MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Jeremy Browne: “No doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands”
Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne has said there “cannot be negotiation on sovereignty unless and until the Falkland Islanders so wish,” following a statement by the Argentinean President. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSays it all really. There is no issue over sovereignty ... all that's left is the prospect of independence !
May 18th, 2010 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Godd to know that the new Government is as willing to give Argentina the finger over the Falkland Islands as the last was.
Nothing has changed, the islands are British, the islands have been British since 1765, and the islands will remain British until the islanders wish otherwise....... NO PROBLEM :-)
There are only two questions left in respect of our Argentine friends!
May 18th, 2010 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Are eyes and ears connected to brain?
2. Does brain work?
Why is she asking on behalf of other Latin American countries?
May 18th, 2010 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ConLib coalition will be more than happy to receive the CGT from the profits of shareholders in the Falkland Islands exploration companies. Although I would prefer to keep hold of all my profits I am hoping that I will end up having to pay lots of CGT.
May 18th, 2010 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am planning to make a donation to Help for Heros or a specifc Falklands War veterans charity with the profits I make from my investment. I feel it is only right that those that have had the opportunities to invest in the Falkland Islands pay their respects for the bravery and sacrifice of those who fought in 1982.
of course ; there are needs to hopes and distractions for Brits
May 18th, 2010 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0before the new unemployment waves and the new tax increasings ...
It is interesting that most of the Argentine posts on Mercopress offer only perception, conjecture and “what will happen in the future”. This must be due to their experiences of apparently going somewhere but never actually arriving. Either that or they are all dreamers who are unable to make their dreams reality.
May 18th, 2010 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try dealing with the current reality and what is actually happening, you will find that it is a more successful way of operating.
HOITRED AND OTHERS.
May 18th, 2010 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr jeremy brown confirms one more time what i have allways believed, if our claim prescribed more than 120 years ago, like many of you like to hold all the time, i wonder why the minister of foreign office didn't argue to our president, d.r. cristina fernandez de kirchner, that the u.k. wont discuss about the sovereign dispute with argentina, because it's claim prescribed in 1885?, unless one of you could answer this to me please?.
Mr brown only argues about the right to self determination for the islanders, wich is absolutly arguable, in my point of view, i have allways believed that the islanders have right to choose to remain as british citizens, they are not guilty for what happened in the past, but they will have to understand some day that, we have right too to claim for our territorial integrity, and we must find a solution that satisfys the wishes and the interests of both sides.
May be the islanders can declare their independence, but it wont impide that my country keeps on claiming for the malvinas, anyway if they didn't declare it during all these years of economic prosperity, i dont think they really can do it, as long as the sovereign dispute exists.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel - as I don't believe that Argentina has ever had a valid claim to the Falkland Islands, you question is irrelevant!
May 19th, 2010 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Axel - Actually, it's you that's irrelevant.
May 19th, 2010 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel.
May 19th, 2010 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine claim did not prescribe in 1885. It was dropped in 1850. Read the C24 submissions going back the 1960s and you'll see that British and latterly Falkland Island representatives have been making this point along with rebutting all the other spurious Argentine claims and arguments.
Comment removed by the editor.
May 19th, 2010 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED, AND J. A. ROBERT.
May 19th, 2010 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is evident that notwitstanding i parrot my arguments all the time, you wont never accept nothing but your own truth.
Hoitred my question is only irrelevant for you, if you would have solid arguments to refute what i say, you could answer my question, i dont think you can know more than an expert in international right, if you really believe that, it only shows your houghtyness.
J A. ROBERT, what happened in 1850 didn't have anything to do with our cause, beside i told you 6, 7, 8 times that the adquisitive prescription does not exist in the public international right, the fact that our claim was paralized during 35 years was a big mistake, but my country never recognized the legitimity of the british ocupation.
On the other hand , your explanation about the reasons why the u.k. negotiated with argentina was pathetic, if our claim was spurious and weak, the british could have prouved it, they didn't have nothing to negotiate with my country if our claim was false, they only would have given the independence to the islands, the malvinas were finally decolonized and the dispute was over, try to find a more reliable answer please.
If you are referring to the talks we had prior to the Falklands war this was because we was giving away our empire rapidly, and the Falklands were a financial burden. it seemed easier to hand over sovereignty to Argentina. But once you invaded them you made the Falklands islands a thing of national pride. You will not get them back.
May 20th, 2010 - 06:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually 1850 is hugely relevant Axel. From 1833 up to 1849 the UP claimed the Falklands. There was a message to congress to this effect every year from 1833 to 1849. After 1850 no more messages to congress about the Falklands, and no more claims addressed officially to Britain until 1941.
May 20th, 2010 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see you still have not addressed the inconsistency in your position. You claim that BsAs/UP/Argentina inherited nothing from Spain and at the same time you claim that BsAs/UP/Argentina has a right to the Falklands because they were once part of the Viceroyalty. Which is it Axel, because it can't be both? Either you DID inherit the Falklands because they used to be part of the Viceroyalty or you DID NOT, in other words you derived no rights to any territory formerly part of the Viceroyalty. Which one is it Axel?
JASON, i recognize that the rights of my country were precariuos, because our independence was declared uniterally, but we had start to excercise our sovereign rights in malvinas with our small garrison that we had there, beside the rights of the u.k. were precarious too, because after 1774 it didn't excercise any controll in the islands, remember that one territory is not controlled by sailors or sporadic settlements, it's only controlled by authoritys, all that you say about a soposed controll by the u.k. after 1774 is just a joke.
May 20th, 2010 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, the only one purpose of the treaty signed between arg., the u.k. and france was the rasing of the blockade, it didn't have anything to do with malvinas's cause.
Beside what you say about the fact that my country didn't claim to britain untill 1941 is totally false, i gave a you list of claims once, if you prefer to ignore it, that's your problem, if our claim was paralized since 185o untill 1885, that was a big mistake, but accepted it or not, the adquisite prescription is not valid for the public international right, beside the u.k. never invoked any prescription of our claim during the diferent negotiations with my country, and it never used the treaty signed in 1850 as a prescription to put and end to the dispute, i told you that i have a copy of a memorandum of one of the negotiations, and it does not mention a word about what you like to hold all the time, if you want i can traslate it to you.
If our claim was irrelevant and the britain's was strong, the british could have prouved it perfectly, and they didn't need anything to negotiate with argentina, the malvinas could have been decolonized by the u.k. and the dispute was over.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel, that entire paragraph was completely and utterly irrelevant.
May 20th, 2010 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THE WORLD, HAS MOVED ON.
Would not matter if you had a thousand pieces of evidence, This is the year 2010, and self determination is what every nation agrees is right.
Argentina as a nation, has joined the UN, and signed the UN charter, one of the main policy's is self determination, if you wish to continue to take the Falklands you should really leave the UN.
Axel
May 20th, 2010 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BsAs' rights were precarious, Britain's rights were precarious. I've agreed with you about that before, but the simple fact is Britain gained control. Argentina did not.
The claim did not go into some sort of “paralysis” in 1850. It was dropped Axel. The UP, by its actions, made it quite clear that the Falklands were no longer an issue between the UP and Britain.
Justin Kuntz's responded regarding your list of claims. They were not official claims by the Argentine Government addressed to the British Government. Making statements in any other forum or fora does not constitute an official claim. There is nothing more for me to add.
I think the British response is exactly what you suggest in your last paragraph. There is no need to negotiate sovereignty, and until the Falkland Islanders decided otherwise there will be no negotiation. Under international law, the only people who can decide when the Falklands have been decolonised are the Falkland Islanders.
I have two letters for you all relevant to this issue “BP”. Time is on Argentina's side, less then 10 years and there will be no penguins in Malvinas wrtite it in your calendar, and in regards to the colonist remarks, accoring to UN resolutions all forms of colony's have to be erradicated, and no territory under dispute can call for any independence untill the dispute is resolved, there is even one resolution that specifically suports the territorial integrity of a state over areas under dispute, I guess this british colonist thinks that Argentina is not a coutry, and the will of 1500 people can more than 35.000.000 back home, The problem we have is that british like to live in denial and victimize themselves to gain public opinion, but it's their denial that drives them at odds with the rest of the world, perhaps that's what they want to get ignorants to a table to divide a cake that's not theirs. you may dress a pirat in a suit but he will always be a pirat.
May 21st, 2010 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you could be more specific Sñr Vargas.
May 21st, 2010 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“no territory under dispute can call for any independence untill the dispute is resolved”. Which resolution exactly says this?
“there is even one resolution that specifically suports the territorial integrity of a state over areas under dispute” Perhaps you could point us to the resolution which says this.
Pirates!!!!
May 21st, 2010 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Perhaps you could point us to the resolution which says this”
May 21st, 2010 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's called 'making stuff up' and is rather common on internet forums. Some posters think that repeating something endlessly somehow makes it true.
Good point Idlehands, Jorgebobo has been trying to convince everyone that the British are pirates (I'm glad to see he is now getting the spelling correct) for quite some time.
May 21st, 2010 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By the way Jorgebobo, in English the word “ignorant” is an adjective and is never used as a noun, so “you ignorant” is not really correct. The Spanish word “ignorante” is best translated into English as “ignoramus”, so “you ignoramus” is correct usage.
No, gdr, actually “you ignorant” is not the correct usage - in writing or in speech.
May 22nd, 2010 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina was thrashed in 1982 by gold teethed parrot wearing cut throats in 16th century warships armed with equally sophisticated weaponry I dread to think what damage the same force armed with 21st century weaponry would wreak....
May 25th, 2010 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You ignorants and pirates!!!
May 27th, 2010 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!