I think what Marcantilan is trying to get across is that in Argentinas eyes, the islanders are squatting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting) on Argentinian land, whereas Britain claims it to be British land. The arguement is not about the islanders or their allegience but who owns the land that they're on.

The trouble is when you start backdating claims to territory then the modern US is squatting on various American tribes lands, Britain is squatting on god-alone-knows whose land, and let's not even get started on Belgium.

At the end of the day though, something that both Brits and Argentines will agree on is that this whole issue is being blown out of proportion by politicians seeking to distract the general public from economic troubles. For the most part, the British and Argentinian public have 'agreed to disagree' on the Falkland/Malvinas issue after the war and just want to get on with getting through this global recession.

I see what you're saying and agree though I think that to the Islanders themselves it must be somewhat disconcerting.

Britain doesn't claim the islands as British tho
The islands are self governing but have chosen to remain affiliated to Great Britain
The Islanders many of them 8th or 9th Generation can hardly be described as recent immigrants or colonists,
They are in effect an independent small nation who rely on the UK gov for support especially in foreign policy and defense matters

Sadly those facts can be forgotten when there is the chance there are huge mineral and oil reserves in the area...and that goes for both sides.

Suspend all referendums...

We are going to ask the Pope about it! :cool:

British history says that is not the case.

Quite a suprise to many but I imagine quite an honour for your country :cool:

Wikipedia says that it has been a constant going and leaving there, but when I oversee it all it seems to me that the French were first to land, almost simultaneously with the British. The French folded voluntarily and left their claims to Spain. However, it seems the British were the first to officially formulate a claim for the islands, and although they left for some time when they had this little argument with their impertinent Northern colonies, they also left behind a badge that reiterated that claim, making it clear they did not mean to give it up.

On the issue of Palestinian Arabs I have argued that even illegal shiftings of borders after some time, after some decades and generation, creat new facts on the ground that one cannot correct anymore wihtout needing to create new injustice. Therefore I side with the Israelis after these 70+ years. I would not but sit on the fence, if the founding of Israel would have been only some few years ago.

I also said in past discussions that I oppose the way NATO intervened in Kosovo and pushed the Serbs out, allowing that Albanians moved from Albania into Kosovo in great numbers and afterwards arguing that Kosovo always had been theirs. I never accepted that "logic" and still do not accept it, but maybe will in half a century, if I would still be around then, which is impossible. Around 90& of the Albanians in Kosovo are there since just a few years.

These two cases I just explain to illustrate that when it comes to people's referendum whether they want to be Argentinian or british, this referendum alone doe snot count that much indeed. What gives it validity is not the outcome itself, but the long time that the people giving that referendum already are on th island. The time factor. The Argentinians, on their behalf, have no such time argument to defend their claim for the islands. They also were not the first to raise any claims in the past. The first were the French and the British. The British have not taken away anything from argentinia.

Well, that'S how I see it.