MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands: Sea Lion Exploration Well - 14/10-2 Oil Dicovery
Rockhopper Exploration (LON:RKH), the North Falkland Islands Basin oil and gas exploration company, is pleased to announce that well 14/10-2 on the Sea Lion prospect has reached a depth of 2,744 metres. Initial data collected indicate that this well is an oil discovery, which would be the first in the North Falkland Basin. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesRKH currently up 124%
May 06th, 2010 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DES currently up 70%
FOGL currently up 21%
Oil, Oil, Oil, ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
Congratulations to the OG boys and keep up the good work.
Would love to see the look on the face of Jihad Jorge, priceless.
Great news for the people of the Falklands, I am sure this will be one of many. The GDP is going to sky rocket once they start selling!
May 06th, 2010 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
May 06th, 2010 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is indeed excellent news! Congratulations on your shares DR Beef, sell sell sell Ka-ching!
May 06th, 2010 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And all those doomsayers who said there was nought oil! Estevaz where are you?
You know what? I will make a prediction and say that by next year when the Jerkners are thrown from power, the New Argentine government will start a conciliatory approach with the islanders hoping to reap in the profits. Collusion is always better than conflict, unless you are failing spectacularly in the polls!
Won't that just be the kick in the teeth to many of our more rabid friends on here?
I await the current warmongering single digit celled brain-celled ones response to this in ernest, no doubt thunder will bellow, but the hotly anticipated lightning will never come, such is the way with the Malvinist's, all fart but no smell!
No doubt the Malvinist's will come flocking like seagulls eager to type their less than atheistically pleasing opinions on this issue, I wonder what sophisticated debates await us?
WAHEY! and the first place for a completely irrelevant and non-sensical abortion of a comment goes to the newcomer Ivo!
May 06th, 2010 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Never heard about the Royal Force or the Royal Armed Force, could it be that you suffer from that rarest of disorders where your larynx is at the entrance to your gluteus maximus?
ivo------- another shagger of goats,ducks & donkeys!
May 06th, 2010 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would very much like to see where Ivo gained his information .... But i doubt he will ever be able to present it.
May 06th, 2010 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But let us get on with the matter at hand, the Falklands have struck proper oil, which is quite astounding considering it took 44 drilling tests in the North sea before they struck oil.
This bodes well for the islands economy, and I can see that it will do wonders to expand the population and the economy, if they set up an oil fund they can secure a future without Argentina for years to come.
I can see already that a new airport at Saint Helena will be built within the next two years.
And that unless prediction is false and the Jerkners don't stay in power Logistic bases in the meantime will be built in Saint Helena and Namibia.
This provides a promising future for our fellow South Atlantic British countrymen and women.
yet, (#1,#2,#4,#5,#6,#7) four Brtis crows came to bait !
May 06th, 2010 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0where are the others !?
GDR hook line sinker mate! exactly like the fish I reel in on a wednesday Afternoon! Glad you could join us and justify point 4.
May 06th, 2010 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't care about your numbers gdr, just the £ in front of the numbers in my trading accout! Rkh shares will now find their level which is well above their current price!
May 06th, 2010 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
May 06th, 2010 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 07: The islanders have said that if they do get oil, that they are planning on paying the MOD the 100 million a year it costs us a year to defend them, they said it was one of their main priority's, which i think is cool.
May 06th, 2010 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Those islanders are all about to become so very rich.
JAJAJAJAJAJAJA
May 06th, 2010 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Beef, there is no oil coming out of the well, you don't knoe yet if you are gonna be able to extract it.
If there is oil in significant quantities, then it is time for a little tsunami to appear in that zone, don't you think? :-)
Jorge. Does your thickness hold no bounds. To determine if this an oil find then a they will have found oil in the extracted MUD. So oil is coming out of the well. This is exploration not production so it is time for logging and wireline testing, not the extraction of hydrocarbons.
May 06th, 2010 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are a desperate individual, firstly you want Al-Qaeda to murder civilians and now you are hoping for a natural disaster. You carry on being bitter, I will carry on being loaded with my Falklands investments.
LOL. Whatever!
May 07th, 2010 - 06:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please mother nature, do something! Don't let Beef make his way!!!
Sorry jorgyboy, but I seem to recall that Mother Nature's .... British !!
May 07th, 2010 - 06:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Jorge. I thought you were an Athiest. Now you are praying to mother earth! Is Druidism popular in your South Argentine backwater?
May 07th, 2010 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what is your “top secret” plan? There is still time for you to buy in and perhaps you will make enough money for a flight to BA to attend the next state sponsored demonstration!
Beef wrote “Jorge. I thought you were an Athiest. Now you are praying to mother earth! Is Druidism popular in your South Argentine backwater?”
May 07th, 2010 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps all the posts that gdr made in Welsh have had an effect?
Deepwater Horizon disaster has spilled to-date (06-06-2010) more than 3 million gallons of oil in the Gulf.
May 07th, 2010 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder what precautions are Desire Petroleum taking to avoid something like this.
The drilling areas are too close to world-unique wildlife sanctuaries, and the Roaring Forties are ready to break havoc, as soon as the winter season arrives... .
If anything unexpected (?) happens, no excuses shall be allowed.
Argie, I completely agree and I hope that goes for drilling in Argentine waters too... no excuses...
May 07th, 2010 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J.A. Roberts #21 - Indeed. That goes to all who'd drill with the use of plattforms on the South Atlantic basin.
May 07th, 2010 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's leave for another day, or some other more appropriate blog, the question of whose waters are all those we're referring to.
Cheers!
HOITRED, you asked me in one of the commentarys that i left this week, what is a prescription?.
May 07th, 2010 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You, and most british and islanders in this forum, argue all the time that my country lost it's right to claim for the malvinas, because it's claim was not continuous, since 1850 untill 1884.
What you dont know, is that this kind of prescription is not valid for the public international right, it's only valid for the private international right, beside my country never recognized the legitimity of the british ocupation in the islands.
The most important, is that the british government never invoked any prescription of our claim to argentina, during the diferent negotiations with my country about the sovereign dispute.
The u.k. government does not argue it even now, why the minister of foreign affirs of the u.k. does not argue to our minister taiana that he's country is not going to discuss about the sovereignty dispute with argentina, because our claim prescribed more than 100 years, it's simple, because he knows prefectly that this prescription is not valid for this cause.
This prescription is only invoked only by all of you.
About the reward of oil, it's a great news for the islanders, they are going to be more prosperous in the future, and i hope that our ypf can find an important oil reserve in our bassin of the malvinas, i am a profesor of geography, i have allways known that there are reserves of oil in the islands, but the volumes are not as hight as those that you can find in other sectors of the argentine see, specially in golfo de san jorge, in santa cruz and tierra del fuego.
On the other hand i am absolutly sure that the islands won't never be argentine again, but i need to know about the british perspective, because i want to survey about it, i will have to teach the malvinas's cause all the rest of my life, i'm 28 years old, and i want to be sured about our rights, i have allways rejected the cheap nationalism.
Axel - Thanks for that, I think I now understand what you are saying.
May 08th, 2010 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0In fact I don't believe that anything that happened after 1833 is very relevant to the historical argument. Argentina's failure to raise the issue over many years is potential evidence that they had abandoned their claim but only that.
As most of the historical perspectives from both sides center on events prior to 1833 I agree that what followed is irrelevant although obviously the historical argument is only one side of the issue.
The issues of International Law and Self-Determination rights are seperate and, I'll happily admit, not my primary area of interest. Others on this site deal with those issues and perhaps 'prescription' is important to those subjects.
Your desire for understanding is admirable.
I am also convinced that the islands will never become Argentine, but then I believe that they never have been!
axel,the dispute between our nations over the Falklands is regarding 100 year old treaties and events, the simple fact is that the world has moved on since then and now self determination is what most nations generally agree is right, it's one of the defining attributes of the United Nations.
May 09th, 2010 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing that matters is what the islanders want.
The Falkland islands are a country, recognized by the UN
Ha ha ha! We keep getting good news whilst Argentina's economy keeps falling apart! This kind of thing makes me laugh myself silly.
May 09th, 2010 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still, never mind, my Argentine friends. We'll keep the oil, whilst you can have another demonstration to make yourselves feel better!
It's nice being British because we have the world's sixth largest economy. What's it like being Argentine? Heh-heh. :o)
ahhh the other article was closed and I didn't have time these days, so Justin I will answer you here,
May 10th, 2010 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin said......“It happens to be a principle of International Law that if you don't pursue a claim, it lapses, the legal principle is acquiesence by silence. So not mentioning if for just short of a century is most certainly a renouncement of your claim in the eyes of International Law.”......
- That's one of the reasons you didn't have a valid claim over Malvinas. You left them and didn't claim them for more than 50 years. You said it!!!!
Jihad Jorge ejaculated “- That's one of the reasons you didn't have a valid claim over Malvinas. You left them and didn't claim them for more than 50 years. You said it!!!!”
May 10th, 2010 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Erh no! You are wrong again. You do seem to excel in one thing only - being wrong. Thing is - you are just not smart enough to see why. Usual predictable rants from your keyboard will no doubt follow.
Nothing interesting from you as usual. No argument rebutted, just your failed attempt of discrediting me. Uneducated!!!
May 10th, 2010 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 31 --- Oh the irony....oh my aching sides...just who are you trying to fool...other than yourself, that it.
May 10th, 2010 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0#32-------- J.Ariel Roberts ( George)...!...
May 10th, 2010 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0no need use up the crappy names like ChrisisUK !?
just 1 name is enough here !??
HOITRED AND ZETHE, i know that the islands are a country recognized by the u.n., by it's recognizes too that there is a sovereign dispute for those territorys between argentina and the u.k.
May 10th, 2010 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have many doubts about the right to self determination for the islanders, i still have so much to survey.
On the other hand, hoitred said that the malvinas were never argentine, if you prefer to ignore the fact that before 1833, there was an small garrison of argentine soldiers with an argentine flag, excercising our sovereign rights, that's your desition, accept it or not, your great mother land removed our garrison, they had no right to do it, it was a total act of piracy and usurpation, the british only had right to stablish on islands, because they were soported by the san lorenzo treaty, this only allowed british sailors to stablish on the islands, but that treaty didn't mention a word about a soposed british sovereignty of the islands, in fact the sovereignty was not on discusion on the san lorenzo treaty.
Beside the british left port egmont in 1774, and since that year untill 1833 there were just sporadic settlements of british sailors, they built huts and cultivated verdures, the existance of those settlements does not give any sovereign right to the u.k.
The islands were argentine, unless for a few years, but like i told you before, i am absolutly sure that my country wont never recover the malvinas, maybe the islanders can declare their independence, but it wont impide that my country keeps on claiming for our territory, like it or not, your islands are ours too.
About the historics events and the international right, both are very important for the cause, any is more important than the other one.
Alex Arg wrote “I have many doubts about the right to self determination for the islanders”
May 10th, 2010 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With respect Alex...the UN has NO doubts the right to self determination for the islanders.
And again I must add ...Argentina never had legal title to the Falklands... EVER. If there is another who could say that they had a claim to the islands, other than the UK, it is Spain and they show no interest in them.
CHRISTOPHER UK, the islands were submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty during colonial times, like all the rest of our territory.
May 10th, 2010 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We didn't need the consent of spain to declare our independence, if we didn't inherite the islands from spain it's not so relevant.
Beside the u.k. left the islands in 1774, and untill 1833 there were no british authoritys in the islands, there were just sporadic settlements of british sailors, but those settlements dont give any sovereign right to the u.k., i allready said why in the comment that i left fro hoitred.
In 1833 we were trying to excersice our sovereign rights on the malvinas, because some day they were submitted to the spanish kingdom, it was just one more part of our territory, wich had to be ocupate by our authoritys.
Beside when we talk about the sovereign dispute all the aspects must be toke into account, not only the wishes of the islanders, we can discuss a lot about it, i have allways liked to debate. AXEL HERRERA REYES.
We didn't need the consent of spain to declare our independence, if we didn't inherite the islands from spain it's not so relevant.
May 10th, 2010 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1816 you most certainly did. In 1816 there was no recognised right in international law for a territory to become independent without its metropolitan state's consent. Argentina's declaration of independence was a unilateral act of secession. International law has never regarded unilateral secession in the same way as a voluntary cession by the previous sovereign. In the case of unilateral secession title to territory depends on a number of factors, including establishing effective control over the territory in question, and recognition of that control by other states particularly the former sovereign. None of which happened in the case of the Falklands.
DAB14763, maybe the rights of my country were a little precarious, because we didn't inherite anything from spain, that's why a few years before 1833, we were trying to have efective controll on the islands by an small garrison that we had in that place, but it was removed by the u.k., it was a total act of usurpation, on the other hand, if we could not excersice our rights in malvinas, we could not excercise them in any other part of our country, because the islands were just one more part of the provincias unidas, i think that what you say is absurd, anyway i respect you opinion.
May 11th, 2010 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Beside dont forget that the u.k. had left the islands in 1774, what right had the british to force our authoritys to leave the malvinas?, if they had rights, they were precarious too, because during 59 years there was no any british controll on the islands, if they really had rights on the malvinas, they should have negotiate with my country, because both nations had right to stablish on the malvinas.
Axel,
May 11th, 2010 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your small garrison was there for less than four months, and never exercised control over the islands. At best they controlled the area around Soledad. It's hardly usurpation, that's how things worked in those days. Anyway, self determination trumps everything now. The UN might recognise that a sovereignty dispute exists, but it has never EVER said that sovereignty should be Argentine. In fact the UN has given several options for the Falkland Islanders to decide for themselves.
#39 hi the old school friend George ..
May 11th, 2010 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0let the fictitious names using like axel arg ...crisisUK... dab...
use just your own name.. we open the name J.A . !!??
you still eat biscuit at toilet ,once in the school .!??
why do you betray for your mother side..problematic personality !!!!
We would JA Roberts create an pseudo account to argue within himself Ivan? Christ your bizarre, unless of course you are a facebook stalker hoping that we will all be provoked into revealing our real names? So you can out us?
May 11th, 2010 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0well for a start your looking at mine now. So if you have a telephone directory of the greater Highland area get searching.....
Wow oil was found in Argentina, I am sooooooo happy, and we will even be on TV more often now that's great, Its being a while since they showed anything from my homeland, I look forward to seen this pirats british kelpers stealing from our land in jail, and their ships and rigs expropiated for stealing from Argentina like any other petty thief, they think that because he is white and armed he should be treated better then our natives back when they killed them, racism is no longer cool and you will be treated like any pirat, He can try to get his Argentine passport and stay in Malvinas but he seems determined to go back to his motherland, that's is the choice every ilegal alies has to make, or does this guy think that white people have to be treated better then latinos in America ??
May 11th, 2010 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0who you calling racist? what because you cant have what is not yours? you going to cry and moan and say that its down to racism? oh and can you explain who you think the “white man” killed? what natives?
May 11th, 2010 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0axel - I'm afraid that you are quite wrong. The illegal presence of an Argentine garrison for 2 months in 1832, as in 1982, does not provide any right of sovereignty to Argentina.
May 12th, 2010 - 04:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British withdrew their garrison in 1774/76 but that also did not mean that sovereignty was abandoned, and indeed, the use of the islands by British ships and sailors does maintain the claim.
You appear to have more research to do. Best of luck.
I was talking about the pirat british kelpers stealing oil from Argentine waters tron. I was happy that I might get to see on TV Argentine coast guards chasing and sinking the pirats in our waters. if you asked me UN should have forced that leachy trashy colony out of our island years ago but they waited and waited untill 1982 for argentina to lose its patience, maybe next time they won't be that lucky, we wouln't like to see the british pirats walk the plank.
May 12th, 2010 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did Avarse say something of profound in importance? must have missed it.....
May 12th, 2010 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well GDR, we agree on something for Once Avagarsehole certainly isn't Argentine, In fact I might go so far as to say he is not of this planet, but then again you certainly seem to orbit Earth a bit yourself?
May 12th, 2010 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Prove that is isn't stock market manipulation ( I think oil finds are very very hard to make up?) considering the equipment and personnel they are using is from a third party, as is the laboratory testing.
2. there are only 1,500 military personnel and guess what? 3.500 civillians, so prove then that they aren't “normal” persons? Go on then where is the evidence?
I didn't know GDR that farmers, fishermen and shop keepers were Military and intelligence assets? Perhaps you are writing without making good use of the latter phrase?
HOITRED, you are so funny, you want me to believe that the british maintained their claim, only because after 1774 there were just sporadic settlements of british sailors?, please, it's one of the most ridiculous assertions i ever heart, i told yuo that i knew perfectly about those settlements, but they dont give any sovereign right to the u.k., because those sailors were soported by the san lorenzo treaty, however in that treaty the sovereignty of the islands was not on discution, if the british left the islands in 1774 they didn't controll anything, it's not so dificult to understand, maybe the san lorenzo treaty was a limitation to excercise only the argentine sovereignty in the malvinas, but it didn't mean that they were just british, beside dont forget that the islands were submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty of the river from la plata too, then if the u.k. had right to ocupate the malvinas, because there was a garrison in port egmont, we had right to stablish there too, because it was just one more part of our territory, anyway i recognize that the rights of both countrys maybe were precarious, but the u.k. had no right to remove our garrison, they should have negotiate the sovereignty with the provincias unidas.
May 12th, 2010 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, when we talk about te dispute, it's stupid to say that only the wishes of the islanders should be taken into account, because this conflict has so much more aspetcs that must be discused because they are very relevant for the cause, it's very simple for the islanders to say that only the right to self dtermination is important, it's the same cheap nationalism that i heard from many of my compatriots when the say that the malvinas are just argentine. Like it or not, the solution must benefit both parts.
About what happened in 1982, of course it was not legal by my country, it was the most terrible and impardonable mistake.
Always happy to amuse Axel. although I think you'll find that what I'm saying is not only correct but perfectly legal. A garrison was removed in 1774/76, sovereignty was not abandoned as was made plain in Palmerston's letter!
May 13th, 2010 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0And yes, the British still had control which Argentina found out in 1833.
History apart, the modern situation is that a people's rights to self-determination overide all other considerations. The solution ONLY has to satisfy the islanders, no-one else matters! The UN is behind this approach and Argentina's feeble attempt to prevent independence via tha C-24 is doomed to eventual failure.
The islands may not remain British, but they will never become Argentine!!
GDR yes they have to test the oil to determine it's total quality, so far it is refinable and good quality.
May 13th, 2010 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do not know where the laboratory testing takes place either in the falklands or Chile since Argentina's sitting on the naughty in the corner in a grump with the Falklands at the moment.
But I can see no evidence of your conspiracy theory of stock market manipulation, considering you have 6 different parties involved in this drilling, you know what they say about conspiracy theories KISS (Keep it simple Stupid!)
This hardly looks like a conspiracy theory GDR? Usually the the simplest explanations are the truth.
And in this case they have struck good quality oil, and will start to reap the benefits in less than 5 years time.......such a pity Argentina cannot use this as a means of conciliation with the islanders, trust is at an all time low between the two peoples, mostly through fault of the dickhead Jerkner, why the threats, why the appeal to violence?
Axel, I see you still have a very contradictory position. That Argentina did not inherit anything from Spain, but also that Argentina has rights over the Falklands because they once formed part of the Viceroyalty - ie a Spanish territory, in other words implying that you DO believe Argentina inherited rights from Spain.
May 13th, 2010 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“dont forget that the islands were submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty of the river from la plata”
That is irrelevant to the Argentine claim. Argentina did not inherit any rights to any territory from Spain. The Viceroyalty was Spanish territory. Just because a piece of territory once “belonged” to the Viceroyalty does not mean Argentina has any rights over that territory. BsAs took its independence unilaterally and by force and without Spain's agreement.
“we had right to stablish there too, because it was just one more part of our territory”
Buenos Aires and subsequently Argentina did not inherit anything from Spain, so the Falklands were not your territory in 1810, they were not your territory in 1816 and they were not your territory in 1833. There was nothing to stop BsAs trying to take the islands, which it did, but ultimately that action was not successful. Whether or not Britain had a right then to remove the BsAs garrison is irrelevant now. The fact is the garrison was removed and BsAs did not establish itself in the islands. That has been the case since. It's time for Argentina to accept this fact and move on. The islands never were Argentine territory, they were not even BsAs territory.
“Like it or not, the solution must benefit both parts”
Why should it benifit you? Because of your irredentist and ultimatelyl unsustainable claim? I don't think that's a moral basis for claiming some kind of benefit, and probably why Argentina never will get any kind of “benefit”.
“it's very simple for the islanders to say that only the right to self dtermination is important”
Of course it's simple. That is their right.
..........“Whether or not Britain had a right then to remove the BsAs garrison is irrelevant now.”..........
May 13th, 2010 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Typical when someone lose an argument. It is relevant, you did it ilegaly and you'll never live in peace till you accept it!!!
HOITRED AND J. A. ROBERT.
May 13th, 2010 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are both so smart, it's really sorprising the way you distort the history and the dispute.
Firstly, if the british left the islands in 1774, they didn't controll anything, one territory is not controlled by sailors, it's controlled by authoritys, that's all.
I recognize that the rights of both countrys were precarious, because arg. didn't inherite the islands, and because the u.k. had abandoned them in 1774, if we had no right to excercise our rights in the islands, just because the declaration of our independence was unilaterall, it means that we had no right to excercise our sovereignty in any other part of our territory, the malvinas were just one more part of the provincias unidas, then what you say is really weak.
About palmerston's letter, i have a copy in my house of the answer of lord palmerston to mr. moreno, he affirmed that the malvinas's cause was astill pendent between both countrys, if the rights of the u.k. were so strong and legall, i wonder why did he told mr. moreno that the sovereignty of the islands was still pendent?, i will try to send you both the translation next week.
About the right to self determination, if it is override everything, then why are we still discusing about this sovereign dispute?, it's simple, because that right is not the only one relevant aspect in this cause, you defend your rights, we defend ours, like it or not some day the islands were argentina, unless for a few monthes, if we could not keep on excercising our sovereign rights on the malvinas, that was because of your great mother land, that was the way that the questions worked in that area in 19 centenary (by jason).
If you prefer to ignore that fact because you dont like it, sorry that's your problem, of course the islands wont never be argentina again, i am absolutly sure of that, but even your great grandchildren will have to live with our claim, like them or not.
“the malvinas were just one more part of the provincias unidas”
May 13th, 2010 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No they were not. The Provincias Unidas took whatever territory they could by force and sometimes by negotiation. The Prov Unidas never controlled the Falklands.
You hit on a crucial point. Both countries rights were precarious, but Britain gained control and has kept it ever since. It's high time Argentina accepts that fact - as it did in 1850 and for 90 odd years. Anyway, whatever happened in the past became irrelevant in the UN age, because now it is international law which counts and under that the islander's right to self determination is paramount - and unlimited. You defend your rights? What rights Axel? Your right to inherit the Falklands from Spain? Your right to claim them because they “near” to Argentina? Your rights because you once managed to get a garrison there for a couple of months nearly 200 years ago? Like I said, what rights?
Why are we still discussing this dispute? Because Argentina refuses to to let go in spite of international law being against it and in spite of simple common sense. If Argentina really, really believed it had a case, why has it not taken this matter to the ICJ to get a definitive ruling?
J. A. ROBERT, i would never call you idiot, or bobo like you like to call to some of my compatriots, surelly you have your reasons to do it, i dont even care, but in your case, you are not a bobo, you are just a haughty, i gave you solid prouves that show that many of your assertions are not true, anyway keep on thinking whatever you want, living in a fanatsy could be a good choice too.
May 13th, 2010 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly i recognize that my country made a terrible mistake, because it's claim was not continuous, but argentina never recognized the legitimity of the british ocupation in the malvinas, beside the adquisitive prescription does not exist for public international right, in fact the u.k. never invoke any of all those prescriptions to my country during the diferent negotiations with argentina, dont you wonder why?, they are only mentioned by you and your compatriots, but it's absolutly irrelevant, i have a copy in my house of one of the memorandums between both countrys, if you want, i can translate it to you.
On the other hand, dont you wonder why too, the u.k. does not argue now to our minister taiana that hes country is not going to discuss about the sovereignty with arg., because it's claim prescribed 100 years ago?, if our claim was weak and spurious, why there were negotiations between both countrys to find a solution for the conflict before 1982?.
About our claims what you say is absolutly false, i gave a you a short list of protests made by country since 1884 untill 1940, actually the list is much longer but i have no time to writte it all, if you want i will translate it to you completed, i promess, just give me a few days.
Axel - it seems to me that the sticking point is the British evacuation of its garrison in 1774/76 (there is some dispute about exactly when the last left). Your argument relies on the presumption that this evacuation meant the abandonment of sovereignty by the British. The British perspective, however, is that sovereignty remained undisputed by everyone other than, arguably, Spain. When the British garrison sailed away they left behind the required marks to show that British sovereignty was unaffected. When Spain subsequently also removed its forces from the islands they left behind the same marks.
May 14th, 2010 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0The difference between Spain and Britain however is that when it came down to a challenge by another government, the British reinforced their sovereign rights. Spain did not and that claim can be seen to have been abandoned.
Argentine settlers prior to 1832 were there with British permission. The Argentine garrison was not hence it was ejected. The British maintained their prior claim to the Flakland Islands in the face of aggression from Argentina, and indeed Spain in 1771. Britain's claim has never been abandoned and was in existence long before Argentina.
Historical case closed I feel! The reason we still argue about it is that the arguments are just occassionally enlightening .... and in any case I do enjoy a good row!
Axel. You know exactly why I call Jorge a bobo. There is no need for me to explain, and please don't tell me that you suddenly feel solidarity with an idiot like him because he just happens to be your compatriot.
May 14th, 2010 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0You still have not addressed the inconsistency in your position: How can the Falklands have been Argentine because they were “just another part of the Provincias Unidas”, and how could they have been just another part of the Prov. Unidas because they were once part of the Viceroyalty when at the same time you believe that Argentina inherited nothing from Spain? That is a complete contradiction.
Justin Kuntz comprehensively dealt with your your list of claims. There is not need for me to add anything.
The reason the UK negotiated with Argentina before 1982 was because the UK was obliged to do so by UN resolutions. It was obliged to negotiate an end to the sovereignty dispute (not a transfer of sovereignty), which is what the UK attempted. It was prepared to go further, and offer a transfer because the UK would have preferred to normalise relations with Argentina - at that time and this is probably still true, trade with Argentina was worth a lot more than the Falklands. You have to understand that the invasion means there will now never be a transfer of sovereignty unless the Islanders choose this. The UK will stick strictly to its UN obligations - and that means trying to find a resolution to the dispute but nothing more. If Argentina continues to insist that a transfer of sovereignty is the only outcome then nothing will change.
J. A. ROBERT AND HOITRED.
May 15th, 2010 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JASON, i told you that i dont even care the rasons why you like to insult some of my compatriots, you surelly have your easons to do it, that's not my problem.
About what justin kuntz said, that's hes points of view, every opinion are respectable, he must be surelly an expert in international right to assure that in the list that i gave you there are no true claims, i am not an expert neather, i am just investigating, and talking to profesional people on this issue, if you prefer to underestimate what a profesional says, that shows one more time your haughtyness and justin's.
On the other hand, you still didn't answer one of my questions, i ask you again, why the minister of foreign affairs of the u.k. does not argue NOW to our minister taiana, that hes country is not going to discuss about the sovereign dispute with argentina, because it's claim prescribed more than 120 years ago, it's simple, because he knows that those prescriptions are not valid for our cause, he only argues the wishes of the islanders to put an and to the conflict.
I only agree with you that the solution to the conflict is not the transference of sovereignty to argentina, the solution must benefit both sides, the islanders have right to remain as british citizens, they are not guilty for what happened in 1833, but they have to understand that we still have right to claim for our territorial integrity, and find a fair solution for us too, like then or not.
HOITRED.
I repeat that one territory is not controlled by sporadic settlers, or sailors, it's only controlled by the permanent presence of authoritys of the metropoly, keep on believing that mendacious assertion about a soposed controll of the u.k. after 1774, that's your fantasy's world.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
One stupid guy said..........“The reason the UK negotiated with Argentina before 1982 was because the UK was obliged to do so by UN resolutions.”.........
May 15th, 2010 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Sorry idiot, UK STILL IS obligated to negotiate. What UK considers about the penguins living there is irrelevant to UN.
- You can continue with your silly insults. Didn't you find a better one than “bobo”???
I didn't know an invitation meant you were obliged to negotiate.......
May 15th, 2010 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Penguins have feelings to you know Jorge, you of all creatures should know being yourself a parrot....
you see the pure selfishness of jorge, those penguins infact have more right than anyone to live there in peace, seen as they have lived there longest, pure selfishness and ignorence on jorges behalf, why will you not consider the penguins jorge? do you see yourself as superior to them? no that is not right jorgie boy isit,
May 15th, 2010 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i think the penguins even like our fellow falklanders company and protection, i know, when they (the penguins) decide to speak up and scorn our presence on those islands, then we shall consider negotiations, otherwise im affraid it just wont happen, thats fair now isent it jorge?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!