MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 20th 2017 - 20:15 UTC

Falklands' Prado stand: Argentina puts pressure on Uruguay and UK embassy

Wednesday, September 13th 2017 - 09:05 UTC
Full article 139 comments

Uruguay has requested that the Falkland Islands stand at the Great Britain pavilion in the country's main agriculture and industrial show, Expo-Prado, be withdrawn, following an emphatic statement and disappointment from Argentina regarding the Falklands/Malvinas question dispute. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Brit Bob

    The minister pointed out that official policy is that ”the Malvinas Islands are the Malvinas (not Falklands) and Uruguay supports the Argentine nation's claim over the Islands“.

    Shame.

    But how can Argentina claim the Falklands when she has never legally owned them?

    Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:
    https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Caledon

    Both Uruguay and the UK should tell Argentina to get lost and inform them their invitation for next year is under review

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Stoker

    Another attempt by Argentina to choke the Falklanders economy? I am shocked! Although it should be no surprise since the Argies get regularly cited by the WTO for blatant restraint of trade.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • GALlamosa

    Just pathetic, completely contrary to the word and sentiment of the 2016 Joint Statement covering the removal of economic sanctions.

    Economic colonialism in action once again.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Hmm, now what was that agreement that Argentina only signed last year? Didn't the last paragraph say -

    10. South Atlantic
    In a positive spirit, both sides agreed to set up a dialogue to improve cooperation on South Atlantic issues of mutual interest. Both governments agreed that the formula on sovereignty in paragraph 2 of the Joint Statement of 19 October 1989 applies to this Joint Communique and to its consequences. In this context it was agreed to take the appropriate measures to remove all obstacles limiting the economic growth and sustainable development of the Falkland Islands, including in trade, fishing, shipping and hydrocarbons. Both parties emphasised the benefits of cooperation and positive engagement for all concerned.

    In accordance with the principles set out in the 14 July 1999 Joint Statement and Exchange of Letters, both sides agreed that further air links between the Falkland Islands and third countries would be established. In this context they agreed the establishment of 2 additional stops per month in mainland Argentina, one in each direction. The specific details will be defined.

    Both delegations expressed their full support for a DNA identification process in respect of unknown Argentine soldiers buried in the Darwin cemetery. Discussions on this sensitive humanitarian issue will be taken forward in Geneva on the basis of an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) assessment supplemented by bilateral discussions as required. Both sides agreed that the wishes of the families concerned were paramount.


    “Measures to remove all obstacles” ???

    All Argentina continues to prove is that it is a bullying, pariah nation that can simply NOT keep its word.

    You are a liar Macri - and all your countrymen with you.

    No wonder your neighbours treat you with disdain.

    A rogue nation

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • gordo1

    Actions like this only prove that Argentina merits its status as the most arrogant nation in the Western Hemisphere. Uruguay should just ignore them as the Expo-Prado is a matter of the private sector.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • James Marshall

    The minister pointed out that official policy is that ”the Malvinas Islands are the Malvinas (not Falklands) and Uruguay supports the Argentine nation's claim over the Islands“.

    and

    But Nin Novoa also underlined that ”this is a private sector issue, among private actors“, and the Uruguayan government ”has nothing to do with it“.

    So reading between the lines, we can assume that he is 'just keeping the peace' as 'officially' we have to show support to stop them moaning all the time, “they are our neighbours and we would never hear the last of it.

    But unofficially ”we do give a fu1k”, so do what you like....giving the Argies the middle finger without them even realising, priceless.....

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Johnny Colman

    @Roger:
    I had read this issue in the site of Clarin this Monday and I put my comment with copy and paste the link https://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/Falklands-Facts-and-Fictions-SPANISH-.pdf ....surprise, surprise they don't published it, I have insisted for the second time and Clarin removed the intire note from the site, now I think, who possesses a spirit of searching today we have all open doors through internet web, until recently I confess that I was sure that the version of the Argentines was valid, after informing me in depth I came to the conclusion that the English version is correct, but you English people have to consider that for the Argentines peoples to admit that you have right is like a betrayal of collective memory (ignorant), for them the Malvinas theme is like the National Selection (soccer) untouchable and who opposes commits almost a blasphemy towards God, but if they signed agreements, fanaticism or not they have to comply, otherwise argentinian words are smoke.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvinism has certainly become a religion in Argentina Johnny - with all that goes with that, including zealots :-)

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Roger..., laddie....

    Hmmmmmmm..., now what was that Joint Communique (not an “Agreement”) that them Engrish only signed last year in September?
    Didn't the last paragraph say ...:
    “10. South Atlantic
    In a positive spirit, both sides agreed to set up a dialogue to improve cooperation on South Atlantic issues of mutual interest. Both governments agreed that the formula on sovereignty in paragraph 2 of the Joint Statement of 19 October 1989 applies to this Joint Communique and to its consequences. In this context it was agreed to take the appropriate measures to remove all obstacles limiting the economic growth and sustainable development of the Mavinas Islands, including in trade, fishing, shipping and hydrocarbons.....
    Both parties emphasised the benefits of cooperation and positive engagement for all concerned..... etc..., etc..., etc...”
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/communique-between-argentina-and-the-united-kingdom/uk-and-argentina-joint-communique


    “Measures to remove all obstacles” ???
    And what was the very first Engrish “Measure to remove all obstacles”... just one month after signing that communique...???
    A heavily expanded Engrish military exercise on them windblown Islands to humiliate that Macri idiot... that's what...

    All the UK continues to prove is that it is a bullying, haughty pariah nation that can simply NOT keep its word...

    You are a liar May - and some of your countrymen with you...

    No wonder your neighbours shake their heads in disbelief at you...

    A pirate nation...

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    Think ... glad to see that you are alive; you've been quiet. So tell me, how are military exercises - that take place regularly (expanded? risible) - likely to humiliate Macri? He knew that they were due. Such exercises are not a secret - and Argentina is always warned well in advance. Clutching at straws old man?

    The only 'pirates' in the South Atlantic, are Argentina. Stole Patagonia from the tribes, and Tierra del Fuego from Chile. Avarice rules in Buenos Aires (and Chubut Province probably)

    An untrustworthy nation whose neighbours err towards the Islanders. As demonstrated by the Chilean community in Stanley and the increasing contacts with Uruguay.

    Watch & weep, old fella.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    Mr. Lorton..
    Avarice rules in Chubut Province indeed ..., as you would know if PenguinPress did inform you Engrishmen properly...
    Chubut has become the hottest political spot in Argenina during the last few weeks...
    A local Italian billionaire (Benetton) and an Engrish ditto (Lewis) are currently taking most of our time currently...
    Let's hope we can help them relocate...
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=82NN-9LgXUw

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    Last I heard, the Uruguayan Minister had telephoned the British Embassy in Montevideo to ask them to remove the stand at Prado, only to be told that it was nothing to do with the UK, but was a private arrangement between the FIG and the organisers who had invited them.

    Whose court is that ball in now?

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Roger..., Laddie...
    Please inform yourself...

    The small Malvinas Islands stand is wholy inside the Great Britain stand at the Prado fair..., organized and paid by the British Embassy...
    Nothing to do with any “private arrangement between the FIG and the organisers who had invited them”...

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    Not what the Embassy told that Uruguayan Minister.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Marti Llazo

    We see that the new commemorative stamps for Chubut province have been issued. In the upper left of the new souvenir sheet is a tribute to La Santa Inquisición, in recognition of the groundswell of anti-immigrant violence practiced by the locals. Or at least selective anti-European xenophobia as observed by the gap-toothed riffraff. Ironically, in the upper right, there are symbols of the incursions by the interloping Mapuches from Chile who drove out the more peaceful Tehuelche tribes and now claim not just Chubut but Tibet, Pebble Island, and Sjernarøyane as well. In the lower left, the same Mapuche engaged in their sacred illegal fiery roadblocks and theft of immigrants' livestock. In the lower right, an allegorical painting showing Perón and CFK in mufti selling Mapuche gimcracks, rubber tomahawks, and plastic binoculars.

    The previous souvenir sheet featuring Chubut depicted the overflowing morgue at Comodoro Rivadavia, with inscriptions of its claim to being the most violent Argentine city south of the 40th parallel.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. Lorton...

    The Falkland's Stand at the Great Britain Pavillion in Montevideo Expo Prado Rural Show...:
    http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/60696/0x0/falklands-stand-expo-prado-2017.jpg

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    Why are there broomsticks hanging from the ceiling? Hogwarts is secretly in the Falklands?

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. Lorton...
    You say...:
    “Not what the Embassy told that Uruguayan Minister.”
    I say...:
    Here you have what the British Ambassadeur told the camera at the British Pavillion inauguration... (Malvinas stand officially presented by him at 1:15)
    https://www.arutv.uy/expo-prado-2017-inauguracion-pabellon-britanico/
    Evidently... some Engrishman at the Embassy is telling porkies...

    Mr.DemonTree...
    Cue...:
    Harry Potters 20th. Birthday ;-)

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Heh, it really was Harry Potter! They do love the Union Jack branding, don't they? It's almost as bad as one of those tacky souvenir shops in London.

    Think, did ordinary people really think the annual military exercises broke the joint agreement? I bet they didn't discuss them at the time and it never even occurred to the UK government not to hold them as planned. I'm beginning to see how each side can accuse the other of not sticking to agreements...

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Think

    MMr. DemonTree...
    “Joint Communique”... not “Agreement”...
    The devil is usualy in the small print..., lad...
    And them Engrish are Slytherins in small print...
    And yes... “ordinary people”..., including yours truly..., really Think that the annual military exercises were not precisely conducent to “remove any obstacle” in our trust to each other...

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    “Uruguay has requested that the Falkland Islands stand at the Great Britain pavilion in the country's main agriculture and industrial show, Expo-Prado, be withdrawn, following an emphatic statement and disappointment from Argentina regarding the Falklands/Malvinas question dispute.”
    They just can’t can’t do anything without being in breach of international law to wit: None-interference in the internal affairs of other countries as echoed in this UBGA resolution.
    Ref.: 2225(XXI)
    The General Assembly,
    Reaffirming the principle of non-intervention, proclaimed in the charters of the Organization of American States, … Recognizing that full observance of the principle of the non-intervention of States in the internal and external affairs of other States is essential to the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the United Nations,
    Considering further that direct intervention, subversion and all forms of indirect intervention are contrary to these principles and, consequently, constitute a violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
    …1. No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.Consequently, ..and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.
    …6. All States shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure,

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Voice

    Sooo...Terry the Falklands is now a State huh...?

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    Calling yourself 'ordinary', Think? I never thought I'd see the day.

    I could have sworn the papers at the time called it an accord, but they probably just got it wrong.

    There's nothing in that communique about reducing the military presence on the islands, or suspending routine tests. It doesn't mention trust at all and the only obstacles it talks about are the ones limiting the economic growth and sustainable development of the Falkland Islands.

    Did it not occur to Macri and co to ask for those things? The tests must be due again quite soon, I wonder if either side will remember to talk about it beforehand this year?

    @Voice
    I suppose he means Argentina is interfering in Uruguay's internal affairs. Can't see them threatening anything other than being 'disappointed', though.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree...

    “Humble”..., “average”..., “poor as a church mouse”..., “ordinary”... are terms I have utilized many times during my years in here..., to correctly describe meself..., lad..

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “They just can’t do anything without being in breach of international law ..” Thank you for the endorsement of my post as your ‘silence’ on the facts of the issue is agreement, to wit: “In law, the silence of a party implies his consent..” SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Marti Llazo

    Tinkle “... ordinary....”

    Claro que ordinario. Y vulgar, con aquella inmensa arrogancia argentina, carente de las más mínimas cualidades compensadoras.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @Think
    Hah, maybe so, but no one ever believed you. ;)

    So do you think Macri will remember to ask the UK not to carry out the annual tests this time? It seems pointless anyway, since whatever his intentions the Congress clearly aren't going to pass any of the measures.

    @TH
    “In law...”
    We're not in a court of law, in case you hadn't noticed. This is a news website of dubious quality.

    Sep 13th, 2017 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “We're not in a court of law, ..” Who claimed we were? The full title of the citation involves the words “Thought And Rhetorical” So thinking and rhetoric are not your strong suits by your own admission.
    Soma's Dictionary Of Latin Quotations Maxims And Phrases
    A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Terry me ole' son...
    Have I missed half a conversation or what...?
    What endorsement of your post and what silence...?

    ...and I didn't say...“We're not in a court of law”...that was DemonTree, so why address me...?
    Also despite what DemonTree said about you must be referring to Uruguay...I know different you have tried in the past to use UN State legislation as applicable to the Falklands...
    Pssst...They are not a State...
    You are becoming confused in your dotage...old man...

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    A little bird tells me that the Falklands stand is still up and running and, due to the publicity, doing twice the business that it was before. Also that the Embassy told the Minister that it was a private business arrangement and that the Uruguayan government should not interfere.

    Where next? Time will tell.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “We're not in a court of law”...that was DemonTree”. Mea Culpa, you're absolutely correct it was DemonTree the slavish follower.
    Yes he likes to get in his very shallow two cents worth.
    démontrée
    French[edit]
    Verb[edit]
    démontrée
    feminine singular of the past participle of démontrer
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/démontrée
    I’m glad that you are so definitive about your identity.
    “You have tried in the past to use UN State legislation as applicable to the Falklands…” Not me as there is no such animal, other than the UN Charter which is binding international law

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • teaberry2

    Just shows how horrible and nasty the Argies are............would hope that's its true what you say Roger in your last comment............would hope that the Uruguayans have their man pants on and tell the Argies to bug off...

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Roger Lorton

    I wish that was true also teaberry 2, but I said that our man at the Embassy stuck it to the Uruguayan Minister. Sadly, I suspect the Minister will do a Uriah Heep to Argentina.Uruguay is too small to effectively challenge its bullying neighbour.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • SkippyVonBraun

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -6
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    So when you said above that Argentina was in breach of the principle of non-intervention in other states... did you mean they are interfering with Uruguay's affairs, or with the Falklands?

    I'm thinking I overestimated you...

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • The Voice

    'Foot shot in' springs to mind applying to the Corned Beef State and of course the hopeless Argies who renege on any agreement at the first opportunity. Lie on your beds, with your hopeless Stool Pigeons and Quislings, you made them...

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    It is self evident that it is applicable to both Uruguay and the UK “non-intervention of States in the internal and external affairs of other States … “No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State…..All States shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure”

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Back pedalling Terry...
    What did it have to do with the UK....?
    I'll just quote Roger shall I...?

    “Last I heard, the Uruguayan Minister had telephoned the British Embassy in Montevideo to ask them to remove the stand at Prado, only to be told that it was NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UK, but was a private arrangement between the FIG and the organisers who had invited them. ”
    You and I both know you meant the Falklands...man up and admit it...
    Like I mentioned earlier it wouldn't be the first time you have applied the UN State quotes as applicable to the Falklands...
    Pssst...Still not a State...

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    You can equivocate as much as want it doesn’t change the effect of resolution one iota nor the international law described within. As Uruguay, UK, and the Islander’s can all claim its protection. Argentina is still in breach of the resolution and the international law referred to within. But the thats because she’s conforming to type. As Baylies(US charge d'affaires) in 1832 held that the United States should sign no treaty with authorities in Buenos Aires “for we would abide by it, and they would consider the violation of a treaty no greater offence than a lie told by a schoolboy.... ”

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    Ha ha...Just admit that I caught you and we'll move on...
    It technically only pertains to Uruguay...unless of course you think the Falklands doesn't govern itself and needs the UK to attend a business convention...?
    The chances of you quoting a UN resolution in defence of Uruguay are zero to none...not your MO....
    Slink away Terry...you have been well and truly stuffed...the hole will only get deeper...;-))))

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    You’re deluded, what are you balling about there is nothing that pertains Ref.: 2225(XXI) that is of any advantage to Argentina it leaves her condemned. Whereas, the other three parties can claim its protection favours them. Moreover, its not hard to envision what drives the UK’s position. It’s the maxim of equity of not allowing Argentina to obtain any advantage through her own wrong doing. It is equally clear that Argentina knows she never had a legal claim otherwise she would have pursued that route.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    This fella seems a little surprised that Argentina's moaning didn't achieve anything.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_DR0tjso70&feature=youtu.be

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • golfcronie

    How is it that when the fella is talking the signs in the background are in reverse. Looks like the film is showing on a backboard and he is standing in a studio with the film behind him. The Argentines are good for a laugh no?

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Golfcronie, it's cos he's filming on his phone and when he's talking it's in selfie mode which reverses the image. Also he's another idiot who films in portrait mode, grr.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    You’re babbling on that you’re a winner in your own mind, enjoy your delusion. But, just like always you have been blown out of the water yet again. While I’ll stick to what is relevant. Which is, what is the underlying legal foundation? I don’t even pay much attention to you, as all you promote is just your own inane absurdities. That have absolutely no legal basis support. So you have become boring, as I prefer real issues not your pretended nonsense. If there is no citation it is BS. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    “ I don’t even pay much attention to you,”

    From the guy that has posted to me again without me even replying to his last post....;-))))

    He must have felt that he hadn't quite asserted that the Falklands is a State...
    ...whilst not providing any evidence either...
    What was that Hitchens quote again...? ;-)

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “He hadn't quite asserted that the Falklands is a State…”
    “Fighting with your own toe-nails” Wonderful how you can credit assertions to others that they hadn’t quite made has to be the ultimate gobbledygook, give your self a shake. As the only issue I have asserted and proved is that Argentina has historically and frequently been a breacher of international law. You’re crediting me with assertions without evidence. Well, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens. As its BS, otherwise show and tell since you bear the burden proof not I.

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    It's 2017. The Falklands are British, and will remain that way.

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    It's 2017... Afghanistan, Antigua&Babuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Hong-Kong, India, Israel, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Kitts, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Seychelles, Sierra-Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri-Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad&Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe were once British..., but..., it didn't remain that way...

    The Engrish Empire is shrinking... I reckon...

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “It's 2017..” So thanks in confirming that you have lost any capacity to prove the truth of your claims. While being unable to refute the proof of mine. Your vanquishment and retreat is duly noted. The intellectual high ground you were trying to stake out is now totally submerged.

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Marti Llazo

    It's 2017. Cuba and the Philippines were once part of the US. Does their not belonging now suggest that the US is anything but the predominant world power? I think not.

    Tinkle's list of former British territories fails to note which of those requested independence, while the Falklands have rather unambiguously expressed their desire to remain British. Hardly a subtle distinction.

    It's 2017. In the last 100 years Argentina has declined precipitously, from being an economic powerhouse to a bankrupt and impoverished fourth-class populist backwater. It may even be said that Argentina's continuing decay and submersion are inversely proportional to the present position of the UK as one of the world's current powers.

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    Been much shrinkage lately Think?

    I hear that the Falklands' stand will have to leave Uruguay on Monday .................... LOL

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Depends what you consider “lately”..., laddie...
    Wasn't the 1 July 1997 kind of “lately”...?
    Boy..,what a wonderful day that was...!

    Anyhow... since you ask...
    I Think the next sheduled shrinkages are...:
    1) The BOT in Cyprus... (May has already committed to return ~50% hasn't her...?;-)
    2) The BOT of Gibraltar...
    3) The Malvinas BOT...

    Speaking about shedules...
    The Falklands' stand will leave the Expo Prado in Uruguay on Monday... as sheduled...
    Question is if Uruguay will allow them to return in 2018...
    Diplomacy works in strange, slow ways..., lad...

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    20 years? That's only “kinda lately” if you are old.

    Cyprus? No idea, I hadn't heard. When you say 50%, are you talking one of the two?
    Gibraltar? Not in the next 300 years.
    Falklands? They'll probably be British longer than Gibraltar.

    Dream on, old man.

    As for Uruguay “allowing” - I thought the problem was that Uruguay (Gov) didn't get a say in private business matters. It's one of the problems in having a genuinely free society. Is Uruguay still listed as the only true democracy in South America? I must check.

    We'll see what happens next year ........... next year :-)

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Mr. Lorton...

    You say...:
    ”...Problem was that Uruguay (Gov) didn't get a say in private business matters.“

    I say...:
    That ”Private Business Matter” of yours... happens to be a matter between the ARU (Asociación Rural Uruguaya) and the FCO (UK's Foreign & Colonial Office)...

    I know..., the ARU (Asociación Rural Uruguaya) has been private since 1871...

    Could you please inform me..., since when the FCO (UK's Foreign & Colonial Office) has been on private hands...?

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @Think
    You celebrated millions of people being handed over to a repressive, 'communist' dictatorship? Shows how much you really care about democracy, freedom and human rights. And that was 20 years ago.

    I heard the Cayman Islands were thinking about independence, and they are rich enough to afford it. Perhaps they will be next?

    @RL
    Isn't the event being held in Argentina next year? Somehow I doubt there will be a Falklands stand there.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree...

    You say to me..:
    “You celebrated millions of people being handed over to a repressive, 'communist' dictatorship? ”
    I say...:
    Please inform yourself about the Hong Kong agreement... short 20 years ago..., today... and during the next 30 long years...

    You say further...:
    “Isn't the event being held in Argentina next year? ”
    I say...:
    Please inform yourself about where the Expo-Prado has been hold the last 105 years and where it will be held next year...
    http://www.expoprado.com/historia/

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @Think
    I know all about the agreement, why don't you inform yourself about the recent protests held because China has not been keeping to it? And if 20 years is such a short time to you, why do you think another 30 will be enough to turn China into a democracy?

    In an earlier article on the Expo-Prado it said:

    ”The annual event, which this year is international, (it rotates with Argentina's Palermo show)”

    So does this mean it happens every year but it's only international on alternate years? Confusing.

    Anyway, why don't you tell us since when the Uruguayan government has had a say in the FCO?

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Think - can't your public bodies enter into private contracts? How strange.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree...
    If..., as you say..., you “know all about the HK agreement”..., then you know that I can't be celebrating no handing over of millions of people to a repressive communist dictatorship...don't you..., lad...?
    What I do celebrate is this... what a beautiful momen it was!...:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=roogeJ9rh8k

    Roger...me dear lad...
    The case we are discussing here is that the Uruguayan Foreign Office “Public Body”..., politely asked their colleagues from the United Kingdom Foreign & Colonial Office “Public Body”... to be so kind to take down a problematic stand at their official, tax payes financed, UK pavillion on Uruguayan Terrirtory...

    As we know..., the United Kingdom Foreign & Colonial Office “Public Body” offcials weren't so kind...
    End of the 2017 story...
    2018 may be a different story...

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Possibly because the - and I quote - ”United Kingdom Foreign & Colonial Office “Public Body”... know how to honour a contract?

    As an Argentine, you may need to look that up :-)

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. Lorton...

    You say...:
    “Possibly because the - and I quote - ”United Kingdom Foreign & Colonial Office “Public Body”... know how to honour a contract? ”

    I say...:
    An 1312 with a sense of humour...!
    The United Kingdom Foreign & Colonial Office honouring a contract...? ”
    Chuckle..., chuckle..., chuckle..., chuckle..., chuckle..., cofff..., cofff..., call the paramedics...;-)

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    LOL You'll be telling me they broke the fishing agreement next LOL

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “The United Kingdom Foreign & Colonial Office honouring a contract…?” Since your inference is they don’t, please reveal the factual basis for the statement.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Marti Llazo

    The position of the government of Uruguay, as quoted in the media (El Observador) was that the stand reflected an agreement between private parties and that the government of Uruguay need not have anything to do with it, provided nothing unlawful was involved. Véase:

    “... Nin Novoa [ ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Uruguay] explicó que la embajada argentina en Uruguay 'no se comunicó directamente' con la cancillería, sino que lo hizo 'a través de una llamada telefónica' a la embajada uruguaya en Buenos Aires. .... aseguró que la situación responde a un 'acuerdo entre privados' y que el gobierno 'no tiene nada que ver'. ”

    The nature of the exchange between the Argentine and Uruguayan foreign ministries reflected a “kid gloves” sop toward Argentina aimed at appeasing the habitually and inconsolably rabid nationalists whose anxiety medication is no longer subsidised.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    Roger...,lad...

    I have told you before and I'll repeat it once again just for your benefit...:

    It wasn't the FCO that broke the Malvinas Fishing Agreement...
    It was the FIG(leaf) that broke the Malvinas Fishing Agreement...
    By granting three of their MLA's 25 years fishing licences instead of the agreed 1 year licences...
    Thereby creating a whole new social class in them windblown Islands...: The Squidllionaires...

    But... You know all this already... You are quite befriended with one of them..., ain't ya...?

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @Think
    Heh, there's one comment on your video: “I miss the British”. Kind of makes my point, doesn't it?

    At least you're consistent; you don't believe the millions of people of Hong Kong should have a say in their future, any more than the few thousand Falklanders.

    If it wasn't for China, Hong Kong could have been decolonised long before 1997, becoming an independent city state like Singapore. They'd have had democracy in the 50s. Now they are functionally a Chinese colony, something that's still, 20 years later, much preferable to being a part of China.

    Something to celebrate indeed!

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree...

    I have news for you...

    Hong Kong has.., for millenia..., been an integral part of China...
    Stolen from them..., as dozens of other enclaves..., by Western Colonial military supremacy...
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_foreign_enclaves_in_China

    Its return to Mother China is indeed something to celebrate...!

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Ask any Chinese person whether Tibet is an integral part of China. They'll say “yes, it has been for millennia”, and screw what the Tibetans think about it. Do you celebrate China reconquering Tibet also?

    Britain and the other colonial countries shouldn't get to keep those enclaves, but putting more people under the rule of a dictatorship is nothing to celebrate.

    The population of HK only got so big because people were fleeing the cultural revolution in China. Ironic, isn't it, that people were fleeing their country to live in a foreign administered colony, and that some aspects of Chinese culture were better preserved in HK and Taiwan than in China itself, because Mao decided to destroy them? Colonialism sucks, but people voting with their feet show communism is worse.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Geeeeee......

    Them Engrish and their eternal need of being the goodies of the movie..., whils tbeing subconsciously painfully aware that they..., by all means..., are on the baddies team...

    For all I know..., Communism wouldn't have been engendered without the Colonial sperm...

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Don't you find this 'goodies' and 'baddies' view a tad simplistic? You should have learned better by your age...

    Just because there are worse things, does not make colonialism good. But there is no point getting rid of a bad thing if it is going to be replaced by a worse one, something both the UN and US politicians could stand to learn.

    As for communism, AFAIK it was created in reaction to capitalism, and in Germany which came late to the game and never had many colonies, so I doubt there is much of a relation.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    So your inference that he United Kingdom Foreign & Colonial Office dishonours its contracts Ignoring the Burden of Proof, … he who asserts must prove. Since you haven’t an adverse inference can be drawn. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; States of Affairs; First published Tue Mar 27, 2012
    “Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.” So for all of the reasons above your claim is conclusively shown to be false.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Laddie...

    “Goodies and Baddies” is the absolute prevalent antagonistic dichotomy in almost all of our World's culture ethics...

    Nothing “simplistic” about it...

    With a bit of luck..., you will better understand it..., when you grow up...

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Hmm, is that why you support Castro, because you think America is the baddy so he must be a good guy? That's seriously screwed up.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Remind me Think - where in the fishing agreement did it ban 25 year licences?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Marti Llazo

    And we thought that reekie was ridiculous.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree...
    Hmm, is that why you support Trump, because you think Cuba is the baddy so he must be a good guy? That's seriously screwed up.

    Mr. Roger Lorton...
    Don't be childish..., lad...

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Childish? I'm just wondering where in that agreement is banned the issue of 25 year licences. One of those funny things with agreements and contracts, is, if it isn't prohibited, then its allowed. Childish to Think otherwise.

    But then Argies like to see things that simply aren't there.

    Don't you Think?

    :-)

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • GALlamosa

    The agreement to set up the South Atlantic Fisheries Committee contained no provisions on control or management practices in the respective fisheries. It simply set up the SAFC to promote scientific co-operation. You have caught the old propagandist spreading lies and dis-information again RL.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    YES..., Mr. Roger Lorton..., childish...
    The basic rule of any agreement or contract is that what's written can't be changed unilaterally...
    The Malvinas Fishery Agreement clearly stipulated “1 YEAR LICENSES”...
    The FIG(leaf) changed that..., unconsulted and unilaterally..., to “25 YEARS LICENSES”...

    Mr. GALlamosa...
    Please read the Agreement before commenting..., specially the paragraph where 1 YEAR FISHING LICENSES were agreed...

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Marti Llazo

    It's 2017. The Falklands are still British. Get over it.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Where did it say - 1 year licences Think.................... exactly?

    Which Clause ..................... exactly?

    Which paragraph .................. exactly?

    Name that Tune Herr Think.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    What...?
    You don't 'ave a copy....?
    Aks one of ya Kelper friends to provide you one..., lad...
    Or are you afraid...?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Searched and searched Think - starting to look like another of those Argie myths

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    So you’ve been caught out lying by both myself and Roger. Glad to see that you’re maintaining your deserved reputation as a source of bogus information. As its confirmed by your failed rebuttals that Argentina is a breacher of international law and the FIG is not in breach of South Atlantic Fisheries Agreement. Not bad, two for two, its got be the biggest Argentine delusion that the use of viveza criollo will bring you an advantage.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    Mr. Lorton...

    Can't be sooo difficult for a bright lad as you..., boy...
    Why don't ya ask John Barton...??? I Think he is still Fisheries Director and has the same phone number...
    He was direcly involved in the 2005 FIG(leaf) granting of 25 years fishing rights to their own members, family and friends...

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • GALlamosa

    I have seen and have access to the Madrid accord, and it makes no reference to any provisions or control of management practices. Like the mans says you have been caught lying Mr Think. Unless of course you have another authenticated document you would like to produce.........................

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    Geeee...., Mr. G.A. Llamosa...

    Firstly..., the 1990 Madrid accord was just when it was decided to establish the Argie-Brit “SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION”...

    Secondly..., the Argie-Brit SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION met more or less regularly in London and Buenos Aires twice a year to discuss all things fishing and take decisions in common...

    Thirdly...,things went..., more or les smooth..., until 2005..., when the FIG(leaf) decided..., unilaterally and unconsulted..., to draft a “New Modern Fisheries Law” to benefit their friends and families...... Between others by granting very valuable 25 years long fishing licenses to their already mentioned friends and family..

    That is Malvinas history..., lad...
    Inform yourself...

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @Think
    You know perfectly well I can't stand Trump. And whatever I think of Castro it doesn't make Cuba a 'baddy'.

    How do you even know what this fishing agreement says if you don't have access to a copy?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GALlamosa

    I know the Falklands history way better than you Mr Think. You seem to have shied away from your assertion that the Madrid accord contained provisions on management of the respective zones. It did not, and you have been caught telling lies.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree...
    IDO know perfectly well you can't stand Trump...
    As you should know perfectly wel you don't know nothing about my personal or political opinions about Cuba or Tibet...
    On the latter Country affairs..., I concord fully with a certain Lama I had the honour to speak to a brisk winter morning of 1990... in Czechoslovakia...
    You challange me above to ask any Chinese about Tibet...

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @Think
    I had assumed you supported an independent Tibet, despite this seeming rather ungrateful to China who publicly support Argentina's 'territorial integrity'. Was I wrong?

    How does your 'heroes and villains' view of the world work then? I was imagining it was the same as others I have heard on here, just with the good guys and bad guys reversed.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. G. A.Llamosa...

    FIRSTLY..., if you know the Falklands history as good as you say..., you know that I am right about the unilateral and unconsulted 2005/6 change from the 1 year Fishing License System to the 5 Years Fishing License System...

    SECONDLY..., if you know the Falklands history as good as you say..., you know that I am right about who benefited most from that unilateral and unconsulted 2005/6 change...
    - The 2017 list of Kelper Squidllionaires contains almost every surname of those in political control of them windblown Islands in 2005..., when the “New, Modern Fishing Law” was passed...

    THIRDLY..., I “seem to have shied away from my assertion that the MADRID ACCORD contained provisions on management of the respective zones”....... because I never asserted that the MADRID ACCORD contained such provisions...
    What I assert..., is that each and every meeting of the Argie-Brit “SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION” that treated the issue of Fishing licenses from the year 1990 to 2005..., did so on a mutually agreed 1 Year Fishing License Period...
    - Until 2005..., when the FIG(leaf) decided..., unilaterally and unconsulted..., to draft a “New Modern Fisheries Law” benefitting their friends and families by granting very valuable 25 years long fishing licenses to them...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Oh, so there's no clause and no paragraph where Britain or the FIG agreed to 1 year licence periods then? So no agreement broken, just Argentina getting pissed off because they didn't like the change and weren't consulted.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Wrong..., lad...

    The existence basis for the 1990-2006 Argie-Brit “SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION” was the principle of “Mutual Agreement”...

    Once that “Mutual Agreement” principle was broken by the FIG(leaf) to benefit friends and family... the Argie-Brit “SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION” had no raison d'être...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    I found a copy of this agreement... like the most recent one, it turns out to actually be a joint statement.

    Main points are:

    The two governments agree to create the ”South Atlantic Fisheries Commission' to assess the state of fish stocks.

    They also agree a temporary total prohibition of commercial fishing in a defined area.

    The functions of the commission are analysing data, making recommendations to the governments concerned on conservation and scientific research, and monitoring the total exclusion zone.

    http://www.fiassociation.com/shopimages/pdfs/6.%201990%20Joint%20Statement%20on%20the%20Conservation%20of%20Fisheries.pdf (2nd page)

    It doesn't say either government is bound to follow those recommendations, and it doesn't say fishing licences must be one year only, or that the FIG cannot change them as they see fit.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    It doesn't say either that the FIG(leaf) couldn't fart in Argentina's general direction....
    What they did...
    Effectively killing the ”South Atlantic Fisheries Commission”...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    So the end of all this is that the FIG did not break any agreement; they did something Argentina's government didn't like and Argentina went off in a huff.

    RE What do Chinese people think about Tibet, here's a couple of examples:

    ”what do we feel about our occupation of Tibet?

    Oh I don't know... probably the same as how American people feel about their occupation of North American continent, in other words: quite happy and content and totally entitled about it.

    So overall, I (and I assume many Chinese would agree) feel pretty good about our occupation of Tibet. What, you want us to give Tibet back to Tibetans? Why, of course, we'll give Tibet back to Tibetans if you give America back to Native Americans. You know, it's never too late to do the right thing.“

    ”Actually, most mainlanders haven't even thought about why Tibet is part of china, we take it for granted, because we are told ever since kindergarten that 56 different nationalities make the big family named china balabala, just as common as Americans are taught that everyone has the same rights balabala.

    Even more unbelievable, most mainlanders think Taiwan is part of china which can not be debated. Once there is a German went to our school and have a presentation talked about their education system and encourage us to perchase our higher education in Germany. The second PPT that he made contained a map of china, which do not have Taiwan, therefore, a student stand up, and come up with the problem why there is no Taiwan? I know it sounds silly, but that's what we gain in this environment.”

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    There was no one year fishing licence agreement Think.

    Nothing to prohibit the islanders changing their regime.

    It was Argentina that abandoned the fisheries agreement. The Kirchners were opposed to it and needed an excuse. So they made one up.

    This is one of the reasons that Argies cannot be trusted to keep their words - they make up the words to suit themselves.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Geeeee..., lads...

    I just checked the Marriage Rules of the Church of England and the Malvinas Islands Legislation...

    Nowhere in them is there any law..., rule... or ageement prohibiting a married Kelper male to shag as many sheep as he fancies...

    So the end of all this..., is that no Kelper hubbie breaks no law..., rule... or agreement by shagging them pretty sheep...

    They just do something some Kelper wifes don't like and them silly bints use that as an excuse to go off in a huff..!

    This is one of the reasons that women cannot be trusted to keep their words - they make up the words to suit themselves...

    Chuckle..., chuckle...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Huh, really? I could have sworn there was something about forsaking all others in there.

    I bet it is against the law, anyway.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Sheep are no “others”... lad...
    And nope... zoophilia ain't against local Kelper law...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Sheep definitely ARE 'others'.

    Wikipedia doesn't know if bestiality is legal in the Falklands, but I doubt it since it sure ain't legal here. Apparently it is legal in Argentina though!

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Nope..., lad...

    Inform yourself...

    “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”...
    - In Mosaic/Christian religions (as Anglicanism) animals are certainly no “Others”..

    Or do you eat “Others”...?”

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    I wonder whether sheep shagging is as common as squirming Argies who cannot admit they they were wrong?

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • GALlamosa

    The more you prattle on Mr Think the clearer it is that you know little or nothing about the workings of the SAFC, and now I see you have reverted to unpleasant innuendo to divert attention. Classic propaganda tactics, but it fools only the gullible. Discussion over.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    Roger...,lad...

    I have told you before and I'll repeat it... yet again just for your benefit...:

    It wasn't the FCO that broke the Malvinas Fishing Agreement (aka SAFC)...
    It was the FIG(leaf) that broke the Malvinas Fishing Agreement (aka SAFC)...
    By granting three of their MLA's 25 years fishing licences instead of the agreed 1 year licences in 2006...
    Thereby creating a whole new social class in them windblown Islands...: The Squidllionaires...

    All of the above... absolutely correct...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @Think
    You already admitted the FIG didn't actually break anything in the agreement.

    Seems to me the problem is Argentina assuming things are covered when they are not. If they want Britain to eg. cancel military exercises, they need to discuss that and come to an agreement, then they can add it to the joint statement. If they never talked about some issue, they shouldn't assume they will get what they want on it.

    RE 'Others', if you think about it, it's pretty weird that humans keep one animal as a pet and eat another, sometimes even of the same species. Do you eat your horses?

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Mr.DemonTree...

    You say...:
    “You already admitted the FIG didn't actually break anything in the agreement.”

    I say...:
    I haven't admitted nothing of the sort...
    What I have clearly stated above is... (I repeat)...:

    ”The existence basis for the 1990-2006 Argie-Brit “SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION” was the principle of “Mutual Agreement”...
    Once that “Mutual Agreement” principle was broken by the FIG(leaf) to benefit friends and family... the Argie-Brit “SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION” had no raison d'être..”

    Do you undersand my French..., lad...?

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    You admitted they didn't break anything in the letter of the agreement.

    The point of the agreement was cooperation on fisheries conservation. Does issuing 25 year licences prevent conservation, or stop the FIG following the commission's recommendations WRT level of catches? They can still change the quotas each year, can't they?

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    Nope..., lad...

    You are saying that “they didn't break anything in the letter of the agreement.”
    I am saying that they did break everything in the spirit of the agreement.”

    Capisce...?

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Think...,old man...

    I have told you before and I'll repeat it... yet again just for your benefit...:

    It wasn't the FCO or the FIG that broke the Falklands Fishing Agreement (aka SAFC)...
    It was the Argies that broke the Falklands Fishing agreements ...
    By creating a new Argie fiction about 1 year licences in 2006...
    Thereby creating a whole new class in other Argie parts - the squirmers and liars

    All of the above... absolutely correct...

    Get over yourself Think, no part of the agreements were broken by the FIG. If they had been you would have some proof. As it is, you have just made yourself look intransigent and daft.

    Well done, for a 1st generation Argie, you now look like an Argie

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Engrish logic 101...:

    The hubbie shags the sheep... and the missus gets blamed...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Spirit? The refuge of the rogue. In a contract, its the words that count. This is why Argentina has such a reputation for duplicity.

    If they don't like the words, they ignore them.

    Nothing was broken by the FIG - all was broken by the Argies. You fool nobody.

    Spirit? Risible

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    “I am saying that they did break everything in the spirit of the agreement.”

    And you haven't even convinced me of that. You said the same about the most recent 'Joint Statement', but it is obviously unreasonable to assume that an agreement covers areas not even mentioned, much less negotiated on.

    The whole point of making an agreement in words is to clarify what is agreed to. The 'spirit' of an agreement will always be a matter of opinion.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    Engrish logic 101...:

    The hubbie shags the sheep... and the missus gets blamed... and insulted...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton

    Squirm, Think, squirm............... and go look up some Contract Law

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    Engrish logic 101...:

    The hubbie shags the sheep... the missus gets blamed..., insulted... and referred to “Contract Law”...

    Chuckle..., chuckle...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Squirm, squirm, squirm.............. what was it that Baylies said in 1832?

    July 24th, Baylies, authorised to negotiate a commercial treaty if he thinks it appropriate, writes to Secretary Livingston opposing the idea;

    “… for we should abide by it, and they would consider the violation of a treaty no greater offence than a lie told by schoolboy. With the Bey of Tripoli or the Emperor of Morocco we might for a time maintain unviolated the provisions of a Treaty but with these people if a temporary advantage could be gained they would violate a treaty on the day of its ratification.”

    Not much has changed Think.

    Argentines are still rogues.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Argento logic 101:

    If you want to get out of an agreement, find some provisions that weren't even discussed, let alone agreed to, and accuse the other party of breaking them.

    At least now I know what Think and other posters mean when they claim Britain 'broke' the agreements.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    “We considered the English not only as the oldest, but as the most constant and sincere defenders of our rights, and it is painful to see us insulted by the friends and successors of the illustrious Canning.”
    Daily El Lucero, January 21, 1833, days after the British usurpation.
    British are still rogues, Lorton?

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Argentine logic which is habitually to break every international agreement and law, and then continue to lie through their teeth according to this third party.
    “There is scarcely a Buenos Ayrean privateer which has not committed piracy of every description - it appears that at Buenos Ayres itself commissions of Artigas have been sold to the Captains of the Buenos Ayres privateers, who have gone to sea, and used one or the other commission as suited their purposes... There is not a day passes but we hear of new crimes of this description committed under the flag and commission of Buenos Ayres ...“
    John Quincy Adams July 20th, 1820
    As the US chargé d'affaires Francis Baylies wrote about Argentina in 1832 ”...The revolutions of these people are seditious; their knowledge. chicanery and trickery; their patriotism, their liberty, a farce... “
    Baylies held that the US should sign no treaty ...for we would abide by it, and they would consider the violation no greater offense than a lie told by a schoolboy...”
    http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/argentina/rosas.pdf

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Hi Malvinense!

    Could I have your opinion on something please? That Joint Statement that Argentina and Britain signed a year ago, is Argentina going to stick to it? And if not, why not?

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Thank you Malvinense 1833, I shall use that.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr.DemonTree...

    You say...:
    “If you want to get out of an agreement, find some provisions that weren't even discussed, let alone agreed to, and accuse the other party of breaking them.”

    I say...:
    Ya mean..., like those silly missusses that get the hell out of the agreement with their hubbies..., just because they find out that they were engaging in activities that weren't discussed, let alone agreed to..., like..., for example..., shagging the sheep...?

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Still squirming Think? It's a pitiful sight.

    Malvinense 1833 - forgot to add, you do know that Canning was not your friend. He was far more concerned with keeping France out of the Spanish colonies than he was with you independence. He also recognised no rights in the merging states of Sth America, as he assured Spain in 1825.

    Still, if he signed something he stuck to the words ............... we don't do spirits.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @Think
    Like military exercises that have happened every year, and that Argentina were notified of every year? I'm sure they couldn't possibly have anticipated they'd happen again this year.

    Turns out Argentina doesn't have a problem with shagging sheep, anyway.

    Also, Roger is right; Britain is pretty good at sticking to the letter of agreements, but we don't do spirits.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Hello Demon Tree...
    Foreign Office:
    - Avoid to discuss sovereignty.
    - Established de facto an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the islanders, barred from exploitation for Argentina.
    - Only cooperated in areas vital to the economic development of the archipelago, such as fishing and hydrocarbons.
    -It lefted the total temporary prohibition of fishing stipulated - to avoid predation - in the Annex of the Joint Declaration on Conservation of Fishery Resources.
    -Unilateral extension of fishing licenses up to 25-year terms.
    What was the benefit for Argentina with this Agreement? Nothing.
    Argentina concedes and receives nothing in return.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Think

    TWIMC...

    Ahhhhh... them luuuuvely Engrish Massas...
    Always accusing the lesser races of being “pitiful”...
    Specially when they expose Engrish haughtiness and hypocrisy...
    They really should have learned by now... not to kick darkies out of trains...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton

    You dicks still cannot grasp that a contract is determined by its words. If there was “no benefit” to you, then why did you sign it?

    And we do not 'avoid' discussing sovereignty Malvinense 1833. We swapped positions in 1833/34. We argued in 1884 to 1888. We negotiated 1966 to 1982. Then Argentina chose trial by combat as an alternative to talking. You lost.

    Now there is nothing left to be said.

    We do not 'avoid' discussing sovereignty. WE have merely finished talking.

    Perhaps Argentina should not have chosen trial by combat.

    The matter is settled.

    Take some advice - either learn to negotiate better, or don't sign agreements that you are incapable of honouring.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    @Malvi
    So why do you think Macri signed another agreement (or statement as Think insists) with Britain, if there was nothing in it for Argentina? It's better not to make an agreement than to make one and then break it, no?

    @Think
    The problem with the 'spirit' of an agreement is that the parties usually don't agree on what it is. Let's consider a vastly more common situation, where the wife catches the husband watching internet porn. Did he break his vows, should she ask for a divorce? Not everyone will agree on the answer.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Marti Llazo

    Malhechor 1833: “What was the benefit for Argentina with this Agreement? Nothing.”

    Or on the other hand, such an agreement might delay the sending of a cruise missile into the Salon de la Incompetencia in the Pink House.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Pete Bog

    @Malvinense

    ”Established de facto an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the islanders, barred from exploitation for Argentina”

    Your people cannot suss this out.

    Your country could not manage the Falkland EEZ in any case and the Falkland Islanders are not not sending fishing vessels into the Argentine EEZ..

    The Falkland EEZ, produces income.

    Enough to be able to build infrastructure.

    Which requires more labour than the Islanders have.

    And requires resources the Islands cannot produce (in the main).

    Therefore if workers are requested from outside the Islands, generally these are Chilean or British, the money paid to these does not necessarily stay in the Islands.

    Because money goes overseas to buy supplies,services and labour someone overseas benefits financially from the EEZ, indirectly, but it's still 'exploiting' the Falklands EEZ.

    If Argentina had workers in the Islands and Argentina supplied materials and services (for money), therefore it makes perfect sense that a lot of the money derived from the Islanders natural resources could be flowing straight into Argentina.

    So obliquely Argentina would essentially be sharing the Islands resources, only it would mean not taking a siesta and not arsing about.

    If Argentina were clever they could be exploiting the Falklander's resources by supplying them with goods, services and labour.

    Instead, other nationalities benefit.

    Posted 23 hours ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • gordo1

    Think - your daft and erroneous arguments surely signal that you are totally bereft of any REAL knowledge of the Falkland Islands history and, worse, their future.

    Posted 13 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Mr. Pete Bog...
    I know that in many respects I have differences with you and with the majority of Brits who discuss here.
    What you say is intelligent and rational and I guess that's what the governments of Macri and Theresa May are trying to achieve.
    Even supposing that you can achieve what you say here underlies the question of substance and that interests Argentina: sovereignty.
    Sooner or later a solution will have to be found to this problem which prevents the establishment of productive and lasting relations between the two countries.
    I do not know what the solution is but you have to find it. Even at the cost of the loss of the islands by Argentina.
    If any arbitration or Resolution of the International Court favors the United Kingdom, I have no doubts in supporting the self-determination of the islanders.
    Argentina also has a lot to offer to the islanders, perhaps they can help us develop Patagonia, Argentines are sitting on a gold mine but unfortunately we are engaged in sterile discussions.
    One question: Why are the islanders so afraid of Argentina?

    Posted 6 hours ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • gordo1

    Malvinense 1833

    One question: Why are the islanders so afraid of Argentina?

    ERRRRR - 1982 invasion without warning!!! Surely, you must have heard of it! Dumbo!

    Posted 6 hours ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvinense 1833..... what problem? The only problem is Argentina. The Islanders are not 'afraid' of Argentina. They mostly despise Argentina. But that is your own doing.

    Leave the Islanders alone, and I'm sure that they will leave you alone.

    In the meantime the matter is settled - as said by the UK's Defence Secretary in March, 2016. You should read Mercopress.

    Posted 5 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    Malvado1833 .. “ Argentina also has a lot to offer to the islanders, perhaps they can help us develop Patagonia”

    Argentina has nothing to offer the islanders or anyone else except crime, corruption, poverty, corruption, exorbitant taxation, corruption, stiffling bureaucracy, corruption, expropriation, corruption, overpriced Fernet, and corruption.

    As far as developing the patagonia, the Falklanders and other Commonwealth members already did that for you, starting around 1885, with the importation of sheep and skilled personnel from the Falkands, along with machinery, wire, sheep dip, and other materials from the UK via the Falklands. Between 1885 and 1910, at a time when those effete porteños dared not venture south of the Río Negro, between 30 and 40 percent of the residents of Sta Cruz province were British. Their technology, management, capital, and labour made Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego economically successful.

    That is, until the criminal likes of Perón appeared, and the froth-mouthed nationalism that went hand-in-hand with Argentina's decline into irrelevance.

    Take a little walk along the old railroad line that used to run between Puerto Deseado and Las Heras and note how all the labels reveal the UK origins.

    Infórmate, de una vez.

    Posted 5 hours ago - Link - Report abuse +1

Please log in or register (it’s free!) to comment.