Argentina walks out of Prosecutors organization to protest Falklands’ membership
Argentina walked out of the International Association of Prosecutors, IAP, because the Falkland Islands were admitted as a full member of the organization according to press reports from Buenos Aires.
Argentina’s Prosecutor Office notified the decision to IAP offices in The Hague in disagreement with the acceptance of the (disputed) Malvinas Islands, under British rule, as a member of the organization.
Argentina which is a member since 1998, “rejects the recent IAP decision to admit as member a pretended legal department of a territory submitted to a sovereignty controversy”, said the letter signed by Argentina’s Attorney General Esteban Righi and sent to IAP president Francois Falletti from France.
“Such a decision is contrary to the UN General Assembly Resolutions that acknowledge the existence of a sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, Georgia del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and the adjoining maritime spaces”, adds the letter released Thursday.
Last May the government of the Falkland Islands announced it had been granted organisational membership of the IAP. “Membership is considered a recognition that rule of the law and independence of prosecution in that country complies with internationally accepted standards”.
The Attorney General fulfils the function in the Falkland Islands of Director of Public Prosecutions, and his or her independence from executive control is guaranteed by the 2008 Islands Constitution.
The IAP is the only world wide association of Prosecutors and was established in 1995 with the support of the United Nations. There are currently over 130 organisational members from all regions of the World. Its main purpose is to develop cooperation between prosecutors to enable offenders to be brought to justice more effectively whilst promoting the implementation of universal standards for the Rule of Law.
Argentina is an organisational member, and recently hosted the IAP Latin American Regional Conference in Buenos Aires.
However Argentina regarding the Falklands has a standing sovereignty claim policy extensive to all international forums and organizations, which seems to have become more intense since British companies last February begun drilling for oil in Falklands’ waters.
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 03rd 2012
UK warns Argentina on cutting off the air link of Falklands with South America
-
Feb 03rd 2012
Malvinas dispute helps ‘to distract UK public opinion’ from serious domestic problems
-
Feb 02nd 2012
Iron Lady, basically a mediocre film, according to the Argentine reviews
-
Feb 02nd 2012
Falklands/Malvinas: One can only hope for a new realistic perspective
234 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Holdings
Vargas (implanted Spanish surname), if you are so worried about being a European in America, why don't you go back to your home town in Spain?
Why mention the multinational BP and then post a link to Wikipedia that discusses FIH? Are you trying to divert attention from these representatives that have publicly embarrased your country?
Multinational corporations can set up shop were ever they wish (subject to local regulations and international free trade laws). Since it is the democratically elected government of the Falkland Islands that pass the laws in the islands then any company wishing to trade with the islands can do so. This is regardless of ineffective and meaningless Argentine laws that only make Argentina look more of a laughing stock.
For Example:
Argentina - Argos Resources, we warn you not to drill or else.....
Argos - or else what?
Argentina - We will pass a law!
Argos - fine by us.
Argentina - It's not fair, MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS!!!!!!
Argos - NUTS, we're going drilling!
Dr Beef, who will be in Florida next week :-)
Argos Resources.... Hmmmmmm.
Another very interesting investment opportunity.
Get all the info you need here!
www.argosresources.com/
PS:
Only 4 months back on the platform lease and a whole lot of drilling ahead......
At an operational cost of 400.000U$D /day, cash flow must be an issue.
Any new share emission on the horizon?
On another interesting note, I thought the YouTube kid said such an organization was unimportant, must have been important enough for such an immature response to be warranted!
I see Alex Vargas the illigal Argentine in Canada is up to his usual posting off topic, anything to change an embarresing moment eh Alex ?
The Falkland Islands is playing cricket in Scotland at Falkland, a vehement protest to the Scottish Parliament should be made.
The new earwig eradication campaign in the Falklands is gaining momentum. An immediate protest to WWF is called for, followed by boycotting all imports from evil multi-national chemical companies.
The advent of spring weather has caused the grass to start growing again, contrary to promises made in 1326 that nothing would ever change. Seriously reccommend the Argentine Government calls for the banning of sunshine in the Falkland Islands and sanctions against the solar system.
Human Rights Watch consider the Falklands human rights well protecetd. Put an immediate stop to all human rights activity, praise and reward terrorists, give haven to genocidal maniacs, protect 1980's exterminators and pretend it was all someone elses fault..............oh sorry, you've already done that ....................
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRWcPoxmZos
If the Falkland/Malvinas are accepted into the United Nations, will Argentina quit?
Bleat!
In terms of the current drillers. Rockhopper has two options that shareholders would be happy with.
1) A major farm in from a big player that will shoulder the burden of future costs at a smaller % of the company. e.g Shell or BHP to pay for 70% of drilling costs for 50% of the company licences. This can de-risk the smaller expo company and give support to the sp, despite the fact that any profts from wells will be halved. At present RKH would want a blow your socks off deal as they have a confimed oil find just requireing flow testing, any farm in would have to pay top dollar to an expo with confirmed oil. Hopefully 2 confirmed finds by middle of August.
2) Further share issue at a higher price as possible to generate maximum income for minimum dilution. As RKH recetly pulled off with a placing at £2.80. The sp is currently at £3.22 so this placing had no downward pressure and the commitment by the IIs helped provide more support to the sp.
Argos Resources? Will wait and see what happens after IPO - a lot of sentiment will be priced in as this is probably one of the most publicied explorations in recent times.
The OG lease will probably be extended for a good while yet after this first round; a good consistent income generator for Diamond.
1) Cricket: I know...... I couldn’t attend :-)
Do you have the results... I can’t find them on the net :-(
Tuesday 20th July 2010 (Islands v Berkshire!)
Wednesday 21st July 2010 (Fife v Islands!)
Thur sday 22nd July 2010 (Fife v Berkshire!)
2) Earwigs: Feel free to eradicate as many as possible of those little buggers, we dislike them too.
3) Grass: Refresh the British soldiers about the combustibility of tussock please.
4) Que?
Normally, I would prefer to cut my left arm off rather than beein caught thinking about the idea of stock speculation......... but..........you have a way of writing about this stuff............ you are a kind of “Asimov of the oil shares”........ a “Pied Piper of the South Atlantic Hamelin”................. you make it sound all so plausible............
Interesting.............
I think you will love to have the support of this organization instead
Merco Press
”OAS assembly gives full support to Argentina’s Malvinas claim
The Organization of American States (OAS) ratified support of the Argentine demand to seek dialogue with the United Kingdom in order to find a peaceful and definitive solution to the ‘colonialism situation’ of the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, and South Sandwich and the surrounding maritime areas.
Decrease fontIncrease fontPrintShareComment
Argentine Foreign Affairs minister Jorge Taiana
A declaration presented by Brazil was approved by acclamation in the fortieth OAS General Assembly, which ended Tuesday in Lima, Peru.
The representatives from Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Paraguay, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Granada, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Uruguay gave their word to make their support explicit.”
It is not about plausibility, but rather probability and the lessons from the market. Look at FOGL and how a farm in has supported it's sp (even when the margin drill of Toroa resulted in a duster). Look at RKH and how it's sp was unaffected by the recent placing. These are real results and can be used as learning outcomes to make future investment descisons in the region.
I don't present a rose tinted picture of the FI drilling. It is very high risk and very early days. So far with only three drills it has been very good news with an oil find for RKH, oil shows and a possible gas find for DES (which was oversold) and a first drill in a completley undrilled basin, FOGL. North Sea drilling of the UK coast hit 5 or 6 dusters before the first find.
I also have interest in Petro Matad which is an exploration company in Mongolia - still risky but is onshore and with a huge customer (China) on their doorstep.
Once you have financial interest in something it is amazing how you start to educate yourself on the company, sector etc.
Always do your own research as it is your money!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Company
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Island
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Federation_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uqair_Protocol_of_1922
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
did any of you see the new british passports ?www.falklandislands.com/images/view/464/489/259
as it turns out a colony needs some paper work.
www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/A_HRC_WG6_1_GBR_1_E.pdf
and they pasted twice in the document the expantionist visions in Antarctic Territory and Indian Ocean Territory, in case anyone had any doubts of UK's intentions in Antartica.
Freedom of Information (No. 2) Bill Friday, June 04, 1999
[MR. HINDS] 870
“1970s. This was an affair that had to do with the purchase of helicopters by the British Government. The firm that was producing it in the United Kingdom went Bust, it closed down, and the question was who would supply helicopters to the military arm of that state thereafter. There was a big issue about whether theyshould look to Europe or to the United States. Then you had the Clive Ponting Affair. That came after the war for the Malvinas—those islands off Argentina—the Falkland Islands, as the British called them. The Argentines called them the Malvinas—if I recall. A senior public servant shared with a Member of Parliament the fact that the Prime Minister of that country had misled the House.”www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh19990604.pdf
Almost every link you posted has absolutly nothing to do with this atrial. well done.#
“the Falkland Islands, as the British called them”
Correction, as the WORLD calls them. Check any map.
A lecturer........ that explains your style and patience with some elements in here :-)
But as I said before...........I’ll rather loose a limb than speculate one peso on the market.
Primary production and work is my thing.
Keeps me healthy and poor.
Anyhow.... always a pleasure to learn....
Keep posting
We already went through all the OAS crap while you were finding your brain. About as relevant as C24. Get a grip.
@24. Hi gassy. There are too many people on here with real brains and minds to go through your 16 randomly-selected links. If you have something to say, say it. In your own words. An article does not make a point for you. So you have no points. Try again. And don't forget to be polite and courteous.
www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/A_HRC_WG6_1_GBR_1_E.pdf
”B: Country Background
Government
4. The United Kingdom is a unitary State comprising England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are not part of the UK, but the UK is responsible for their external affairs (see paragraphs 6 to 9 below). England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal systems. However some Acts of Parliament (including the Human Rights Act 1998) apply throughout the United Kingdom.”
“the Falkland Islands, as the British called them”
Correction, as the WORLD calls them. Check any map”
www.tryscrum.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/islasmalvinas.jpg
momento24.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/malvinas1.jpg
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Falkland_Islands_topographic_map-es_(argentinian_names_places).svg
for me it is enough
@Rhaurie-Craughwell
I know you miss me mate, so here Youtube kid ready to entertain a little bit.
You’ve got me mate I have to confess that now I ‘m so scared even to post here and especially about your Royal Navy.
I’m so frighten especially for you own lads when lunching missiles Sea dart type. Haha
And you want to send that crap here mate? This is your advanced technology? Hahaha
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IosXz9rNsJw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOVX4bsUQr4&feature=related
By the way do you have the olds Sea Wolf missiles in service? O bloody yes you do.
And, where is your advanced technology mates? Because this has at least 60 years old.
There is no territorial integrity if a territory is not integral. The population of the Territory have no racial or ethnic connections with the immigrant colonists on the mainland. It is true that the immigrant colonists, after rebellion, choose to call themselves a nation. However, that nation did not exist until AFTER British sovereignty was established.
Also to your clips:
”Sea Dart missiles to shot down an Iraqi Silkworm missile that was threatening the USS Missouri (BB-63) and allied minehunters; the first (and only) successful missile vs missile engagement at sea in combat by any Navy”
The other american ship in the area shot the USS Missouri.
NicoDim, who think's because a constitution is not in a single document it must be “unwritten”, you can go back Spain too... or Italy or where it is you come from.
“ok. any map that isn't argentine”
No mate you better mean any map that isn’t in English or related with US (Who uses the 2 names to don’t upset you too much)
Italian call the Islands “Isole Malvinas” and your nation “Regno Unito” haha I’m not joking see it by yourself. Spanish call Malvinas, German “Malvinen/Malvinas Inseln” do you need more proofs?
www.italiachiamaitalia.net/news/149/
“Silkworm missile” and old Chinese missile designed in the 60 with a speed of 800km/h.
Good achievement, but what about something flying at 4.700 km/h speed?
Zethe come on mate get out for a instance of your unidirectional English little world.
The world is far, far, far bigger that little Britain.
@ Mr. Dr. Roberts
“NicoDim, who think's because a constitution is not in a single document it must be “unwritten”, you can go back Spain too... or Italy or where it is you come from.”
Its not my think UK’s constitutional lawyers say that like Jack
Straw .
The Big Question: Why doesn't the UK have a written constitution, and does it matter?
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-why-doesnt-the-uk-have-a-written-constitution-and-does-it-matter-781975.html
“Why are we asking this now?
Because Jack Straw has used a visit to Washington to hint that Britain could finally get a written constitution spelling out citizens' rights and codifying this country's political system. The Justice Secretary is already working on a new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, clearly defining people's relationship to the state, as part of a wide-ranging package of constitutional reform. But he has, for the first time, also said the Bill could be a step towards a full written constitution to “bring us in line with the most progressive democracies around the world”. Like Argentina : )
Why don't we have a written constitution?” Because you are still in the middle age.
Yeah I can go whenever I want to any European country within EU including Britain but I choose
Earth calling nicotine, jack straw is out of a job
to “bring us in line with the most progressive democracies around the world”. Like Argentina : )
we would be in the shOt if we were like argentina
Telegraph UK:
“Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil
Jack Straw has reignited the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber by admitting for the first time that trade and oil were an essential part of the Government’s decision to include him in a prisoner transfer deal with Libya.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6114982/Jack-Straw-admits-cave-in-over-Libyan-Lockerbie-bomber-demands.html
it is something you do when your country is wrong
something quite alien to Argentina
on second thoughts do :-)
Argentine politicians learned their attitudes from the british PM examples at the UN meetings with UK ! apparently denial is how things get done with this groups. we are in a free world, last time I checked, I think british call it “self-determination”, I googed the definition “something along the lines of -In politics it is seen as the freedom of the people of a given territory or national grouping to determine their own political status and how they will be governed without undue influence from any other country” you should all try it sometimes, it might help you shed the royal dictated governor weight and allow you all to think on your own..
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Company
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Island
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Federation_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uqair_Protocol_of_1922
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
www.falklandislands.com/images/view/464/489/259
www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/A_HRC_WG6_1_GBR_1_E.pdf
www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh19990604.pdf
#35 I am proud to be Argentino !
and argentina should say sorry for the inocent people it has murdered over the years, but with people like you , the gastapo has no chance
i think all this pushing, is to cover up there governments corruption, they want a war,, any war, it does not matter, as long as it distracts the people from what is really going on, you can never ever trust Argentina, even the stupid Brazilians admitted the other day, they supported Argentina against the British, and this is how they treat her, she just cant be trusted, but the next war may not be between Argentina and the brits, the other south American countries may yet beat us to it, if they keep pushing, its south America that will put Argentina in its place,, and good rid dens
good luck to the south Americans, the sooner the better
@44. You already said that.
The Falkland islands have been British for 320 years - Get Used To It :-)
hey what is a “gastapo” mate? Another brit NGO?
Do they sale gas or is a secret service?
Or is GasTapon to stop the gas?
@harrier61
“So you are an EU national? “Yeah I can go whenever I want to any European country within EU including Britain but I choose”. What? To stay in Argentina? Good. But please keep giving clues. I still have friends/contacts in the Immigration Service and Special Branch.”
Yeap mate I’m also EU national and I never do the “Immigration service stuff as you might think“ like a large population of Argies. Where do you live in a box in UKI?
They say good day “Sir welcome to UK”, they don’t even bother to see my passport when they see the cover 1st class EU nationals have this special prerogative. haha.
And Harrier please, don’t play the fool when you apply to the tale that EU back you.
You know that I know that both know how things are in Europe and who are the heavy weights and you are not in the list.
We laugh about your demonstration of super Britain. But it is quite entertaining how far you can go. Haha
Especially when you want to send your RN and your 4 typhoon, haha I love this part.
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB299/index.htm
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB239d/index.htm
and now timerman Jr. is working for the country, I can hardly blame him for what Argentina is done to his father in the past, if we are going to linch anyone lets start with pirats in Malvinas who have not changed one bit.
www.en.mercopress.com/2010/06/24/timerman-reaffirms-argentina-s-unrenounceable-falklands-malvinas-claim
and by the way the junta murdered more then 30.000 Argentine civilians compared to how many british civilians in Malvinas ?
0
that should show you who'm the military junta was working for.
I'm sure the Prosecutors Organisation will not worry about the loss of Argentina anyway. Perhaps the FIG should find many more international organisations to join ... including Mercosur or the OAS maybe :-)
why don't you read it for us ?
Mercosur
On 25 June 1996 the Mercosur Member countries Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay plus Bolivia and Chile expressed in the Declaration of Potrero de los Funes their full support for Argentina’s rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, sending a clear message from the sub-regional bloc on the need to find a solution to the controversy. Their full support was reiterated in the Asuncion Declaration of 15 June 1999.
On 1 July 2008, the Presidents of the Mercosur Member States and Associated Countries issued a joint statement that included the following paragraphs:
“[Member States and Associated Countries] renew their commitment with the ‘Declaración sobre Malvinas’ signed at Potrero de los Funes on 25 June 1996, and reaffirm their support for the legitimate rights of the Argentine Republic in the sovereignty dispute regarding the Question of the Malvinas Islands”.
“Likewise, they stress that the adoption of unilateral measures is incompatible with the pronouncements by the United Nations, and recall the regional interest on seeing the protracted sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, reach a solution at the earliest, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the declarations of the Organisation of American States.”
“They further state that, in respect of the Treaty of Lisbon modifying the Treaty of the European Union and the Constitutive Treaty of the European Community, that the inclusion of the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands in
I'm also in RKH, DES and was in FOGL, but had to take the hit and move on.
Like yourself, also in MATD with the addition of FPM and LKI
These feckwitz have just screwed up a soya oil deal with the Chis and shot themselves in the foot once more, very handy for the last methinks as Friday showed!
These deadheads with all the warmongering talk dont seem to realise that missiles now can literally chose their own window due to advances in GPS apps ... accuracy, ...
It saved the lives of some 200 american navy personell, if it had not been for the british warship in the area the iraq missile would have sunk the ship. The american anti missile system failed, instead of shooting the missile, it shot the other american ship.
Your insult failed.
Really? oh my god how advanced is UKI on this days.
I also like the TV rendering lock target (ARM type) so I will see your face when you see one of them in front of you.
oh bloody it seems we have some old stuff like that I just wonder who sold that to us. Do you know him? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martel_TV-Guided_Missile_-_Elvington_-_BB.jpg
@55. More crap from South America's local cash-and-carry!
Actually, they don't. So I know you're lying. No-one gets through Immigration without a document check. No Brits, no diplomats, no heads of state.
Argentina walking out because the Falkland Islands were there, at least the prosecutor's organisation didn't pander to them, unlike the fishing conference last year.
The usual racist and hateful crap from our Argentine contributors, leave them to spit their dummy out, they're not worth responding to.
Though I do see that some of you seem to enjoy it ;-)
Someone mentioned here the Orwellian Doublethink concept
Many years since that “1984” book.........
How was it?.... Ohhh yessss......:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Does it only apply to Argentina?
Think!..... Doublethink?........
It is fun to feed the troll!
Harrier you live in a box mate I passed several times for your immigration and they never, never bothered to see inside my EU passport.
We EU national from the continent just show the cover of it in the EU national gate and that’s it. The guy in the EU gate say welcome sir to UKI and I’m not talking about just me all the National from the same plane pass simple as that. If you have a passport of an important country within EU of course.
If you are stopped sorry we don’t what can I tell you mate.
Next time I go to UKI land I will tell you if they are stopping EU national now????
British also have to make a test of residence if they are more than 3 month outside the UKI and want to apply for any benefit from the govt. I was really surprised when English guy told me that.
They are considered as a not permanent resident of UKI seems you loose you citizen status I don’t know.
Ask you local MP what can I say mate.
UK is full of holds in check points or do you really believe that all that immigration in UKI went with legal permits and visas?
You cannot be so naive, are you?
Your customs service has a full time job targeting people from Africa, Middle East, Australia, NZ, Asian, Canadian, American and some South American countries.
This is a long queue yeap it is. Oh wait a minute you have to use the same queue?
May be this will explain your fantasy world in Northern England you seem to be from there Harrier Am I right?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262177/Six-Home-Office-claims-holes.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490830/Immigration-Home-Office-statistics-catastrophic-cover-300-000-foreign-workers.html
www.balitapinoy.net/uk_immigration_matters.html
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127819.ece
You sure you aint got a pet passport nicotine cos if you have been
neutered and microchipped they wont want to see it
“never bothered to see inside my EU passport. ”
Aren't you argentinian?
“The guy in the EU gate say welcome sir to UKI and I’m not talking about just me all the National from the same plane pass simple as that. If you have a passport of an important country within EU of course. ”
How would he know you are from an important EU country if he's not looked at your passport. infact, how would he know you had an EU passport?
is that all you can do, buck up spelling Gestapo] does it really matter,
but if you wish to get technical abt it, is not NICODIN] A DANGER TO YOUR HEALTH, or is the [t] missing, ah spelling, a word between to peoples to understand each other, why then cant we understand you lololo
It is a modern city with wide streets and well drawn avenues with wide sidewalks and vegetation of different species of trees irrigated by canals, from which it derives its nickname oasis town.
It has an important accommodation infrastructure and transportation. It highlights modern buildings and the surroundings, the reservoir and Ullum dam, spas, museums, large plantations of vines, and various types of agriculture, with wine being the most important
do you miss it, living in Mississauga Alex
Besides the Sea Dart missile system and the type 42 destroyers are being replaced by the new and the most advanced destroyer in the world, the type 45 destroyer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyers
type 45 destoyer - 7500 tons
Almirante Brown class destroyer - 3360 tons
Also if anything kicks off down at the Falklands the royal navy doesn't even have to send any surface ships because of the tomahawk cruise missile system on the Astute class submarine (nuclear powered). Which can hit targets accurately from 2500km away
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_missile
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine
But seriously argentina can not match this power(this is only for self defence hence why they are “deterrents”)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_class_submarine
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfpmhAF6_YE
I'm not trying to offend anyone. But to say the Royal navy is bad, you must still be on something
You cannot do anything mate I can always apply to the Brussels rules and the European Court of Justice and their decision will be mandatory for any EU estate including UKI Govt. and your special IS friend.
So give me your name and address so I can make my case against you for threatening me to use your “special power” to refuse me to enter into UKI and also I will add “discrimination against to a EU national” if I win you will end up in jail in UKI. I promise you that mate. Its that simple for me.
This rules are also are valid in the Malvinas Islands now as EU included them as protectorate of EU.
@zethe
Have you ever got an EU passport mate?
We can enter to UKI just we our ID cards simple as that and we have the same full rights than any other British.
We are allowed to move and work freely with in any EU country, we can cross borders just we our ID cards, we can vote in any country we are residents. And also we can apply for any benefit that are entitles any other British citizen with full right.
Like housing benefit, unemployment benefit, income support, health care, etc. just like Gordon Brown.
We are giving free advise if any moron give us some trouble of if we don’t agree with any decision of your justice or court or whatsoever. We can go to the court of ECJ and any decision by that court is mandatory to any court In UKI or for the Brit govt.
I also can visit you in Malvinas are there as now all this rights have being extended to EU/Argies after the inclusion of the Island within EU.
We always win mate I will call Cristina to give her the Idea to send there 10.000 EU/Argies to get some self determination stuff. You cannot stop us legally else as I said to HAHArries ECJ Rules.
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmQUYMNVw4M
www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9xTWN6j60Q
“You cannot do anything mate I can always apply to the Brussels rules and the European Court of Justice and their decision will be mandatory for any EU estate including UKI Govt. and your special IS friend.
So give me your name and address so I can make my case against you for threatening me to use your “special power” to refuse me to enter into UKI and also I will add “discrimination against to a EU national” if I win you will end up in jail in UKI. I promise you that mate. Its that simple for me. ”
Don't threaten me, dimwit.
Point me at my mention of “special power”. Point me at “refuse me to enter into UKI ”. Point me at “discrimination against to a EU national”.
Typical Argentine. Use your imagination.
Me, I'm just a good British citizen. Doing my best to ensure that all British laws and regulations are complied with.
Maybe it's been a while since you've been here. Try www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/travellingtotheuk/Enteringtheuk/arrivingatukborder/
www.bbc.co.uk/news/10596531
Well I guess plan B will be that all pirates return to motherland England and return the islands to the real owner [and we all agree with you [MARCO] we will hand the islands to the real owners [the falklanders] and you all go home and hand back the argentines to the real owners [who you stole it of] [so we are egrred then]
Malvinas Argentinas.
What no Scotland, oh my fault not a Abdel Baset al-Megrahi debate
“I knew all along you were an (implanted) Spanish colonist in Argentina. How else would you have an EU passport?”
My EU passport was not issued by Spain but I can get one if I like or from Britain is I really want too.
I just wonder how a British doesn’t know that? your passport says Falkland?
Umm you have to go to the other gate I guess like the Jamaican and Pakistani.
@harrier61
“Me, I'm just a good British citizen. Doing my best to ensure that all British laws and regulations are complied with.”
I’m not threatening you else I’m telling you what I will do if your Special Friend or whatever tries to stopped me to enter into any EU’ territory jurisdiction where EU laws are automatic extended including now Malvinas.
And now that Malvinas joint the IAP would be easy to catch you on the fly mate if you are there.
And just in case I will sue you in Argentina too to extend my legal protection within Mercosur and the whole America Interpol also covers very well all this area.
And about your law enforcement fine what it’s in your UKI Border Agency but in Heathrow the guys are so busy that they only have time to see the covers of the passport not question, nothing I’ve never where scanned as there says. They are more concentrated on luggage, bomb searching, drugs, etc but that is in custom service what is another thing.
And as I said before UK is full of security holes for a country which is in war with terrorists.
It is quite easy to enter to UKI and once you there due to lack of internal controls you can do whatever you want.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX3WN36Koyg&NR=1 BTW I support Muslim self-Determination and you?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5358680/Pakistani-immigrants-exploit-bogus-colleges-to-enter-UK.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292679/Unmanned-port-handed-immigrants-open-door-Britain-Border-Agency-says.html
Malvinas belong to Argentinas! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
I just wanted to point out that Argentina has stormed out and is anyone bothered?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmQUYMNVw4M&feature=PlayList&p=E56F93450337294F&playnext=1&index=22
Can you tell me boys what part according with you make no sense?
The holes in UK security borders or the part that all rules of EU zone apply to Malvinas too?
Just in case the later use your “coco” and think, if UK has incorporated overseas territories to be considered equal beneficiaries of UKI in Europe and the EU accepted you are as part of EU zone mate in terms of law and rules. With the exception of immigration policies. For example Spain for so many years was full member of EU zone but was not granted full rights to move and work in other countries like Germany, Italy or France.
I’ve discovered in the meantime that your status as a British is not equal to British born or naturalize in Britain according with the 2002 act. You have a BNO type passport, lets say that and Argentinean without a EU passport will get easy into the EU than you mates, haha.
So you are not considered as an EU nationals else “British Dependent Territories citizenship”.
I’ll investigate more but seems that you can enter to UKI but you are required a Visa for word outside Britain.
If so I now can understand why do don’t understand Argies/Euro status we even born in Argentina are granted by some countries full Euro citizen status.
Now I can see your point of view about immigration in Britain you have to pass for the gates as not EU nationals. Hahah
But I have the right to enter to any territory under EU jurisdiction is my right mate.
And Malvinas is under EU protectorate now, haha
What part makes not sense buddies?
An we have a lot of influence in Continental Europe Argies deputy in Italy like Luis Pallaro, Ricardo Merlo, Giuseppe Agneli, etc 3 deputies and 2 senator.
In Germany we are like Brothers, House of Orange the next king would have Argy blood. Haha
I have to investigate if Gordon was not Argie after all, haha
This is really projection of power what do you think mates?
They don't.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union#Summary
I am from Argentina, unlike the pirats in fakland I am not causing trouble for my mother land, nor will I even because I am not a pirats, I am a lover of rights and freedoms witch I will not loose do to my high civil standards, unlike british occpupiers of Malvinas who have no rights to the land but yet continue to pest the world with theit nuclear allys and bullys, I think all EU should start thinking of their world without Argentine food, they can die of hunger for all we care and if they think they will use that EU crapy papers to eneter Argentina, they better start thinking again, Argentina really needs to step up pressure and enact our own national security and stop all UE pirats from comming in, this terrorits are worst then Bin Laden, Argentine's have all they need inside Argentina, if we keep dealing with EU there will be no more beef in Argentina's table.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Company
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Island
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Federation_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uqair_Protocol_of_1922
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
www.falklandislands.com/images/view/464/489/259
www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/A_HRC_WG6_1_GBR_1_E.pdf
www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh19990604.pdf
Excellent. Glad you've finally admitted it. So stay there and quit bothering real people!
According to some people, 157 years too long!!
Go back home to Spain Marco!
Spain?, Are you confused Jack Sparrow? Malvinas is part of Argentina, right next to it by the way. I know Londonistan is far and not a pleasant place to live anymore but is not our fault, go back please.
www.despegar.com/viajar.html
Geography is irrelevant.
The Falklands are British ..... Get Used To It :-)
Sorry mates I know schadenfreude kommt von herzen what can I do?
You are also wrong about the entry requirements of Falkland Islanders into Britain and - with full British citizenship, there are none. You have no idea about the immigration laws and visa requirements in force in the UK and the Falkland Islands (the laws are different, by the way). You are wrong about the entitlement to benefits and to vote in the UK and the Falkland Islands (again, the rules are different), for both EU and non-EU passport holders.
If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you really should stop posting nonsense!
Go back to Toledo Vargas!
Are you European National?
Have you ever been living in Britain?
Have you ever been living legally in any other EU country (except UK)?
Well if all answers are yes you should know that there are different status for British citizenship.
Do you know what is a BC, BOTC, BOC, BN, BPP and BS?
Just in case let me explain what that means:
BC British Citizen born in UK or naturalized in UK the subject is consider with full rights and also EU National (can live, move, stay, work, etc. and is entitle to all benefits or the natural national of any Estate Within EU) Typical passport.
hadassahsabo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/british_passport_2002.jpg
BOTC British overseas territories citizen, he/her can get British citizenship if has connection with UK Eg. father and born before 1981 (1981 act)
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Passport_of_Montserrat.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/TurksandCaicosPassport.gif
BOC is a British Overseas Citizen and his/her passport looks like this. They are not consider Europeans and they don’t have full rights as a British subject 1983 act
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/British_new_style_passport.jpg
2002 act
BN British National (overseas)
BPP British Protected Person
BS British subject.
Well resuming you can see even thought they are quite similar but in practice they don’t have the same rights. The ones with “European Union” legend on top are considered with full rights like a person born in UK. The rest cannot work, stay or have benefits from the any EU member as they are not considered EU nationals.
My passport says European Union on the top, do you understand now de difference?
So I have granted all benefits and rights like any Euro Brit, German, French, Italian, Spanish, etc.
And EU Argies even born in Argentina have full rights in Europe our passports says European Union.
In relation to the various British overseas territories, you need to look at the British Nationality Act 2002, which replaced parts of the 1981 Act, and which confers full British citizenship on all citizens of the British overseas territories.
The only exceptions to this were the citizens of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands who, prior to the 2002 Act, already had held full British citizenship for 20 years, as well as having their own distinct status as Gibraltarians or Falkland Islanders.
Until you understand basic concepts of international law and that the Falkland Islands is its own separate and sovereign state, having its own laws and governing itself, but still maintaining its links with the UK for defence and foreign affairs only, you will not be able to comment with any accuracy on this subject.
Here my tip for you Mr. Lawyer see how in the European Parliament they ratify the Malvinas or FI as an associated territory to EU and the Rule of Law so I as and European have full right to immigrate and enjoy all rights in the Island as in any territory where EU Laws are applicable.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg0YdKrM0II
And all I’ve posted here was provided to me by lawyers from copies of your legal system in London and solicitors from an office close to the Vicky not for me else for another person that some rights were denied Australian Girlfriend.
As you know that EU nationals are granted full rights in any EU member and if any trouble ECJ has the last to say and overwrites any decision made that goes against EU laws.
And after reading all your messy legal system jurisprudence and source of law and discriminators acts of immigration we won our appealing and I’m not a lawyer and I really doubt that you are a lawyer may be a solicitor have you got a Legal Practice Course done?
You can have oral hearings in the courts or “Her Highness Majesty” or you can make your appealing by writing.
BTW you never said what was wrong Mr. Solicitor?
I hope you don’t have any case of “Culpa Lata” legal term in Latin also used in England don’t wiki too much.
I think that you over reacted because you see your business in danger, am I right?
How much do you charge the poor BCO for something that is available for free?
May be I will start my NGO free of charges to help Islanders on immigrations Issues.
What do you think? I have some friend lawyer here haha.
I don't know may be I will get upset and start to post all I know and got about how to immigrate to UK for free and all the holes in the system.
Hoy to make your test of residence in UKI, how to get income support, housing benefit, how to fill an UB40 form, where to apply an be successful. I will reconsider how angry I will be in 5 minutes.
SYL my new friend
But that's it, NicoDin. No more free legal advice for you! Yes, I am a lawyer - not a solicitor though, but a barrister. My colleagues will get upset unless I send you a fee note next time!
And good luck with your new venture giving advice on exploiting any loopholes that you perceive in British/EU/Falklands immigration laws. I'd take out good professional indemnity insurance if I were you, as you will almost undoubtedly be sued if your advice is based on the rubbish that you've written so far! And also, anohtre helpful piece of advice, don't give your advice in English, as I can barely understand a word that you say!
Falklands are British forever!!!
My dear friend,
First I think you understood very well what I said as any intelligent person would do taking into account that I have to step down to your language. What do you expect Shakespeare?
Impress me and write to me in Spanish, French, Italian and also simple German to see how cultivated and posh you sound. Using the languages as excuse is not making any strong your arguments.
As a lawyer you surely know that the any legal system has a half of the library that will favor you and the other part may be favor me otherwise wouldn’t be any “Litis” Latin from Roman right litigation in your language.
Law is always a subject of interpretation is and simple as that who better advocate and made use of the better rhetoric can make a good case.
The video that I have showed to you from the EU parliament clearly states that EU rule of law applies in Falkland Islands. It is not a good statement. Isn’t it? And the written transcription of that session in the EU parliament is a good proof to support my case against UK discrimination toward other EU nationals.
Oh! My god the stupid Euro/Argy that cannot write proper English and seem very stupid has the base for a good case here stronger that the weak sovereignty claim of UK over Malvinas.
What do you think dear “PomInOz”
I will tell you something Mr. Pomi Mr. George Soros speaks English far, far, far, far worst than me its close to understandable when he opens his mouth but the guy broke the pound in 1982 and got 1bn pound of profit in one day.
Now Pomi you speak fluently English, you are a lawyer a little arrogant and I’m sure you are a poor compared with him.
Don’t you feel a little bit silly? I would if I would be you.
I hope you understand my poor English now.
PS. Malvinas belongs to Argie’s Empire and may be next time you will need a valid permit for work or a Visa to enter into the islands according with Argies laws. May be your knowledge will be useful after all.
Best regards,
Nico Dummy
Anyway, good to see that you still have your dummy, as I had thought that you'd spat it out!
Just get over the fact that the Falklands are not Argentina, have never been Argentina and never will be Argentina. When you accept that you will sleep much better at night...
What she said was:
' Member states have ratified the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, the Falkland Islands is an associated territory to the European Union and the rule of law would apply'
The 'rule of law' she was referring to is the 'Law of the Sea'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile
does this mean Chile could be another Argentine province 108 ?
I am a proud Argentine I have no identity problem as brits do, as a matter of fact we liberated ourselves from our royal handlers over 200 years ago, while the illegal aliens in Malvinas still responds to their royalist handlers. do some reading get educated otherways this is a loose or loose situation for you brits. accept your visas or identity card or go back home, simple, doesn't the rest of the EU apply for papers when coming to UK ? what's so particular about the british occupying Malvinas besides the fact that they are white ???
117# Argentina had no intentions of deporting the illegal aliens in 1982, but now we have no option since we can all see in here that they are all trouble makers who used a company like coca cola to name their island and create a state. here is the link to the company, also known as fig, so faklander are slave of a corporation and now named after the corporation, they are the white slaves.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Company
If that was on offer Vargas, you Argies would take it with both hands. You stole all of Chileno Patagonia anyway so why not finish the job?
The Falkland Islanders choose freely to keep their link with the UK, just like you implanted Spaniards freely chose to break your link with Spain. It's just a bit hypocritical of you to say they can not have the same choices you had in the past...
Would you like to try again? And get your butt kicked....again?
en.mercopress.com/2010/06/09/oas-assembly-gives-full-support-to-argentina-s-malvinas-claim
The Falklands are British - get used to it.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
This is old mate you have to learn EU laws now (something you are not good at) and depend of the country and language there is different interpretation so the ECJ will have the last say no you, FI or UKI. Welcome to the EU
@ J.A. Roberts
Yeah! But that was before the association agreement Law takes some times to be implemented and to be enforce. Have you read the article in MP about the need to modify the immigration Law in FI? The preamble of what I’m telling you.
@PomInOz
“Sono 21 i paesi e territori d'oltremare che hanno un rapporto speciale con uno degli Stati membri dell'Unione europea...
“il diritto comunitario si applica a loro solo se è necessario per attuare gli accordi di associazione”
“OCT 21 territories with special relation with one of the EU member State...
EU law applies to them when if is necessary to implement the association agreements” And I add in commerce, immigration, funding, etc.
“Questi sono considerati come paesi e territori d'oltremare nel quadro del Trattato di Roma”
The following are considered as regions and territories overseas according with the Treaty of Rome.
“Questa tabella riassume le varie componenti del diritto europeo applicate negli stati membri e nei territori speciali.”
The list below resumes subjects where Europeans Rules are applicable in Members States and its Special Territories (what includes OCTs).
The list is long and includes Malvinas/Falkland as :
1- Application of EU laws: yes
2- Enforceable in local courts (FI): No else EU
3- EURATOM: Yes
4- EU citizen: Yes
5- European vote: No
6- Schengen Area: No
7- Vat collective area: Yes
8- Dogonale EUT: No
9- Unique Market member: Partial
10- Euro zone: No
I will see the French, German and Spanish version what they say but for me and the Italiani seems that EU Laws are applicable and Enforceable in EU in accordance with the Association Agreement. That is enough for me. We only need an EU Italian judge friend.
What do you think?
Yes; history usually consists of old news :-)
I quote from the article:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
This does not sound like an “apology” to me, more as a defense against fundamentalist elements:
Prof. Freedman, a vice principal at King's College, London, also writes on the errata slip.
He said: “I was trying to explain the nature of the arguments. I was not looking at any primary sources. I couldn't claim to be a historian of that period. My remit was to write about 1982.
”At no point do I give any indication of support for the Argentine claim on sovereignty.
“It is a question about history rather than support for Argentina. It happens. It is the nature of the job. I don't feel I have been caught out in a fundamental misdeed.
”There is interesting new research that has been done that has shed new light on the issue.”
So Pleeeeeease......Don't shoot the messenger,........ he is one of your own!
So, despite what you might think, J. A. Roberts (post 120) is correct: unless you have Falkland Islands Status, you can't just turn up in the Falklands to live and work without being granted a visa. It then takes 7 years of living there permanently before you can apply to be put on the electoral register. This applies to all British citizens too, as well as every other nationality.
So please do a favor to the planet, and stop stealing and killing inocent people, and go back to your “nice” island there in Europe, accept what you have and be happy with that.
And...
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
He had to accept the amendments too .... how embarrasing :-)
Of course not. One is just letting them know that when the actions of animals don't suit humans, these things happen. Geddit?
I just have one more thing to say... go home british pirate!
And...
Malvinas belong to Argentinas! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
So no it wasn't an apology, simply an honest acceptance that material he published in good faith was inaccurate.
And no it isn't a matter of correcting books, its the fact that Argentina has pumped out so much crap, its lies, half-truths and propaganda has crept into the mainstream.
Example:
Argentina claiming the population were expelled in 1833, which can easily be dismissed by reference to online material such as Darwin and Fitzroy's diary as well as the account published by Thomas Helsby of the events of 1833 - direct eye witness testimony by one of Vernet's settlers.
And now confidently I predict, the Argentine contributors will accuse me of lying and refuse to check for themselves. Sadly they're so indoctrinated they can't accept evidence that contradicts their claims.
When argentina population were expelled in 1833, UK was invading Argentina's territory, they were invading a country's territory. Violating the rights of the argentine people living there, many international treaties and conventions, and also Argentina's sovereigny over the islands. And that's a real fact.
So I suggest every single british pirate usurping the Argentina's islands, go home!
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
The rest is just propoganda.
The Falklands are British - get used to it!
Could be subject to change of course, if your arrogant windbag keep going!!
'The British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognized by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in South America and the islands adjacent“
”The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811.The islands were left to their fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands to reassert control to themselves as the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority”
From the EU's own website:
ec.europa.eu/development/geographical/regionscountries/regionscountriesocts_en.cfm?CFID=4394577&CFTOKEN=6f0cd75ae4ea3a45-EBF72C5E-9DE2-1A52-246C3FE2CB73024F&jsessionid=0806441430a35068784c
See the 2nd paragraph where it says:
Their nationals are in principle EU citizens, even though the OCTs are not part of the EU or directly subject to EU law.
1833 ' The Brithish commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a Brithish pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the Brithish takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”
Pinedo's reports, Onslow's reports, Darwin's Diary, Fitzroy's Diary, Thomas Helsby's account of the Rivero Murders all confirm that no expulsion of the population took place. These are people who were there when the events happened.
Aldrich and Connell's book
books.google.co.uk/books?id=wjWjILwMYNQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Robert+Aldrich++John+Connell&source=bl&ots=wo_HyB-Yg1&sig=A4B_fCEevil-3JxRY1TB6DehXcA&hl=en&ei=y3JQTO7BFMOC8gaLuuGgAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
was first published in 1998 and contains no sources for its assertion that the population was expelled.
And note that Argentina in over 170 years has not presented a single shred of contemporary evidence that the population was expelled.
so Marco and Argentino and think can run home to base quickly,
the Italians have offered a couple of rowing boats lol
the falklands are british, the malvinas dont exist,
The usual revisionist version of history as distorted by Argentina. We left, we did not abandon and we made sure that that fact was known by leaving the relevant marks and signs. There is major doubt about whether Nootka Sound applies to the Falklands at all. If it does then the secret clause applied as soon as Argentina's garrison set foot on the islands.
Usual rubbish from the propoganda version of reality !
Usual denial of reality hoyt.
For a better researched and sourced work try - www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
1833 ' The Brithish commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a Brithish pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the Brithish takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”
If a book/history fails to identify its sources in sufficient detail for the reader to check the author's interpretation then the book/history is worthless.
In such circumstances the author's opinion is no better or worse than yours!
Wrong. Malvinas islands were under control by the spanish people, who named successive governors over the years, according to the Nootka Conventions, treaty that was signed by Spain and UK in 1790.
With the independence of Argentina in 1816 when the islands became a part of the argentine territory, inherited the rights of Spain under the doctrine of uti possidetis iuris and the succession of states.
In 1833 the british pirates invaded the islands, violating Argentina's territory, the argentine people living there, its sovereignty, and the international agreements they have signed before. This is a real fact.
In conclusion: UK stole the islands to Argentina, they are usurpers and thieves.
So I just wanna say... british pirate go home!
And...
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
I might also add that if it was your territory, why did you feel the need to colonize it, and politely inform the British embassy of your actions. But also if 1833 was a violation of your territorial integrity how come that majority chunk of Argentina called Patagonia didn't appear in the Argentine state until 1880, hardly what you call an “Integral” eh? How could we have violated territorial integrity when such a concept didn't exist, and the modern state of Argentina didn't exist?
Oh yes and the small matter that your constitution only made reference to the islands and some other incestuous and distinctly insane claims only just recently?
Us British “Pirates” will stay here just like you Argentine “Banditos” can sit pretty much umolested of international scrutiny of you turfing out and squatting on the natives land without paying rent for the last 400 years.
As for the 34 dirt poor banditos living in the Falklands without permission, most rejoiced at the offer of going back home and a few of the more insane types decided they quite liked the idea of being under a union flag so stayed put and formed the basis of todays islanders, thats also fact.
So I just want to say, Spanish Banditos go home to Europe
and
Falklands belong to Falklanders, Falklands Forvever.
blah blah blah.....
The Falkland Islands had a resident Spanish population at one stage but sovereignty belonged to Britain.
It's actually doubtful that the Nootka Sound agreement applies to the Falkland Islands as they are not 'adjacent' but even if it did the secret clause kicked in the moment the Argentine Garrison arrived in 1832.
Uti possidetis iuris and the succession of states has no standing in International Law and in any case by the time Spain got around to recognising its errant son the islands had long been British. Can't inherit what papa doesn't own!
I repeat, one cannot invade what one owns. So the 1833 action was merely one that removed a trespassing garrison and left the settlers there!
Those are the REAL facts .,... nothing was stolen because Argentina possessed/owned nothing. The Falkland Islands are, and always have been, British - get used to it!
Wether the Nootka sound convention actually included the Falklands is debatebal at best. It can also be argued that it was a bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way. There is also the article which removed any restrictions on Britain if a third power built a settlement.
The Nootka Convention is irrelevant anyway as it was it is superseded by the Convention of Settlement which was signed by Britain and Argentina in 1849 and ratified in 1850 which settled all existing difference between the two. Argentina did not add a reserve of sovereignty to the Falklands nor did they even mention their claim therfore showing Argentine acquiescence of British sovereignty.
The Argentine claim therefore ended in 1850.
It's not doubtful at all, that treaty is very clear and the both governments Spain and UK signed it. When the british pirates invaded Malvinas in 1833, even having UK recognized the independence of Argentina, the island already were settlements and only argentine citizens living there, UK stole argentine territory by force, knowing that and violating the sovereignty of a country and the international agreements signed. UK is a robber. This is the Real Fact.
LegionNi: “It can also be argued that it was a bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain...”
Stop inventing things, that would never have any validity, cause under the same argument UK still could be claming for US territories, also Spain. The significative thing you don't wanna understand or you wish to hide, is that UK invaded territory of a country already have declared the independence, independence that the British government had officially recognized in 1823.
LegionNi: “The Argentine claim therefore ended in 1850...”
This is another big lie on your side, cause the international community knows Argentina never stopped Malvinas claim, has always claimed sovereignty over the islands, and will do so in the future.
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
Even so, if did apply then Argentina would have been a 3rd party for the purposes of the secret clause (haven't we had this conversation before)
The Falklands are British - get used to it!
This is another big lie on your side, cause the international community knows Argentina never stopped Malvinas claim, has always claimed sovereignty over the islands, and will do so in the future.”
Argentina gave up its claim in 1850 when it ratified the Convention of Settlement or are you saying that Argentina is ignoring the treaty which it signed?
You can bang on about the Nootka convention as much as you like, it doesn't matter as it was superseded by the Convention of Settlement in which Argentina, by not adding a reserve of sovereignty to the Falklands, clearly showed its acquiescence to British sovereignty of those islands.
And more evidence that Argentina gave up its claim is that messages to congress stopped after 1850 and the claim was not mentioned again for over 90 years, until Peron raised the current, modern and ultimately unsustainable claim...
Wrong. That's is not truth, Argentina never gave up its claim, even in that Convention doesn't do any mention about stop the claim for Malvinas islands.
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
No it's not a lie and you can view the Convention of Settlement yourself. Yes, the treaty doesn't specifically state that Argentina renounces sovereignty, but it does settle all difference between Britain and Argentina and as Britian was in possesion of the Falklands at the time Argentina acquiescenced to British sovereignty by not reserving sovereignty within the treaty.
If it is necessary for the treaty to specifically state thatArgentina renounces sovereignty, then it is also necessary for the Nootka treaty to specifically state that Britain renounces it's sovereignty.
It doesn't so if you apply this argument to the Convention of Settlement then we can equally apply it the the Nootka Treaty.
Either way invalidates any Argentine claim.
Wrong. In that covention settlement in any moment mention the agreement to stop talking about the Argentina sovereignty over Malvinas islands. Maybe you should read it well.
LegionNi: “If it is necessary for the treaty to specifically state thatArgentina renounces sovereignty, then it is also necessary for the Nootka treaty to specifically state that Britain renounces it's sovereignty. ”
Wrong. Cause the Nootka Treaty, talk specifically about don't put new settlements in the islands already was in possesion of Spain, in this case Malvinas. When UK invaded the islands in 1833, they already were under argentine sovereignty. In the case of that convention, they even didn't do any mention about the islands.
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
Wrong. In that covention settlement in any moment mention the agreement to stop talking about the Argentina sovereignty over Malvinas islands. Maybe you should read it well.”
Talking about sovereignty? Where did that come from?
We don't have to talk about sovereingty as Argentine sovereignty ended with the ratification of the Convention of Settlement which settle ALL diferences between Argentina and Britain.
Argentina has no claim.
If Argentina where stupid enough not to reserve rights of sovereignty to the Falklands in a treaty which settled ALL differences then thats Argentinas problem not Britains nor the Falkland islanders.
Argentina has no claim.
Does the Nootka treaty specifically state that Britain renounces its sovereignty or claim to the Falkland islands... answer no it doesn't.
Argentina has no claim
.”There is however mention of 'adjacent' islands. In those days of (very) slow travel there is a great doubt that 300 miles can be described as 'adjacent'”
And where are the islands hoyt.? adjacent to England, 8000 miles away and in Europe?
Next time around you will say that are not part of South America and belong to Africa.
ARTICLE VI
It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
That means both the GB and Spain, not just the GB
“the islands adjacent”
Of which the Falklands isn't one as it is too far away to be adjacent.
“already occupied by Spain”
What parts of South America were occupied by Spain in 1833?
Secret Article
Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.
Nootka was not about England, so whether the islands were adjacent to England or not is completely irrelevant. Nor are the islands adjacent to South America you clown!
Even if such a treaty existed, which it doesn't, it would be illegal on the basis that Britain had not ceded sovereignty to Spain. The waffle about “colonial ambitions” is just that, waffle, in relation to the Falkland Islands. You cannot have “colonial ambitions” toward a territory over which you are already sovereign.
Mr Corleone does not like being called a liar. He assures me the document is authentic.
And who are we to argue,, [now do you believe you don’t own the islands]
www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
'The British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognized by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in South America and the islands adjacent“
”The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811.The islands were left to their fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands to reassert control to themselves as the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority”
Even in 1790 the position of the British was that the Nootka Convention did not include the Falklands, quite simply for the reason that in 1771 the Spanish concluded an agreement that recognised the right of the British to be there. I've seen diplomatic papers from the period to confirm that as far as the British were concerned both agreements were extant.
Next I suppose there will be claims that the 1771 text included a secret agreement for the British to leave. Except not one jot of evidence has ever been produced to back up that claim. Its based on a half-truth, Spain proposed a secret agreeement for a face saving measure whereby BOTH parties would agree to voluntarily vacate the Falklands 6 months later. Britain refused to accept that proposal. Instead Spain had to acknowledge the Brtitish had a right to be there and make restitution - thats what was agreed.
Now the 1850 Convention of Settlement is explicit. It is Britain and Argentina drawing a line under past differences. How can you sign a treaty settling existing differences and claim an outstanding issue remains? It simply isn't logical and thats why Red Herrings like Nootka or so-called “secret agreements” are raised to confuse matters.
The Falklands claim was revived by Peron in the 1940s as a simple device to inflame anti-British passions, the propaganda has been indoctrinated into Argentine children ever since - what kind of nation brings up its children to hate so much. And even Peron would cheerfully admit it was “bollock” but useful to unite the people.
Now try and find an academic source that stands up to scrutiny!
“the propaganda has been indoctrinated into Argentine children ever since - what kind of nation brings up its children to hate so much”
We were not taught to hate the british or anybody else, we just believe based on historic and geographical facts that the islands is part of Argentina and South America, not UK nor Europe 8000 miles away.
.Hey Hoyt, So many British sites and books are wrong when they see that Argentina might be right about their claims? hhhmmm
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
Based on the facts, historic or otherwise, the Falklands have never been part of Argentina. As for a geographical basis for this modern Argentine claim, there is none. Geography is completely irrelevant, and that includes distance from Europe, they are just red herrings, much like the rest of the “official” Argentine mythology you are brainwashed with. The “Argentine” population (actually they were from Buenos Aires and Argentina did not exist as we know it) being removed in 1833 is another example of the red herrings you get fed... there are many more... scratch the surface of Peron's claim and there is nothing... absolutely nothing...
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands
Wrong. That convention never do any mention about the islands, only talking about continental territory. Argentina never stopped the claim of sovereignty over the islands. Never. In that's a real fact.
LegionNi: “Does the Nootka treaty specifically state that Britain renounces its sovereignty...”
Of course, when UK signed the Nootka treaty, there was not any british pirate living in the islands, and preciselly they have agreed about don't put any new settlements in any of the islands were in possesion of Spain, and in Malvinas already were spanish people living there, so you never can claim sovereignty over a territory where you could never have possesion or settlements. When UK recognize Argentina's independence automatically is accepting argentine sovereignty over all the territories, and at that time in Malvinas already were living argentine citizens. In UK invaded the islands violating the treaty, agreements, recognition of Argentina as a country, and the rights of the argentine civilians living there. Case closed.
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
No Argentino, the convention did not about territory. The only time the word “territory” is mentioned is with respect to the evacuation of forces. It was all about the settlement of differences, and that was ALL differences. Sorry mate, but you gave up your claim to the Falklands in 1850 - the treaty and ALSO Argentina backed this up by stopping messages to congress.
en.wikisource.org/wiki/1850_Convention_of_Settlement
“When UK recognize Argentina's independence automatically is accepting argentine sovereignty over all the territories” Britain did no such thing!
Prior to the signing of the 1850 Convention of Settlement, Argentina sent an annual letter of protest to the British Government, as it had since the first prottest delivered by Moreno in 1834. After it simply stopped and didn't raise the issue again till 1885, when it all of a sudden decided to raise it again - no co-incidence this occurred during Argentina's Conquest of the Desert. It was debated annually in the Argentine congress until 1850, then stopped and wasn't raised again until 1941.
Argentina dropped its claim and didn't protest - documented fact.
Argentina did not have any presence whatsoever in the Falklands in 1825, so claiming that the treaty of friendship recognised Argentina sovereignty is bogus.
Vernet didn't establish a presence in the islands till 1828, Argentina tries to stretch this back to 1820 claiming Jewett's little stunt as a “state sponsored” event, which it wasn't. Either way you cut the mustard, claiming that there were “Argentines” living in the Falklands in 1825 is untrue. Vernet also sought British permission to establish its settlement.
Nootka simply does not apply to the Falklands, it never has, nor can Argentina which wasn't a signatory to that treaty derive any benefit from it, and anyway the moment Argentina intervened or declared independence, then Britain is freed from any obligation by the secret clause - one for which documentary evuidence exists.
So you claim “case closed” on a treaty that didn't apply, to which Argentina was not a signatory, and which became null and void the moment Argentina intervened.
You claim “case closed” on recognition by Britain, one of the first countries to recognise independence, when you had no settlement.
You claim “case closed” on the rights of Argentine citizens who'd sought British permission to be there in the first place.
Yet you refuse to accept that a treaty that explicitly settles differences between Britain and Argentina.
Falklands for the Falklander.
Britain has never recognised Argentine sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. When Britain reconginsed Argentina the only settlement on the island was a PRIVATE venture of Vernets, it was NOT an Argentine settlement, and has had asked for British permission as he was aware of Britains claim to sovereignty.
When Argenina tried to appoint a governor to the islands, Britain protested as they had no rights to do so, this is documented fact, hardly a recognition of Argentine sovereignty.
Argentina chose to ignore Britains protest and so the Argentine military garrison was removed from British territory as was Britains right. Any civilians who chose to remain were allowed to do so.
All irrelevant anyway as ALL differences were settled in the 1850 convention of settlement, which specifically states it settles all difference between Britain and Argentina. It does NOT state settles all difference APART from the Falklands.
This was all settled in 1850 when Argentina dropped its claim.
Where did you receive your first and formost introduction and primary information on the Falklands? Simple Question please do answer.
Argentino I see you didn't bother answering my question? Lets make it simple shall we?
1. How can you use uti possidetis juris as an arguement when it is not a legally recognized theory, the closest it comes to in todays political theory is “secession”, however Argentina says that Britains actions in the Falkalnds where “Unilateral” weren't your actions upon independence then “Unilateral” thus therefore is the Argentine state void? I might also add that in February 2008, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said “if we were to recognize Kosovo, which has declared its independence unilaterally, without an agreement with Serbia, we would set a dangerous precedent” yet in the same breath your country demands ownership of the Faklands based upon what was in effect a unilateral action (uti possidetis juris) done without the consent and agreement of Spain?
2. How can Territorial integrity be violated when the concept did not exist, and the territorial unit of Argentina did not become a stable integral entity until late into the 19th century.
3. How can you claim it was a part of your territory when your constitution only made mention of it as an Argentine territory early in the 21st century?
4. Also if it was your territory why do you need to send a ship to a) Claim it and B) Send people to colonize it?
5. Final demand, why do you still insist that Argentine settlers were expelled when clearly all evidence and eye witness testimony from both sides says othrwise?
reagrds
In the interpretation of any agreement is essential to consider the subsequent conduct of the parties. The conduct of both of Britain, which finally withdrew in 1774 and in Spain, continuing its occupation on the eastern island, and subsequently destroy the remaining symbols of the British presence on Puerto Egmont confirm the physical abandonment of the claim UK.
Regardless of the argument that the British withdrawal was the result of a secret agreement made in 1771, this marks a new milestone in the conflict over the sovereignty of the Islands. Since 1774, it's interrupted an occupation, and it doesn't have any longer continuity in time.
On 1790 the Lieutenant Juan José de Elizalde arrived to Malvinas with the Corvette “San Pio” and soon began with the delivery of the government of the islands.
In that year there is an international event that affects all domains Hispanics, and also in Malvinas. It is the Treaty of Nootka, signed between England and Spain.
Provided that in the costs “both eastern and western South America” and adjacent islands, the respective subjects in future would not put any settlements in this part of the coast, or locations on the same costs and adjacent islands already occupied by Spain, in this case Malvinas.
With signing this treaty Britain formally renounces any colonial ambitions in South America and adjacent islands.
In 1825, Britain recognizes the independence of the United Provinces of Río de la Plata, and makes no objection on the Falklands, the Treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation is signed between both countries.
In 1833 british pirates invade the islands already were under argentine sovereignty, violating the international agreements, the rights of the argentine citizens living there with their own governor, and invading Argentina's territory.
P.S: The falklanders since the beginnin were usurpers under the british crown.
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
Sorry, somebody else removing your 'marks and signs' does not confirm abandonment.... only doing it yourself would achieve that!
“ ... and adjacent islands,...”
The distance is too great to be 'adjacent' ...... so that doesn't work either!
“ ... and makes no objection on the Falklands...”
What objection would be made ... they belonged to the UK!
“ .. already were under argentine sovereignty,...”
Two months does not a sovereign make!
The Falklands are British, always have been....... get used to it!
Why is it impossible to get some decent Fish and Chips on that Bloody Islands?
Everybody using cheap deep frozen Potatoe Chips from Holland I suppose :-(
They are on a decline. Mostly being replaced by rubbish kebab shops who try to cook 30 types of food and fail at them all.
Yes, exactly Argentino. After Argentina ratified the Convention of Settlement in 1850, where ALL differences between Argentina and Britain were settled Argentina stopped messages to congress, and annual protests to UK regarding the Falklands. Something which had happened every year from 1833 until the treaty was signed.
That can only mean one thing: Argentina accepted the Falklands were British in 1850.
BTW, whatever the Spanish did is irrelevant because Argentina inherited no rights from Spain. Argentina took her freedom by force. In 1825 there was no reason to mention the Falklands, because they were already British (and there were no “Argentines” there anyway). British “pirates” invading is nothing more than the cock and bull you were fed a school... try something more original (and backed by facts) next time.
Why do the Argentine propagandists that frequent this board never answer a question?
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
It clearly states that Britain and Argentina settled their differences. Explicitly.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
Cue Red Herrings, name calling, and propaganda regurgitation but....not one will have the moral courage to actually answer.
to go and get the Falklands, there is no excuse now, its practically undefended, you need to help us, go and take the island back NOW you will never get a better chance, and in return you will save the royal navy, if you just sit there and brag and brag, you will lose your chance forever,, [you want the Falklands] [we want our navy] you go get the Falklands, and we get our navy back, go argies go, go go
go go go [Red Herrings] go go go
We got democracy....
You got Tatcher... Bliar.... and a sinking Navy...
All Ok from my point of view!
I disagree. The defence force there currently has a compairable force compaired to the entire task force sent to the islands in 82.
Not as good, but compairable. As for saving the navy, the navy is not recieving cuts. it will still be getting it's aircraft carriers, subs and destroyers.
think knows he is clever man, he remembers JOHN KNOT 1981]
yes we remember john knot 1981, [[what did he announce, what did he do,, the brits were in trouble, the navy was being sold of, we needed help.
and Argentina saved us, they attack the Falklands, what about today, [July 30th 2010] British can no longer defend themselves, the navy is being cut, carriers sold of, [does anyone notice anything similar ???
The islands are perfectly capable of defending themselves without the aid of a new carrier or two. We, as well as argentina neither want or can afford a war at the moment.
“From the standpoint of Sun Tzu’s philosophy of war, the Mahatma Ghandi is among the greatest warriors of all time . Sun Tzu said, “Attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy’s army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.” Gandhi defeated the most powerful empire on Earth, the British Empire, without firing a single bullet, and he was the pinnacle of excellence”
The iraq army failed, and as such our troops, not prepaied to fight a massive battle undermanned without the right equipment bugged out. it is standard military procedure.
“Gandhi defeated the most powerful empire on Earth, the British Empire, without firing a single bullet, and he was the pinnacle of excellence”
Really? it was ganghi? that one man was the sole reason for the decline of the british empire? According to any sane person in the world it was the two world wars we took place in one after the other, along with the fact that it was no longer feasible to lean an empire with the age on democracy.
The Convention of Settlements doesn't establish anything, first in any moment is talking about the islands, and is contradictory cause is talking about leave the hostil british settlements in argentine territory, when UK still maintains the illegal ocupation in Malvinas. So it doesn't have any validity since it's not applicable on the issue of the islands.
The most important facts is every single treaty which UK violated over and over again. Before 1833, when the british pirates invaded the islands, UK already had signed a decolonization treaty (Nootka, 1790) and recognized the independence of Argentina and its sovereignty over the territory at December 15, 1823, and also they did it when they signed the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of February 2, 1825.
After the british invation in Malvinas, Argentina's government never stopped the claim of severeignty over the islands, never.
Malvinas belong to Argentinas by geographical, historical and legal rights.
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
This stuff about adjancent is a really silly nonesense interpretation which none take it really serious now. The treaty is clear enough when it says that GB could not stablish any colony in south america in any land or islands ALREADY occupied by Spain. the islands were ALREADY occupied by
spain when the treaty was signed. the source britishempire codotuk recogn this. It was another treaty GB didn´t honoured by that time...
1. Nootka Sound does not apply to the Falkland Islands as they are to far away from the South American continent to fall under the description ' adjacent' ( the distance to the UK is irrelevant)!
2. If Nootka Sound had applied to the Falkland Islands then Argentina's action in establishing a settlement via its garrison in 1832 would have invoked the 'secret clause' allowing Britain to act.
3. The islands have NEVER been abandoned by the British. Every attempt by another power (1770-1832-1982) has been challenged.
The Falkland Islands are British - get used to it!
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
Could you answer the question please. As opposed to dodging it.
Secondly, Nootka. How come it took a Century, for Argentina (a country that didn't actually sign the treaty) to concoct this ridiculous argument hinging on a creative interpretation of the single word “adjacent” in the treaty?
Thirdly. If the Islands were abandoned by Britain, then why does the Spanish Governor complain of the numerous British ships using the Falklands for commerce? At any one time the itinerant population of sealers and whalers outnumbered the tiny Spanish garrison at Puerto Soledad by 10:1. Related to that, the Spanish contribution to the Falklands was limited to a penal colony and never exercised control beyond that.
The answer for your question is the Treaty of Nootka, maybe you should read again the chronological events, to understand how UK violated the Argentina sovereignty over Malvinas:
The most important facts is every single treaty which UK violated over and over again. Before 1833, when the british pirates invaded the islands, UK already had signed a decolonization treaty (Nootka, 1790) and recognized the independence of Argentina and its sovereignty over the territory at December 15, 1823, and also they did it when they signed the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of February 2, 1825.
After the british invation in Malvinas, Argentina's government NEVER stopped the claim of severeignty over the islands, never.
Malvinas belong to Argentinas by geographical, historical and legal rights.
P.S: Convention of Settlement it doesn't applies to Malvinas case, even is not under discussion in any line. UK took the islands illegally in 1833, when they already were a part of Argentina's territory, under it's sovereignty and with argentine citizens living there.
Malvinas belong to Argentina! Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
Could you answer the question please. As opposed to dodging it.
Oh and regarding Nootka, you are of course aware that it was unilaterally repudiated by Spain in 1795?
Secondly, Nootka. How come it took a Century, for Argentina (a country that didn't actually sign the treaty) to concoct this ridiculous argument hinging on a creative interpretation of the single word “adjacent” in the treaty?
Now answer the question, why did it take a 100 years, how come Spain didn't mention, nor did Argentina till the late 19th Century?
And tell me how Islands 400 miles of the coast of South America are adjacent to the continent?
Sorry to shout but you appear to be deaf!
Is that so difficult to understand?
ARgentina NEVER abandoned its claim,, Check the letters between Manuel Moreno and Lord Palmerston and you ll find that arround 1849 Moreno made it clear that despite GB rejections to discuses the issue of Malvinas, ARG will never recognize any british right over those territories. 1849...
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
True the treaty was signed in 1849 but it was not ratified by Argentina until 1850, and was therefor not a binding treaty until ratification in 1850. This is why it is known as the 1850 Convention of Settlement and Friendship.
Moreno's objections were to statements made by Palmerston in the British parliment, and were made BEFORE Argentina ratified the treaty. Argentina has from the time the treaty was signed in 1849 and when it was ratified in 1850 to object and to add reserve of sovereignty. Argentina did not. Argentina ratified the treaty AFTER Moreno stated his objection in his letter to Palmerston so his position was obviously not that of the Argentine government who went ahead and ratifed the treaty.
The Convention of Settlement resolved this issue in 1850, with the islands under British sovereignty.
Afraid of the answer?
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
I ll give you now the truth about the TREATY OF 1849 YOU MENTION ALL TIME. THE TREATY IS KNOWN AS SOUTHERN ARANA CONVENTION. ALSO BY 1850 YOU CAN FIND ARANA MACKAU CONVENTION AND ARANA LE PEDROUR CONVENTION. The last 2 WITH FRANCE and the first with GB. So we have 3 treaties all talking about settling differences and perfect peace, and signed WITH FRANCE AND GB at the same time WHY? Because the difference and perfect peace was because the anlgo french block against ARG rivers.
Regardin the treaty with GB. the introduction talks about settiling all diference and perfect peace with GB and ARG. EXACTLY the same introduction you can find in the treaty of ARG and FRANCE And certanlly there was never any sovereignity issue with France over a territory, so the treaty is not about Malvinas,,you silly. 2nd The first article of the Treaty signed between ARG and GB CLEARLY talks about the DIFFERENCES.
Artículo 1° Habiendo el gobierno de S. M. B., animado del deseo de poner fin á las diferencias ...el día 15 de Julio de 1847, el bloqueo que había establecido en los puertos de las dos repúblicas del Plata, , al presente se obliga con el mismo espíritu amistoso, á evacuar definitivamente la isla de Martín García, á devolver los buques de guerra argentinos que están en su posesión, y á saludar al pabellón de la República Argentina con veintiún tiros de cañón.
The Article 1 of this famous Treaty that you love to quote without knowing what it talks about, stays clearly that the DIFFERENCES are those regarding the BLOKADE arround 1847 of the ports of ARG. The SAME treaty was signed with FRANCE. Exactly the same. Besides if you read the 1st ART you ll find that GB had to hail the ARG flag, gave the ARG ships and gave to ARG the island Martin García. So certanlly ARG is not talking about Malvinas here.
and for peace,
I am well aware of the test of the treaty, having transcribed from original sources for wikisource.
I am also well aware of the circumstances of its coming about. But it is also quite explicit about drawing a line under past disputes - it does not reserve any issues for later resolution.
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
It is a simple question, why do you avoid answering it. Scared of the answer.
It is a simple question, why do you avoid to read it. Scared of the truth.
So let us look at details ... and perhaps do one question at a time.
1. Why, after 1850 was there no mention of the Islands in the annual Message to Congress ?
1938 . 1939, 1940, and so on
The Message to Congress is irrelevant, but objecting to stamps is not?
Hardly a coherent argument about the treaty of 1850 (signed in 1849).
The British action in 1833 was entirely legal. Argentina's proposed action was the subject of ambassadorial complaint and, when it took place, Britain asserted its rights and ejected the invasive garrison. Vernett's business/settlement continued, albeit unhappily!
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
Oh and Argentina did not protest about South Georgia in 1908, it accepted the Letters Patent by acknowledgement. It wasn't until 1927, that it sent a formal protest under the pretext that the wording implied a sovereignty claim over Patagonia. Even for Argentina claiming a simple acknowledgement as a “protest” is spinning things too far.
Its a fact that Argentina ceased all protests between 1850 and 1885, immediately following the Convention of Settlement. It is also a fact that it wasn't raised in the Argentine Congress between 1850 and 1941.
Oh why bring up 1885 when Argentina did in fact suggest arbitration, in the middle of its great territorial expansion stealing indigenous people's land. When the UN was formed Britain offered to take Argentina's claims over the Falklands Dependencies to the International Court of Justice (3 times), it declined on every occasion. When Britain unilaterally referred the case to the ICJ for an opinion, Argentina refused to accept the court's judgement.
All Red Herring to hide the fundamental fact that you're avoiding an answer to a simple question.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
How many ways can you avoid answering?
The simple answer to the question is of course, you can't. In acknowledging that to be the case, then you're acknowledging that Argentina gave it all up a Century and half ago and the blood of nearly a 1000 young men is on your hands and all of the people like you that keep the lie alive.
I await your answer to Justin's question with bated breath...
this would now and in the future, out weigh any argument that marco
wishes to deny
Marco you say you are not indoctrinated? And Argentine school children are not indoctrinated? OK rather than dogde the question why don't you answer it?
Where did you receive your first and formost introduction and primary information on the Falklands? Simple Question please do answer.
Argentino I see you didn't bother answering my question? Lets make it simple shall we?
1. How can you use uti possidetis juris as an arguement when it is not a legally recognized theory, the closest it comes to in todays political theory is “secession”, however Argentina says that Britains actions in the Falkalnds where “Unilateral” weren't your actions upon independence then “Unilateral” thus therefore is the Argentine state void? I might also add that in February 2008, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said “if we were to recognize Kosovo, which has declared its independence unilaterally, without an agreement with Serbia, we would set a dangerous precedent” yet in the same breath your country demands ownership of the Faklands based upon what was in effect a unilateral action (uti possidetis juris) done without the consent and agreement of Spain?
2. How can Territorial integrity be violated when the concept did not exist, and the territorial unit of Argentina did not become a stable integral entity until late into the 19th century.
3. How can you claim it was a part of your territory when your constitution only made mention of it as an Argentine territory early in the 21st century?
4. Also if it was your territory why do you need to send a ship to a) Claim it and B) Send people to colonize it?
5. Final demand, why do you still insist that Argentine settlers were expelled when clearly all evidence and eye witness testimony from both sides says othrwise?
And answer in 1...2...3...4......
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!