Shop now Shop now Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

The Falklands - A New Crisis?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 659 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2012 16:09:06 BDT
Pendragon says:
Hi Molly

Nah, for that there is a football world cup every four years.

But, as it happens, Argentina's Senate early on Thursday 26 April approved the forced takeover of the YPF oil company from Spain's Repsol. According to Associated Press, "Fernandez simply seized the company, giving her government access to billions of dollars' worth of cash, enough energy to answer domestic demand in the short term, and potentially even solving Argentina's chronic money woes in the future." (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UCDCAG0.htm)

Time to get the referee involved, it seems.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2012 16:12:53 BDT
Pendragon says:
A - thanks for the info. Does "A" stand for "Awesome"?

It seems a little curious that Spain, whose economy is in apparently worse shape than that of the UK, and is in the midst of announcing its own austerity measures, still has an aircraft carrier with a complement of Harriers, whereas we have scrapped ours.

There is always lend lease, I suppose, although now it would no doubt be lend/spend instead.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Apr 2012 08:49:37 BDT
Last edited by the author on 28 Apr 2012 08:50:13 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Hi Pen,

Should we let Argentina beat us, (England), that is, as soon as they next play, to calm the waters? Thing is, can they beat Spain? Football is a great way to settle old scores isn't it. Grudge matches are the best.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Apr 2012 13:11:37 BDT
 says:
'A' = A(ble to look up 'Spanish Navy' on Wikipedia). {:D

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2012 16:01:43 BDT
Pendragon, your post referred several times to Argentina's 'seizure' of YPF, which seems to imply that you think it not altogether proper.
You ask me "by what law or right is nationalisation without compensation legal?"
I repeat, "The US Supreme Court ruled in 1964, by 8 to 1, that the Cuban nationalisations were legal under the right of sovereignty."
So nationalisations, even without compensation, are legal; that is, they are actions that are within states' right. They are part of states' legitimate powers, a legitimate exercise of sovereignty.
That is, they are not thefts.
By contrast, if a reader does not return a library book, that is theft.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2012 17:19:54 BDT
Pendragon says:
William

By referring to seizure I was seeking to convey that the taking of the YPF asset was without the consent of the owner, without compensation of any kind being offered, and to further the point of the post, namely the motivation of the Argentine government. But I can see where you obtained the implication you describe.

Anyway, on the question of legality, it seems you are partly correct, except as to the US court decision and the question of compensation.

The 1964 US Supreme Court case was concerned not with the legality of the Cuban nationalisation of the sugar industry but rather with the jurisdiction of the US courts to entertain cases arising out of such a nationalisation. The USSC decided by a majority that the court had no jurisdiction, and that claims against Cuba should be taken up with the US Government.

UN General Assembly Resolution 1803 of 1962 makes it clear that (as you say) nationalisation is an exercise of sovereignty and declared (amongst other things) that "In such cases [of nationalisation] the owner shall be paid appropriate compensation in accordance with the rules in force in the [nationalising] State .. and in accordance with international law".

"appropriate compensation" - hmmm. Plenty of room for ambiguity there!

Nationalisation without compensation is termed expropriation.

Of course, in 1956 Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal Company. But at least Nasser announced that "stockholders would be paid the price of their shares according to today's closing prices on the Paris Stock Exchange".

In relation to Cuba, is it not the case that the US Government continues to insist on compensation for the former (US) owners of the nationalised businesses?

Wiki reads "In 1966-68, the Castro government nationalized all remaining privately owned business entities in Cuba, down to the level of street vendors." Is the street vendor part true? Are all (eg) street hamburger stalls state owned in Cuba?!

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2012 17:42:35 BDT
if the islanders are under going a block aid shouldn't that be an act of war

Posted on 30 Apr 2012 17:44:29 BDT
its all about oil wars again

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2012 17:55:13 BDT
 says:
A 'blockade' is indeed an act of war, but only if the two countries involved are belligerents, otherwise it is called an 'embargo.' An embargo is considered a vigorous diplomatic measure rather than an act of war.

Posted on 30 Apr 2012 18:11:04 BDT
at the end of the day they r trying to starve out the islanders its a act of war give them a dead line to stop or this would be seen as an act of war I'm sure there would back down

Or why don't argentina just send 6001 people to the islands and then have a referendum on should they be under britain or Argentina

But not to sure if we could win a war against argentina as seems to me with all the money we spend on an armed forces to be the bully boys of the posh so they can have there oil kick back money does seem like we are losing to a bunch of gamers with $30 pot bombs

if a country invades another country the people of that country has the right to resist the invading force resistance and if the occupiers is larger and superior by any means necessary

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 10:32:31 BDT
UN General Assembly Resolution 1803 of 1962 indeed stated, "Nationalization, expropriation or requisitioning shall be based on grounds or reasons of public utility, security or the national interest which are recognized as overriding purely individual or private interests, both domestic and foreign. In such cases the owner shall be paid appropriate compensation, in accordance with the rules in force in the State taking such measures in the exercise of its sovereignty and in accordance with international law."
States have often used companies' declared tax returns at the basis for deciding the appropriate level of compensation, which can be embarrassing for the companies!
Wiki (not to be relied on anyway!) refers to Cuban laws of 1966-68, which have since been repealed.

Posted on 1 May 2012 12:57:33 BDT
doctor_jeep says:
Arguably as a sovereign state Argentina has the right to act as it wishes within its own territory - if the Argentinian government acts in contravention of its own laws, then that is a matter for the Argentinian courts, if not, then they answer to the people of Argentina.
However, Argentina must also bear the consequences of her actions - whilst the appropriation of Repsol's assets may be entirely legal under Argentinian law, Spanish law may deem it an act of theft which would imply that Spain has a duty to seek restitution for its "citizen" - how many first world nations would Argentina like to annoy?

Posted on 1 May 2012 13:23:58 BDT
If Spanish law deemed it an act of theft, then Spanish law would be in breach of international law. As UN General Assembly Resolution 1803 of 1962 istated, "Nationalization, expropriation or requisitioning shall be based on grounds ... which are recognized as overriding purely individual or private interests, both domestic and foreign." Note, 'and foreign'.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 13:29:32 BDT
doctor_jeep says:
That would surely imply that the nation of International had some kind of jurisdiction over Spain. Since it doesn't, International (wherever the hell that is) would be best advised to mind its own damned business.

Posted on 1 May 2012 15:32:30 BDT
The UN Charter is the key document of international law. It is "based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security."
The UN was founded on the principle of state sovereignty, the right of nations to decide their own future.
So Spain is free to make its own laws, but when laws conflict, the Charter would take precedence.
And, in fact, Spain's laws of course do not deem nationalisation to be an act of theft, so the question doesn't even arise.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 16:57:38 BDT
doctor_jeep says:
If Spain does not consider the nationalisation of Repsol's assets to be an act of theft, then indeed Repsol and its investors have no recourse to law. As I think someone pointed out upthread, morality is neither here nor there in the affairs of nations.
Your reply to doctor_jeep's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

Posted on 2 May 2012 01:49:11 BDT
Molly Brown says:
"The value of your investment can go down as well as up", they can also disappear, like many people's pensions, that were stolen by the Financial Markets. Was that an act of war on the people?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 15:34:25 BDT
ric_mac says:
Not sure whether you might have been referring to a post where I said: < Foreign policy is often an extension of commercial interest [...] and commercial interest is frequently devoid of any moral dimension >

But to clarify, while I think that's true, I don't think it's either a good MO, nor the best aspiraition. Governments should/must put their own national interest first (it's their duty), but preferrably not at the expense of the legitimate rights of anyone else.

As to nationalisations, whatever the letter of the law permits, they're probably better arrived at through negotiation with private ownership and the payment of fair recompense (unless the prior private ownership was itself achieved through commercial piracy or force of arms, or has been disadvantageously parasitic on the well-being of the population conducting the nationalisation).

Posted on 2 May 2012 15:42:26 BDT
ric_mac writes, "As to nationalisations, whatever the letter of the law permits, they're probably better arrived at through negotiation with private ownership and the payment of fair recompense (unless the prior private ownership was itself achieved through commercial piracy or force of arms, or has been disadvantageously parasitic on the well-being of the population conducting the nationalisation)."
When people write about 'the letter of the law', they're usually about to diss the law.
All too often the prior private ownership was indeed "achieved through commercial piracy or force of arms" and was "parasitic on the well-being of the population."
The whole history of empires teaches us that force and fraud were used to exploit the local populations.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 18:08:22 BDT
ric_mac says:
< When people write about 'the letter of the law', they're usually about to diss the law >

So you'll have no problem pointing out where I did that?

< All too often the prior private ownership was indeed "achieved through commercial piracy or force of arms" and was "parasitic on the well-being of the population."/The whole history of empires teaches us that force and fraud were used to exploit the local populations >

Which is why I included the phrase in my post (for you to repeat as though you were in some way correcting what I had typed). However, I'll stick by < [nationalisations are] probably better arrived at through negotiation with private ownership and the payment of fair recompense >, as I previously posted. 'Negotiation' is the discursive, non-violent means of arriving at a mutually agreeable decision affecting two parties whose interests are initially at variance. 'Fair' means just and proportionate. And 'better' (in this context) means avoiding bellicosity or commercial conflict and maintaining equitable relationships.

Posted on 3 May 2012 11:59:12 BDT
I'm not 'correcting' you by repeating what you wrote!
And I completely agree with you that negotiation is the best way forward, to arrive at a mutually agreeable decision that is just and proportionate and avoids bellicosity or commercial conflict while maintaining equitable relationships.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 13:29:14 BDT
ric_mac says:
I don't want to waste anyone's time with a sidetrack, but you set the tone of your previous post by your comment < When people write about 'the letter of the law', they're usually about to diss the law >, clearly implying that was my intention and that you were therefore, apparently, taking an opposing position to my post. In that light, repeating and commenting upon the second quotation from my post wasn't so much an indication of agreement as an emphasis of the parenthetical qualification (acquisition by piracy etc) in order to negate the preceding idea in the sentence (negotiation and [particularly, I suspect] recompense). For me, fair recompense would take into account how fairly the asset or resource came into the possession of the private owner, the previous investment of initiative, time, capital and labour by all parties into the asset and the relative benefit or disadvantage previously enjoyed or suffered by all parties from exploitation of the asset. Different individual circumstances would dictate different outcomes of 'recompense', including the gift of a one-way ticket out of the country for ruthlessly exploitative parasites. Let's not forget, also, when a government nationalises an asset that the benefits need not automatically cascade down to the rest of the population. They might well be retained by the ruling 'elite' and ordinary folks might then actually be worse off. We can all think of examples.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 15:16:19 BDT
Dear ric-mac, sorry if I misunderstood you. I genuinely think we agree!

Posted on 3 May 2012 16:44:26 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 May 2012 16:45:16 BDT
ric_mac says:
... And If I misunderstood your intent, William, I am also sorry. Thank you for your very gracious post.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 19:06:12 BDT
Last edited by the author on 4 May 2012 19:11:28 BDT
Charlieost says:
Spin dear Spin. I become increasingly bored with myth and propaganda masquerading as history. If you have any interest at all in that particular period I suggest that you seek out an unbiased historical author and read about it.

Until that unlikely event I would suggest that you at least recognise that Cromwell really did not seem to have a great deal of enthusiasm for anything.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Plastic bags...views from the real world. 13 3 minutes ago
A quick up date for Brexit/leavers... 94 6 minutes ago
Stuck in traffic and daft advice 16 7 minutes ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests proving homosexuality is from parental neglect 48 1 hour ago
US foreign policy...views from the real world. 21 1 hour ago
6 good chances each year that Birmingham could face regeneration 34 1 hour ago
Today's thrilling installment 95 2 hours ago
Human nature...views from the real world. 4 2 hours ago
It's alright slating the Russians over Olympic drug taking BUT how many of the disabled lot take drugs, they are always popping pills but do they ever make the news. 12 3 hours ago
Right wing politics, left wing politics and Skynet. 3 3 hours ago
Next step in common sense drug laws. 4 3 hours ago
We have a new leader. Fireman Sam rips up the Koran live on Channel 5. Enough is enough says Fireman Sam, 8 3 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  62
Total posts:  659
Initial post:  2 Feb 2012
Latest post:  27 Feb 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions