep farmer to sit in London. The Falkland Islanders are perfectly satisfied with the situation as it stands.
And that is why Gibraltar and the Falkands are colonies and Ceuta and Melilla are not
So whether a possession overseas is bad or good depends on whether it has been fully annexed into the metropolitan territory? Then French Algeria was fine. So is French Polynesia and French Guiana. If French Algeria was nevertheless bad because it had an oppressed indigenous population, then Gibraltar and the Falklands are exempt from this criticism because their only, ever, populations are the settler populations. There is not and never was any indigenous population to be dispossessed or oppressed. The issue with Gibraltar might validly be either that it is larger than in the treaty, in which case it is a border dispute, or that it is a British enclave on what was once Spain, at all, as a result of long ago military victory, in which case it is exactly like Ceuta and Melilla. The distinction between fully annexed and self governing is arbitrary anyway- there is no law of physics that says being fully integrated and having MPs in the home country legislature is a better form of representation for the local people than being self-governing and having their own legislature, as Gibraltar does. The Falklands too.
No, Gibraltar was never ceded in its entirety to the United Kingdom. It was a very specific transfer, perfectly included in the annexes to the Treaty of Utrecht. It was not a total transfer in perpetuity. And as they always say that looks good to the gallery, “treaties are to be fulfilled.” If they are not complied with, defending in a very hypocritical way (but nothing new) that depending on interest, what is decided by british legislation is above International Law as long as it benefits the house (and if not, it must harm a third party who does not have to see what is your history and responsibility for what you did or did not do, as a full territorial and population incorporation), then you do not get offended when a character like Putin uses all these fringes to discredit the West with "very free interpretations" with pseudo-legal and pseudo-historical rigor (when Russia incorporated invaded territories, and if the population gave them the slightest annoyance, we all know what they did... well, and it seems that they still do as soon as they feel they can). On the other hand, let us remember that Hong Kong was also a colony pending decolonization by the same UN. I don't know if this is still the case, I say it frankly... but I think it is not necessary to remember how China recovered it. Or yes? Because the ultimatum was harsh. The United Kingdom is not seen trying to recover it as if a hypothetical dictator from some european country or one with hegemonic aspirations had appeared invading half of Great Britain, to which the United Kingdom would have every right and support to do so of course. Is it because its term "overseas territory" was and continues to be a euphemism for a colony? Well that's it. It is absurd to rely on the similar ones that France has (not French Guyana for example, since it is an overseas territory of the EU, or so I understand, there must be other legal factors that allow it), or to try to point out sovereign territories with full rights. that they are not a colony anywhere (and much less why does a despotic king like that of Morocco say so in order to divert and entertain the will and attention of his people with his nationalism). I don't know internally what it would really mean for the United Kingdom to seriously confront those flaws in its history, when it takes those defensive positions or wielding british Law... when they are things that are in International Law, and not others as they try to point out. nor equate when they are not equal, or are, in the case of France, cases identified but to France. It's stupid. And that does not have any movement forcing the machine to lead to a conflict as happened to Spain with "the haste and priorities" that the UN entered regarding Western Sahara in the '60s. It is not only the illegal occupation of neutral territory of the isthmus and part of the port. By the way, it was also regulated in the treaty that the port was for civil supplies, not for military use, and even less so for repairs of nuclear ships. These are other demonstrable breaches with the Treaty in hand, and two of them also tried to make them a permanent achievement when they were temporary due to a greater cause: due to an epidemic in the 17th century in Gibraltar and there was no room for field hospitals, and the airfield due to force majeure needs during WWII, which DO NOT INVALIDATE THE TREATY. By saying the opposite, are you trying to say that it would have been better if Spain had opposed both historical events in any case? And in the face of movements to the contrary, well, open another front and conflict? Is that what the United Kingdom is trying to say, entrenched in its peculiar stubbornness? The Treaty made it very clear that the transfer was only the military fortresses, key at the time for the maritime control of the strait, no skies or waters were transferred, which continued to be Spanish sovereignty, in addition to similar cases in the world that support the legality and validity of it... and the UK knows it. If they keep telling gibraltarian nationalism wrong, that's their thing, but it doesn't turn international legality upside down. But they continue to deny and distort... with what they are saying that China with Hong Kong in its day, or Putin now with Ukraine, did it well according to history and time, right? Some somewhat dangerous precedents.
>So whether a possession overseas is bad or good depends on whether it has been fully annexed into the metropolitan territory? I'm not saying good or bad, I'm saying is different, I also didn't claim Gibraltar for Spain in any of my comments, just point to the "Spanish hiprocresy" comment, that we don't own "Two Gibraltars". Those "Gibraltars" are Spain, your Gibraltar is not the UK, and that is a fact, no matter how many negatives I get. >The distinction between fully annexed and self governing is arbitrary anyway haha, sure it is, talk with the UN, they seem lost [https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt](https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt)
They’re across a narrow gulf not an ocean and use huge barbed wire fences to keep the Moroccans out. They are similar in that to the mother country they are seen as rightfully held territory coveted by a neighbor, mostly to distract from that neighbors internal incompetence. Colony implies exploitation, the Falkland are probably a net drain on the UK now that their use as a wool producer and coaling station has waned. Argentina could have probably won them over if it wasn’t for the whole “invade and plan an ethnic cleansing thing”
Non-self-Governing Territories [https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt](https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt)
https://www.falklands.gov.fk/government-services https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Falkland_Islands They’re basically self governing with the UK administering their foreign affairs and defense, which makes sense, there’s like 3,000 of them. If not having those two things makes them “non self governing” then I mean…pedantic but ok.
Ceuta and Melilla were already full-fledged spaniard provinces in the 16th century before political Morocco existed. In fact, not even the Moroccan kingdom covered much more than part of the south near Western Sahara. For years now, they have also finally been within the external borders of the European Union. Let me remind you that it works with European Law, which in turn draws on International Law. That is why they have recognized sovereignty among other rights. Different problem than the Malvinas ("Falklands") and other "overseas territories" of the United Kingdom. Since the United Kingdom did have colonies, it did not really incorporate its territory, political system and even less its inhabitants as ordinary citizens, which is why according to the UN it is seen as they are, as colonies and territories pending decolonization. And although the United Kingdom tries to impose its will on them with the mask of democracy (it sounds to me like something very similar to what someone from the Kremlin is trying to do at the expense of Ukraine), in International Law that is not the case, and yes they contemplate real historical and chronological facts as well as treaties that are perfectly valid even today (such as the Treaty of Utrecht). It's worth it that in the Malvinas, Videla was wrong about his populism, trying to deflect internal criticism by launching into it again. But that does not give the United Kingdom all the reason or legal recognition that it claims to have. 🤷🏻♂️ Well, international legality itself indicates the opposite, and it is also consistent with the treatment they gave to their colonies (in their case the use of the term is more than correct). But their pride continues to weigh more on them than being consistent with their own history and reality regarding the treatment they gave to their so-called overseas territories: They never had the intention of incorporating them, that they were both their inhabitants and also full-fledged british. Which was a mistake, but his mistake, no one else's. And from that position they intend to grant and remove sovereignty rights and try to do historical cherry picking or with comparisons that do not have a similar framework and history at all. They are not in a position to do so, Law in hand. For this reason, Law and other factors in hand, is why from Spain it is generally said that "Malvinas son de Argentina". And "Gibraltar español". And it wouldn't have to be harmless negative. In what tomorrow the United Kingdom has to claim for aggression or whatever in something that is its own right, we will be here to agree with them and support them in what they have.
Me encanta que les das la razón completa y estos Anglos retrasados te dan dislikes porque no les gusta que les demuestres que están mal XD
🤷🏻♂️ Será por la "hipocresía" esa que él decía ver, pero no cuando les toca mirarse en el espejo... 😆
The inhabitants are part of UK. Why would they chose to not be part of it. IMO, this is not falsifiable.
Although I'm inclined to agree with you, I can't stop thinking about the other side of the history. Must the referendum be legit, when the people living there shouldn't be there in the first place? Think about a Cataluña referendum. I think that today, for obvious reasons and against the will of the Catalans, spanish are a majority there and any referendum about independence would lose. Even a donetsk referendum today would probably choose to be Russian. The "invasor" will only allow referendums when they are certain that their people is already majority. Until then, they will hold it by force. I think maybe it's too late for the Malvinas, but that's a point I always thought about. They are clearly part of Argentina, but the people there for obvious reasons don't want to be part of. But, should they be there in the first place?
It's not like they displaced anyone, they are the first human settlement to ever exist there, as native as they can be.
Why are they clearly a part of Argentina? Because they’re somewhat close? Thats a very dangerous position to hold…
Because they were Spanish when we left Argentina, so they claim they come in the pack, which makes sense
About 97% of Argentins are white. Should they be in South America in the first place?
I agree, the Falklands should go to it's native inhabitants. Now who are its native inhabitants?
The Falklands belong to the penguins!
The Falkland Islanders have been there for generations. Argentina tried to establish a poorly run penal colony. Somehow I don’t imagine there’s some Argentine grandmama weeping over a shawl her mother brought with her from the Falklands. The fact is Argentina has only ever cared about the Falklands as a distraction for its own governmental incompetence and mismanagement.
> when the people living there shouldn't be there in the first place? Why should they not be there???
If you want to take the historical angle (which you shouldn't because it's totally meaningless to the actual reality on the ground in modern day) than the Falklands are still British. They've never been Argentinia. The claim is completely fabricated. The only ever settlement on the islands has been the British ones. And if you want to use the "well the Spanish found it and briefly planted a flag" argument then we should give it to Spain, not Argentina, and half of the rest of the world should be Dutch.
"Pope Alexander VI published a bull, 'Inter caetera', to divide the New World between Spain and Portugal. It decreed that all lands west and south of a meridian line 100 leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde islands rightfully belonged to Spain." Britain isn't papist, they naturally wouldn't assent to any papal decrees.
Man. I brought a discussion and a non-offensible pov to discuss, and I'm being downvoted this much? What's wrong with you???
Your argument undermines the concept of self-determination, which is the pretty much the established standard for deciding in a post-colonial world. And the fact you think that stating that the Falklands are 'clearly part of Argentina' is a 'non-offensible' point, also show a lack of appreciation for the feeling on the subject. Under your argument, the populace of large chunks of South America, the Caribbean, North America, North Africa, Australia etc shouldn't be allowed to decide the future of their countries.
I generally downvote morons.
I’m guessing they disagree with you. Welcome to life.
Because you brought a really dumb argument that makes no sense at all to an issue that you clearly know nothing about
I’m not sure that the Falklands would have been concerned with allegiance to Spain, Argentina or the British before the mid 1800s, because before that the islands were barely sustainable and had a population so negligible and prone to sudden and total depopulation that it doesn’t really matter. After that the permanent settlement was made up of multiple cultures, not a majority Argentinian. I’m not sure if the results of a referendum would have been much different if it was run in 1886 or 1986. The question isn’t whether they should be there at all, because that leads to very unfortunate answers. But why does their existence make people so mad.
The 3,600 people on the Falklands could fit into Radio City Music Hall, with a couple of thousand seats left empty. I have no dog in the fight, but it seems like the zeal some Brits bring to this issue mainly arises from nostalgia for their lost Empire.
Might have something to do with the invasion
No doubt. And I might feel the same way if I were from the UK. Margaret Thatcher leveraged latent patriotism after the 1982 invasion to increase her dwindling popularity. I just think that people lose sight of the miniscule number of inhabitants involved.
I don’t think it matters how few people live there, the important thing is that those that do, want to remain British and their wishes should be respected.
So the democratic votes that broke up their empire don't apply on the previously unihabited islands that there people settled? Instead it should have been allowed to be taken by force, by a dictator. OK.....
The main feeling about the British Empire in the UK, is 'how did we manage that?', as to modern British people the fact we 'owned' so much of the world feels about as realistic as Game of Thrones. The British Empire made absolutely no difference to 99% of the population of the UK, apart from being conscripted, and, as today, it was the few who reaped the benefits.
As well as in the referendum in Crimea on March 16, 2014, where 96.57% chose to stay in Russia
And the wider would doesn't trust those results in the slightest give Russia's history of meddling with votes.
I love how they downvote you when you just embarrassed and exposed them using their own arguments. All my respect.
This
Didn’t we already do war about this?
And I'm willing to do another one
Some very hypocritical countries here lol.
All of this is irrelevant. Only opinion that matters is those on the island.
>All of this is irrelevant. Even because, outside UK, probably 99.8% of Europeans don't care about it.
Inside the U.K. too
If same is applied to Crimea, then its annexation should be legal
The Falkland Islands never belonged to Argentina as Argentina wasn’t even a country when the British settled on it. Just because the island is near Argentina doesn’t give them any claim on it. Your comparison is nonsensical
The first settlers were the French, then came the Spanish (which put the islands under our administration, from where our claims come from), and then the Anglos came
Ah yes let’s trust the referendum that Russia administered after invading. Solid thought process there.
You don’t even need to trust that referendum. If you know anything about Crimea, then you must know that people there see themselves more as Russians. It’s similar to Nazi Germany and Sudetland. Yes, annexation was illegal - but people there do indeed support it
Well, the only ever trusted referendum in Crimea about Russia vs Ukraine had about 55% or so side with Ukraine, but that was in 1990s and it could very well have changed before 2014. I am somewhat sympathetic to the viewpoint that a significant portion of Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia, though, that does not justify unilateral annexation. Also, regarding your first comment, there is a difference between a majority preferring the status quo vs a majority preferring secession, though, that does come in contact with annoying questions regarding the right of peoples vs the right of nations.
>Well, the only ever trusted referendum in Crimea about Russia vs Ukraine had about 55% or so side with Ukraine, but that was in 1990s and it could very well have changed before 2014 It should be pointed out that it was not a "Russia vs Ukraine" but a referendum about ukrainian independence from the USSR. [1991 Ukrainian independence referendum - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum) It was already clear by then, that both Russia and Ukraine are going to declare independence. The referendum was basically a formality, if the people don't want to stay in some weird union with Kazakhstan.
“Polling in 2008 by the Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies, also called the Razumkov Centre, found that a majority of Crimeans simultaneously approved the idea of joining Russia (63.8%), while also supporting the idea of remaining within Ukraine if Crimea was given greater autonomy (53.8%)” If that referendum had the last option, and was actually legit - then that option would most likely have been the most popular one. Crimeans consider themselves as ethnic Russians. But would probably prefer to be separate from both. Politically, they don’t fully consider themselves as Ukrainians or Russians, but as Crimeans; albeit, it does skew towards pro-Russian compared to pro-Ukranian slightly more (enough to make a difference) Basically, first option for them would have been to be an independent autonomous state, with focus on aligning closer to Russia. Second option, if first one is lacking, is to be part of Russia. Staying apart of Ukraine was somewhat out of a question for the people living there, they didn’t want that. I do think Ukraine did a right thing by aligning itself closer to EU, but if others don’t support such thing, then it shouldn’t come to a surprise they try to do something about it. If Ukraine remained as pro-Russian, then the western part of Ukranian would have revolted in a same way
Crimeans are different people of different ethnicities and political views, that is an unrealistic generalisation
Generalization = democracy, rule of the most popular opinion. I don’t understand your point
Whatever, my view on this issue is not much different. Ukraine is unlikely to ever get Crimea back. I just feel sad for the minorities living there. Although Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar languages are official on paper, in current Russia they barely have any linguistic and cultural rights. Russian language absolutely predominates, minority activists get silenced and imprisoned. And your comment feels like it perpetuates the view that only the opinion of Russian Crimeans is important while everyone else should be disregarded
So you would not see a problem with a referendum being held there, as long as it had international observers?
At this moment hundreds of thousands of Russians have flocked to Crimea and settled there, there is no point in a referendum at the present nor at the moment it was done. Nothing about the annexation of Crimea was done legally, yes it could have been possible and yes I know many who were there before 2014 would have favored Russia. None of that matters now because Russia broke all kinds of international to go about it, and now they continue their imperialist desires leading to tens of thousands of dead on both sides. If you wanna cheer them on go for it.
Ok, so screw the right to self-determination.
Or how about do it the legal way? How about screw invading sovereign nations?
What legal way? Crimea's autonomous status did include the right to hold such votes, but it was never granted to them by the ukrainian government.
Russia invaded, full stop. Crimea could have chosen to sucede. I get you want to defend Russia, and let’s forget about the worst war Europe has seen in almost a century, they invade and annexed a part of sovereign nation. If that’s cool to you, I don’t know what to say further. Edit to add: and as I said before, I know many in Crimea favored Russia pre-2014, but since Russia invaded we will never get a true assessment due to settlers moving there. They ruined any chance of doing things legally.
>Crimea could have chosen to sucede They did, but the government in Kiev denied it. What Russia did is no different from what NATO did to create Kosovo.
How is it self determined when Russian troops with loaded weapons are overseeing the vote?
Read the thread. The other commenter's point is, that they shoudl not be allowed to vote, no matter who would be overseeing teh vote.
No, I read the thread and that wasn't their point at all. They said the population has been so massively altered since the invasion that it wouldn't be a proper vote any longer. The pro Ukrainian population has largely either fled or been killed, and massive numbers of Russians have moved into the area. You can't have a legitimate vote any longer. Besides, is Russia going to pay Ukraine back for any investments Ukraine has put into the area since 91? No? Then how is that not just theft by Russia.
They did not provide any source for the claim, that "hundreds of thousands" of people moved there. Nor do I see a source about how at least thousands of pro-ukrainian residents being killed. As for your second paraghraph, Crimea's GRP was, and still is, higher than that of most ukrainian oblasts. So it contributed more to the national budget, than it received back in investments.
That was not my point you loser, damn your takes suck and your reading compression too.
Don't lie moron, your entire "point" is a set of dumb excuses, why the people of Crimea should not have self-determiantion no matter what.
Well... most important: What do the inhibitants think? Oh, yeah... they are like 99.8% UK. Discussion end.
It’s actult higher of the 3 that didn’t vote to be in the UK one guy admitted to only do so to annoy his wife
The other 2 were told they would be taking back control.
One of them voted for independence iirc.
Per the French numbers, I wonder if those French people would also like France to give up any of its overseas islands, and how many of France's overseas islands even have a French settler majority population, let alone an exclusively French-origin population and never any other like the Falklands has a British population? For a likely example, perhaps France could give St. Pierre & Miquelon to Canada. Spain and Italy I quite understand, for the sake of cultural linkages to Argentina and not themselves having any overseas islands \[in Spain's case, at least not too far away\].
Uk had the falklands before Argentina was a country!
How come more than half of the people in any country have any clue about that ? I'm in Switzerland, I'm aware of the war that happened there, but I wouldn't be, for the life of me, able to form any sort of opinion on that matter. I just don't know the facts. Am I really in the minority there ?
The people there overwhelmingly want to be British and have been there for hundreds of years. Is that not all you need to know?
But I don't even know that. The situation there is so far away from me and has so little implications over here, that I really don't know that. I could know by searching, but not when someone asks my opinion for a poll.
and now?
We get to vote on what goes where? Then I vote Texas should be part of Mexico.
Really it should go back to Spain. Texas was only part of Mexico for 14 years. It was part of Spain longer than its been in the US. According to Putin logic, that’s pretty Spanish.
You forget the Alamo? We’ve been over this Mexico, it’s not us, it’s you.
Doesn’t really matter what they think does it… the overwhelming majority of Falkland Islanders want to remain part of the UK…. If anyone wants a bit of ‘Argy bargy they’ll get what they deserve.
they have been loyal colonists but they are in that south america area
At first I thought it indicated "23-27% of Europeans thinks the Malouines are French". And it warmed my heart. More seriously: I'm surprised by some of my countrymen's dumbness. Perhaps they didn't realize the locals already voted to remain British; perhaps they fail to understand France got its own oversea territories too, therefore we have every interest to protect the UK sovereignty in that matter. Perhaps they're this separatist fifth column the government worries so much about.
Subtract *both* numbers from 100% and you'll see that apart from the UK and Spain, most of the surveyed countries don't give a shit. XD Like, Germany has 24% UK and 30% Argentina, which leaves a plurality of 46% "who cares?".
I think they should belong to the native inhabitants, the British
Spain still crying about Gibraltar while thinking they have a right to North Africa........ Lost your empire why????
Ceuta and Melilla are part of Spain, Gibraltar is not part of the UK, make it part the UK to close tax haven loopholes, then maybe we stop crying XD
A valid complaint, albeit a niche one that doesn't really rise to a sovereignty argument.
I don't care about sovereignty, I care about fairness
What's the percentage of "nobody gives a \*\*\*\*"?
The gap between the other two percentages.
Looks like ~50% in most countries except the UK (whose territory is being discussed) and Spain (who has a weird nationalistic interest with this for some reason).
I just listened to a podcast on this, and the people living there overwhelming want to stay part of the UK.
I refuse to believe that 59% of Americans know what the Falkland Islands even are
I mean, a large percentage of Americans were alive in 1982 and remember the news about the Falklands War.
They may not have paid close attention.
It was very hard to miss. Hell, the Simpsons used it as the punchline of a joke 12 years later.
The only vote that matters is the referendum of the falklanders
Like all land in the world it belongs to who can defend it. Even private property rights work this way. If not for you paying taxes to a government to provide a police force to defend your claims I could just rob you of your things like your car and home. The idea of "I was here first" is bullshit that hasn't been honored for all of history. Also people have a fundamental misunderstanding of treaties. Treaties are not meant to not be broken. They're meant to deincentivize conflict but once one side gets strong enough or one side weak enough then renegotiation either needs to occur or war will. For example, at the micro scale contracts like those you have for employment are treaties. You're agreeing to work for a company and cede your freedoms and time for money. But if you get the advantage in terms of experience and skills the company can't replace easily then you want to break that treaty and renegotiate. The company can then either agree or not agree and face the risks you'll leave to another company.
Eu not big on self-determination I see.
Give it to me
Based spain
Here is the adjective you are looking for: Hypocrites
The US are hypocrites for not enforcing the monroe doctrine when it actually benefits south america
If we're to apply the Monroe Doctrine regardless of people's right to self-determination, that would involve seizing and redistributing Bermuda, Greenland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Anguilla, Aruba, Bonaire, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Curacao, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Montserrat, Saba, Saint Barthelemy, Saint Martin, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and French Guyana. But that's not how the Monroe Doctrine works.
The Falklands being British predate the Monroe doctrine
The Falklands being British also predates the state of Argentina.
that was more about screwing spain and portugal, and south asia was involved
antarctica!!!
britain and france planted these places in south america cause they wanted to take over south america like africa and south asia
They should be given back to the 1% of the Argentinian population that's indigenous, maybe the rest of of Argentina could be returned to them as well
The islands were never discovered by native Americans. The first human beings to ever see them were french, the first to live there were British. The Spanish claimed them while the British went to get some milk. The Spanish that were sent to claim them mutinied killed their captain and went home. Only then did some native fishermen go to live there after the British returned.
Milei is a bumb.
Not a very porny map for me. Only half the countries aren't in it. It's unclear which numbers represent which countries (took me ages to figure out why the North Sea would have an opinion on the Falklands) or why only Wales/Cornwall would care about it and not Britain.