MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands has OT sign declaration in support self determination
Defining the future relationship of Overseas Territories with the European Union (EU) was the purpose of the ninth annual Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union Forum, held earlier this month in the Pacific state of New Caledonia and attended by Legislative Assembly Member Roger Edwards, Michael Poole of FIG and the Falklands UK representative Sukey Cameron. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAnother nail (or two) in the coffin of Argentine colonial ambitions !
Mar 28th, 2011 - 06:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is this garbage supposed to intimidate Argentina?
Mar 28th, 2011 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0lol
“OT” is dab14763's favorite acronym.
You wouldn't happen to work for Mercopress, would you dab14763?
You were just talking about this quite compulsively on “Falkland Islands’ tours are top three in South America” http://en.mercopress.com/2011/03/22/falkland-islands-tours-are-top-three-in-south-america
Look at post #40, he goes nuts about “OT”s
An OT signed in support of “self-determination”? Wow, what are the odds?
“held earlier this month” ...and you JUST found out.
Come on dab14763, tell me you don't work for Mercopress ;-)
OT is a standard acronym.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Paranoia can annoy ya,
Schizophrenia gets in between ya,
I blame it on society
I have really good memory, works in my favor. ;-)
Mar 28th, 2011 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islanders were granted full British Citizenship from Jan 1/1983
Mar 28th, 2011 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0under the British Nationality (Falkland Island) Act 1983 !
And all of the Overseas Territories of France, Denmark, Netherlands and the UK are recognised by the Treatires of Rome, Maastericht and Lisbon. Thus the EU formally recognises the relationship between the Falkland Islands and the UK, in the same way it recognises the relationship between Denmark and Greenland.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Martin #4- “I have really good memory, works in my favor.”
Mar 28th, 2011 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah Martin your memory never ceases to amaze me or others here, its so good you almost always have the wrong facts (or don't know that facts at all, especially when it comes to figures). in fact your memory is so good, that you falsely accused me of saying i was an american in posts on an other article, when i never said i was an american, all within 24 hrs.
Yeah i guess your claim to a good memeory is as much based on fantasy as the rest of the fantasty claims you come up with. I.e american frogment attaching mines to argentine ships in 1982 lol.
Teaboy, the insecure little boy speaks again.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They're called 'divers', Narnia boy.
Teaboy,
Mar 28th, 2011 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0old 'wetback' Fierro mistook 'us' in a post of yours for 'US'...simple mistake by a simple person.
and Martin.... they aren't 'divers'... they are 'figments of your imagination'
Wow... 'wetback', is that what people call you?
Mar 28th, 2011 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why so angry Franky?
Teaboy, I see I made a mistake, you're a Brit not a Yank, you can stop blowing it out of proportion.
“They're called 'divers', Narnia boy.”
Mar 28th, 2011 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Could you please enlighten us more on these US diver bombers who can operate at sea.
Frank, aren't you from the US? Perhaps you know something about the USMC Superhuman Suicide Divers?
Martin #8 No military divers are called Frogmen
Mar 28th, 2011 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Heres is what your favourite website that you rely on so much says about them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogman - Read the first sentence very carefully to avoid making a mistake when reading it like you did when you mistook my “us” with “US” even though the rest of the sentence made it clear as to what i was referring too.
As for #10 I was not blowing out of proportion, unlike your post on the HMS Gloucester article.
Suddenly you're all experts in Naval warfare... haha
Mar 28th, 2011 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This man never gave me specifics, he never said the plan was to attach bombs onto a moving ship, he never said how or when, or if he had the chance to do it. But keep talking nonsense, knock yourselves out. ;-)
No but as no ships were blown up in port, then the US never help us eitherway in regards to how you claim this man said they did.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Talk about back tracking on claims you had falsely made Martin (the fairy)
“Suddenly you're all experts in Naval warfare... haha”
Mar 28th, 2011 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn't take an expert to know that a man swimming underwater with heavy diving equipment can't swim fast enough to catch and attach a mine onto a moving warship.
It takes a COMPLETE idiot to even believe that the US would send out a diver from a sub to attach a mine onto a moving ship and risk his life when the entire point of a sub is to launch torpedos at other ships and make them explode. No to mention the fact that opening an airdock underwater(at the time i don't even think was possible) would make the sub shine on the sonar larger than the sun.
“This man never gave me specifics, he never said the plan was to attach bombs onto a moving ship”
But your original post claimed these were the reason your fleet was forced back to port. Because of the danger while they were at sea, moving...
People are taking the piss out of you because you stated something incredibly stupid and more so - you believed it.
2 Martin_Fierro
Mar 28th, 2011 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'' Is this garbage supposed to intimidate Argentina''
No.
Why does everything have to be about you?
This is mainly about getting EU development funding.
“Defining the future relationship of Overseas Territories with the European Union”
Mar 28th, 2011 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL, who cares, the islands are in Argentina and South America not the sinking Europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESpoeM3Rnp8
This is about greater recognitions within the EU and getting the EU's political clout behind them ...... !
Mar 28th, 2011 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not about intimidating Argentina, it's about ensuring that Argentina cannot intimidate the Falklanders! It's also about putting a stop to Argentina's aspirations.
The EU is offering umbrella protection to the Overseas Territories of constituent nations of the EU, possibly *because of* the strangenesses coming out of the UN Committee on Decolonization.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the right of self-determination under the protective umbrella of the biggest political/trading bloc on earth.
At a time when an unprotected island state can be taken over without much of a fight by big continental neighbours - not for the worth of the island itself but for the Exclusice Economic Rights that attach to it - and when these rights can extend to 200,000 times the size of the little island, you can see why these little islands are so important and so in need of protection.
Teaboy2 ::
Mar 28th, 2011 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am tea drinker,daily 6 cups.
please ,don't write comments more than 6 units daily . Ok !
jaja sign what you want,we dont care about EU we have a lot countries more in our favor, besides self determination is not used in territorial dispute and the UN declared malvinas was a diferent dispute, so keep signing things about self determination, you are just trying to avoid the unavoidable.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So many in fact that the change to Human Rights Charter regarding Self-Determination, via the backdoor attempt, by Argentina and Spain, regarding Territorial Integrity failed to win a majority vote at the UNGA.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The precedent has already been set within the 2010 ICJ Kosovo Ruling, Self-Determination trumps Territorial Integrity.
You just keep swallowing that Big Lie manufactured in the 1930-40s under Peronism, like the fascist idiot brown shirt that you are, nobody cares about your childish claim.
when you refer to a country, would you please state if you mean the country or the people, as you may be upsetting some blogger,
Mar 28th, 2011 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this was to me from Artillero 601
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
artillero601 (#)
Mar 28th, 2011 - 03:06 pm// bloggers @ and
@ briton... when you say Argentina cannot be trusted, please refer to the government not the people
thus refering that all of you must comply, or artillero will fire shells at you ?????????????????????
Wasn't Kosovo's declaration of independence based on self-determination?
Mar 28th, 2011 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm predicting that the response will be that it's different because that is a largely distinct people trying to gain secession from the metropolitan state, and in the Falklands there are two states fighting over a territory....
...But, if Argentina did manage to gain control over the territory, surely they would immediately secede on the same basis.
So, given that international support would naturally dwindle if it went from Argentina Vs Britain (an old colonial power) to Argentina Vs a newly formed, small island nation of the Americas.
How would you keep the Falklands under Argentine control?
Given the situation, Independence seems pretty inevitable at some stage, whether that be from UK or Argentina
I feel that all these self-determination (etc) arguments are going to get pretty mixed up. In some cases the (eg) Brits or Argentinians will 'win' from the argument, in other cases they will 'lose'.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For instance:
Falklands self-determination will be a potential financial loss to the UK as tFIs negotiate their oil on the world stage (perhaps to Argentina!).
Turkey, Iraq, etc, may feel miffed when the Kurds go self-determined.
West Libya may feel deprived of oil revenues when East Libya secede.
Southern Sudan may find desertification causes them to request un-self-determination.
TdF may request it from their continental masters.
Scotland already has it, but may want the whole hog.
The Isle of Wight may request self-determination from Hampshire & England in order to do a Channel Islands/Turks & Cacos financial haven thing.
The Faroes may self-determine and secede from the EU in order to have an independant fisheries policy and its own EEZ.
Each island in the Florida Keys might self-determine . . . . .
and Hell,! in the States, the redneck central states might secede from the Union!
We have seen how it can go right - Belgium leaves The Netherlands, 1830s;
but we have seen how it goes pear-shaped - East Timor, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, etc, etc.
and we have seen that some pretty large bits prefer to get in bed with a powerful partner - Greenland, Hawaii, Alaska.
And the world continues spinning . . . . thank God for the ICJ !
You see we need rules - international rules - and when the ICJ say “This is the way it will be”, it's in everybodies interest if we all say “Yes”.
“EU we have a lot countries more in our favor”
Mar 28th, 2011 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina: OAS - 35 Countries. China and few in the commonwealth.
About 40 at max.
UK: EU - 27 nations minus spain. Commonwealth 54 sovereign states minus about 4. About 80?
You do well in maths?
Not quite Frase, Independence is only one of the four options that the Falkland Islanders have when exercising their right to Self-Determination.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Should they wish to declare as such, it would likely be as an Independent Constitutional Monarchy, with HM Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State, and apply for membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, along with virtually every other former British Colony.
However, I'm certain they would likely wish to maintain Independence with free association with the UK, and probably grant the UK a Sovereign Base as a part of any negotiated arrangement.
Given the situation, the British would still remain within the Falklands Islands by invitation, and within the South Atlantic in any event, including SGSSI.
@briton ..jajajajaja!!! I'm a lover not a fighter (at least now) between you guys and the americans, we received superb training so watch it !!!
Mar 28th, 2011 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 02 Martin_Fierro
Mar 28th, 2011 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What 3 JustinKuntz said. Plus acronyms and abbreviations are useful for keeping your reply within the 2000 character limit. And no, I don't work for Mercopress.
“UK: EU - 27 nations minus spain. Commonwealth 54 sovereign states minus about 4. About 80?”
Mar 28th, 2011 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0jaja thank you you make laught a lot
27 - That does seem like a more likely scenario than Britain just handing the islands over against the will of the Islanders.
Mar 28th, 2011 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some seem to post here as if the latter is inevitable. So, I just wanted to pose the hypothetical question :
In the unlikely event of Argentina gaining sovereignty, how would they enforce it and how would they keep it? They'd be faced with a unilateral declaration of independence, fierce opposition, and the inevitable decline in any international support that they currently have
Frase: Most most likely by moving a few thousand Argentinians to live on the islands. That way the current islanders would not win a vote for independance or the islands would have to be split into two territorys.
Mar 29th, 2011 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Surely they wouldn't advocate implanting a population, and placing the wildlife under further strain from human activity........
Mar 29th, 2011 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine colonial ambitions??????? wtf argiekelper. look at a map and then speak, in what world you live, have colonized a territory larger than the island where live brit
Mar 29th, 2011 - 02:57 am - Link - Report abuse 016 Monty69,
Mar 29th, 2011 - 03:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why does everything have to be about you?
1 Redhoyt
”Another nail (or two) in the coffin of Argentine colonial ambitions!“
18 Redhoyt
”This is about greater recognitions within the EU“
Maybe if you make up your f@cking mind I'll be able to answer your question.
29 dab14763
”acronyms and abbreviations are useful for keeping your reply within the 2000 character limit“
What's funny about Overseas Territories is that for the most part it's a term you guys prefer to avoid, as it makes UK's ”claim“ and agenda on Malvinas abundantly obvious and completely displaces the islanders and their so called ”government“. A total fake if I ever saw one.
So to see so many ”OT's” within a single post is strange, and funny. ;-)
11 Zethee,
“Frank, aren't you from the US?”
Frank was not available for comments, he was constipated... too much bullshit.
Isn't that right chicano-boy?
Martian - I wasn't asking a question, I was stating what the facts appear to be!
Mar 29th, 2011 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0The perverse support offered Argentina by some of its neighbours logically leads the Falkland Islanders to look elsewhere for what they need. The EU is the obvious choice as there is already a connection.
The EU's support will also be useful at the UN.
If the islander's move even more towards their European roots then Argentina only has itself, and the Kirchner's policies, to blame !
Marvin, the UK doesn't have a 'claim' to the Falkland Islands, it holds Sovereignty on behalf of the Falkland Islands as an Administering Power recognised by the UN.
Mar 29th, 2011 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is no agenda because the Falklanders do not wish there to be any, and until they do, nothing will change regarding the Administering Power recognised by the UN.
36 Redhoyt,
Mar 30th, 2011 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The EU is the obvious choice as there is already a connection.”
The EU is the ONLY choice and the ONLY connection, the islanders are purely BRITISH.
Leave at that.
Well, there are 27 Countries in the EU, with at least 25 of those being friends of the UK, and therefore the Falkland Islands.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0In South America, there are 19 Sovereign States and Dependent Territories (if you include the Falkland Islands & SGSSI), with only 5* of those being supportive of the Falkland Islands (if we use Argentine information), stands to reason that the Falkland Islands would look elsewhere.
* - The five I list are as follows;
Aruba
Bonaire
Curacao
French Guiana
SGSSI
but is anyone knows any different, please offer corrections
Even better, if the Falkland Islands becomes an Independent Constitutional Monarchy, with Free Association with the UK, offers the UK a Sovereign Base within the Islands, and joins the Commonwealth of Nations, they will have access to the EU Marketplace by Free Association with the UK, and join the 54 Independent Sovereign States of the Commonwealth.
This would mean that the Falkland Islands would have links with the two largest trading blocks on the planet, which will be especially important when marketing the potential Hydrocarbon Industry, so who actually 'needs' South America?
Leave at that eh?
I feel sure that oil and fisheries quotas are prime 'sellers market' commodities - perhaps even sheep meat - so 'world' markets beats a path to the Island's door, not just the two largest trading blocs in the world.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0@40 Geoff, agreed, the Falklands have a bright future.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0@39 Wireless, also agreed, super oil tankers can take the oil to distant refineries. Who needs South America indeed?
#35
Mar 30th, 2011 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Overseas Territories is a collective noun that the EU uses to describe those territories associated with EU Member states, which are not wholly self governing, but are also not a full part of the Member Sate either. It covers a wide range of different constitutional arrangements from full internal self government (Greenland, Falklands, New Caledonia) to very limited internal self government (SGSSI, St Pierre, Wallis et Fortuna). One Dutch territory has recently left the OT's as it has integrated with mainland Netherlands (even though it is only a very few miles from Venezuela) and Wallis will probably do the same with France. Others, like the Falklands and the Carribean UK territories have markedly increased internal self government in the last few years.
Nobody is afraid of the expression OT's, except perhaps the few Argentine politicians who understand the powerful nature of the underlying European law and support for the legitimate rights of Member States and their territories.
35 Martin_Fierro
Mar 30th, 2011 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've never avoided the term 'Overseas Territory' and I'm not aware anyone else has either. And there being a probem with being an OT and having a government is nothing more than a figment of your deluded mind.
@43 Dab14763 - Agreed
Mar 31st, 2011 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The use of OT in stead of typing the full words of Ooverseas Territory is simply nothing more then acronym or in plain english SHORT HAND WRITING, must commonly used when typing text messagings or when writing comments posted online. Just like LOL is an acronym of “Laugh out Loud” Martin. And i most admit i am now LOL at you martin. As using the acronym of OT instead of the full words does not change the meaning of the words. Making your comment -
“What's funny about Overseas Territories is that for the most part it's a term you guys prefer to avoid, as it makes UK's ”claim“ and agenda on Malvinas abundantly obvious and completely displaces the islanders and their so called ”government” . A total fake if I ever saw one.
So to see so many ”OT's” within a single post is strange, and funny. ;-)” - Nothing but ridiculous and does not but show how truely stupid you are. As first you say we do not mention the Term Overseas Territory, and then say we mention say OT many times, when referring to Overseas territorys as OT for short is the same as saying Overseas Territorys. So which way is it? we either don't say it or we do, and i think you'll will find by saying OT that we are indeed saying overseas territorys - You Idiot.
Well thanks for the unwarranted insults 'teaboy' but you can keep them.
Mar 31st, 2011 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0I said the acronym 'OT' was used many times in a single post, not in every post.
And yes, I know OT stands for Overseas Territory... or can't you read the posts you're replying to?
And dab147... this “government” you're referring to in Malvinas, is a figment of their imagination, as is the UK's illusion that this “self-determination” joke is going to hold out forever.
Self-determination on behalf of a colonial power, what a joke. The UN condones this ridiculous charade because it is weak, ineffectual and coerced. There is nothing noble about people who wish to maintain their allegiance with the colonial power, because there is no distinction between one and the other. It's the UK that claims Malvinas, it's the UK that maintains its military presence on the islands, it's the UK that pretends to extend its fraudulent EEZ, it's the UK that claim South Georgia, Sandwich Islands and even the same Antarctic sector Argentina claims.
Self-determination MY ASS, the islanders have nothing to do with this, they're nothing but a lame excuse the UK uses to manipulate the UN like a puppet, or maybe I should say a whore.
Same thing with Spain and Gibraltar, even more evident than Argentina and Malvinas. Unbelievable, but I tell you this, it WILL COME TO AN END.
The UK will lose all its “OTs”, will probably lose Scotland as well, it will revert back to the tiny little thing that it is, that it always was. You will have to learn dignity and accept that what you took was never yours to begin with.
@45Martino, what a complete load of rubbish, you sprout. We will have the type of government that we like. lt's got nothing to do with you or your country. lf we want to be an OT, we will be one. we can be a kingdom, a colony or a republic. lts none of your business. And whats more, who cares what you or your country thinks.
Mar 31st, 2011 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0l will never tire of saying to you fools,
1)you have NEVER owned the Falklands
2)you DO NOT own them now
3)you WILL NEVER own these lslands.
So get lost & use up your energy in developing your own country
Just stay away from OURS.
Lose Scotland?
Mar 31st, 2011 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK does not own Scotland, it's a Union you imbecile.
IMHO, OT=OTT, LOL ;-)
Mar 31st, 2011 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0“it's the UK that claim South Georgia, Sandwich Islands”
Mar 31st, 2011 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you could remind us of why Argentina should have these islands because i've yet to find an Argentinian who can give a sound reason for this.
49 Zethee,
Mar 31st, 2011 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like you would acknowledge a sound reason if you saw one.
47 WestisBest,
Can you tell me which kinds of power were granted from Scotland's central government in the Treaty of Union of 1706? Who is the Monarch of Scotland today?
Sounds more like a domination than a union, and it sure as hell seems like they want their sovereignty back.
“Scottish independence is a political ambition of political parties, advocacy groups and individuals for Scotland to secede from the United Kingdom and become a sovereign state, separate from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence
Can you blame them? I sure can't. ;-)
Martin_Fierro (#50): ”49 Zethee, like you would acknowledge a sound reason (for Argentina to own South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) if you saw one”.
Mar 31st, 2011 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, I for one would, Martin.
Try me with your best argument and I will give you a fair response.
Geoff.
Nope, you won't either. None of you would, you're not here to show reason, just blind stupidity.
Mar 31st, 2011 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Martin,
Mar 31st, 2011 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For info, the Scots imposed union on the English.
OK you can return to ignorant ranting now.
“49 Zethee,
Mar 31st, 2011 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like you would acknowledge a sound reason if you saw one. ”
Wouldn't know, would we? Because none of you can provide one and rather than provide one now when given the opportunity you divert attention from the question in the hope that you don't need to answer it.
i dont know why so much problem, they will never had self determination since 1965 the UN say that malvinas was not the same as the others descolonization cases because that means it would be a separation of territorial integration, and thats ilegal by the UN too, so the only reason they are still in there is because force nothing else, they dont have any proofs about what they say so they need to use force, is like saying to a thief do not steal, the brits never had proofs, why do you think the UN call to negociate, besides if they say they are the owner of malvinas, they were in one island the other was from spain since lot of time then whats then the other island dont suppost to be spanish? keep trying there is nothing you can do
Mar 31st, 2011 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“they will never had self determination since 1965 the UN say”
Mar 31st, 2011 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite wrong, the islanders currently have Self Determination. The argument is that they should keep Self Determination rather than loose it to Argentina.
Cry about is having jets and forces down there all you like, it's YOUR fault we have such a force down there to defend them from YOU.
Theres nothing we can do? No Searinox, theres nothing we need to do. The situation is how we want it. There is nothing Argentina can do, and is why your government moans at every opportunity.
Seairox, can Argentina really really prove that perceived territorial integrity 180 years ago....matters today? I think not :)
Mar 31st, 2011 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And South Sudan and Kosovo have shown that territorial integrity means diddly squat when confronted with self-determination.
The UN never said that self-determination is not applicable, its unique not because of the territorial integrity, but because “THERE IS THE PRESENCE OF A SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTE”, nothing to do with Argentina's bizarre stream of logic which says that territroy it has never owned, can somehow...eeeer...disrupt its territorial integrity?.... hahaha lame!
It is easily envisaged that a form of plebiscite by the islanders would conform to the outcome agreed in the 1988 resolution, however Argentina would never agree to that surprise surpise :)
What more proof do the islanders and the UK need? they have been there for 180 years, you have not.
The UN calls to negotiate because there is a dispute between two of its constituent members, not because it agrees of disagrees about the arguments involved.
We don't need to keep trying, because our arguments are sound, it is Argentina however who is the one trying :)
It is unsurprising that the only location on earth were self-determination is inapplicable is territory Argentina wants ho ho ho ;)
By the way searinox, could you explain why Argentina never mentions resolution 1541, it explicity says:
Principle IX: Integration with another state should made at the “FREELY EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE TERRITORIES INHABITANTS” ....Tut tut Searinox, no wonder Argentina forgets that resolution 1541 exists XD
Just in case you think I'm lying ;)
http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/9563.63044679165.html
Rhaurie,
Mar 31st, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UN links that say daccess don't work. You have to provide the previous page link and indicate which one to click on.
1541 is here
http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs3/GAres-1541.htm
“Quite wrong, the islanders currently have Self Determination. The argument is that they should keep Self Determination rather than loose it to Argentina.”
Mar 31st, 2011 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since 1965 the UN said malvians was a diferent case respect the other descolonization cases, because there are not natives people in there, and take off the island off argentina means broke with the territorial integrity that is in the UN too so... it is you the only one who should cry because even your country has a lot of diferents version, it seems nobody in there knows really about malvinas, how embarrassing... besides it is your country the one who invaded and now you want to keep it LOL
This decolonisation argument hinges on previous indigenous 'natives', and when there were no previous indigenants (South Georgia, SSI) it, by definition, doesn't apply.
Mar 31st, 2011 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But there are 'complexities':
What if the indigenants left temporarily? (Serious question, as Greenland could be decolonised in favour of the Inuits)
Do these natives/colonisers have to be black/brown, or will white/red/yellow be acceptible? (Serious question, serious political implications)
If there is only a handful left of the indigenous, is this sufficient for decolonisation? (Serious question re. Easter Island where there is arguably a minimum breeding group available; less important in The Chathams - brown on brown, and Tasmania - white on brown, where every last one of the indigenants were wiped out)
Is there a maximum size of state subject to decolonisation? (Serious question, as it must be somewhere between South Africa - possible- and the USA - unlikely)
Is there a time cut-off that applies to decolonisation ? (Serious question, as the Pacific island chains have been colonised, re-colonised, and re-re-colonised many times - who are the REAL indigenants?)
etc.
53 Kuntz “For info, the Scots imposed union on the English”
Mar 31st, 2011 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's ask the English what they think about this “Union”
“That is why to many English people ”Britishness” means nothing other than a series of (often quite glorious) historical facts. “Britain”, to me, is now simply a geographical entity. The English have not destroyed the Union: the Scots have, and that was their right. Mr Brown's piece reminded me of those rather sad and romantic old men with military moustaches who used to bang on about “The Empire” well into the 1960s. His banging on about “The Union” is every bit as anachronistic, and as futile. Whether out of blinkeredness, stupidity or cynicism, he simply doesn't realise what is going on in England or in his own country.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3636385/The-Scots-destroyed-the-Union-so-vote-SNP.html
@55 & 59
Mar 31st, 2011 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As Decolonisation only exists as a process to place Self-Determination within the hands of the people within a colony, I cannot see that Decolonisation can be prioritised above the right of any people exercising Self-Determination.
Likewise, a dispute over who 'owns' a colony is immaterial, since it does not matter who the Administering Power might be, all that matters is that the people within the colony exercise their right to Self-Determination.
Argentina's claim is a side issue at best, the only priority is the people exercising their right to Self-Determination, at a time they choose, without outside coercion, according to their wishes only.
The 2010 Kosovo ICJ Ruling makes this quite clear, any argument about history, whilst interesting on an academic level, has no bearing on the reality of the situation; it is the people of the Falkland Islands who will make any decision, and not even the UN C24 can apply coercion to force the Falkland Islanders into any decision on Self-Determination within any time limit. To do so would be a breach of Human Rights.
All the posturing, by OAS, Mercosur, or Unasur, and any 'agreements' and statements they may make, makes absolutely no difference to the situation on the Islands, because they would be breaching Human Rights in trying to implement anything, and breaking International Law, since the UN is the only International body in which such agreements can be made or implemented.
So your argument is interesting and irrelevant Searinox.
62 The ludicrous situation of 3,000 British colonists living on an island 8,000 miles away continuing to be the cause of bad relations between not just two sovereign states, but increasingly with the entire region.
Apr 01st, 2011 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Searinox:
Apr 01st, 2011 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please provide me the phrasing which says that the Falklands is a different case, because there are no indigenous inhabitants?
No numbnutts the exact phrasing says it is a unique specifically because there is a sovereignty dispute, because you Argentina claim ownership of a former colony of the UK. That is the uniqueness.
As for territorial integrity, have the UN said Argentina's has been violated...nope.
And how can your territorial integrity be violated YOU HAVEN'T OWNED OR HAD SOVEREIGNTY OF THE TERRITORY FOR 180 YEARS!
Please do explain how self-determination by the territories inhabitants will violate the territorial integrity of a country which doesn't even have sovereignty of the territory! Such a leap in logic Seariox XD
More Crap - Stop pasting and cutting from the Guardian and the telegraph it doesn't make you clever, it just makes you a desperate loser craving attention :)
64 Rhaurie-Craughwell ,
Apr 01st, 2011 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0“because you Argentina claim ownership of a former colony of the UK”
Uh, former colony?
“Falkland Islands: UK overseas territory / dependency”
UK: “WE have no doubt about OUR sovereignty over the Falkland Islands”
Kelpers and their fantasies, never cease to amuse.
@45 Martin-Fierro. l have asked sr Think this question & he could not answer it. Maybe you can.
Apr 01st, 2011 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is the basis for Argentina's claim to South Georgia, the South Shetland lslands & the South Sandwich lslands?
Both you and Think have said that these islands belong to Argentina.
Now l want to know why? Don't be shy, Enlighten us all.
(66) Isolde
Apr 01st, 2011 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You devious Sherezade…
I have answered that question!
Don’t you remember our “petite mort”?
Ok islanders, that's it!
Apr 01st, 2011 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“UK planned to give Falklands to Argentina”
“The UK Government prepared a secret deal to give Argentina ownership of the Falkland Islands, it has been revealed”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/01/99/1968_secret_history/244319.stm
To be fair, I do remember Think answering that question. If nothing else, I found his honesty quite refreshing.
Apr 01st, 2011 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(69)
Apr 01st, 2011 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isolde is just a “little tease” :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjjDmX9Tkss&feature=related
Marcos: There isn't one person on this website who didn't know what you've just posted. It's well known information that the UK wanted to get rid of the islands untill the islanders told us they wanted to remain British. And aslong as they want to, they will.
Apr 01st, 2011 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#68 Well what a goon, trawling up ancient history and trying to make it fit the present. I have plenty of evidence of Argentina planning to give up its claim to the Islands, but it too is ancient history.
Apr 01st, 2011 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Live in modern times boy, you know it makes more sense.
1968 secret history - old news,
Apr 01st, 2011 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0much more exciting is the 'secret tease', French expressions and Nico's Velvet Underground.
Isolde, your friends are building you up SO BIGGG.
Thank God there is no editorial censure on inuendo.
Keep up the good work, FoI!
Was just a reminder, your Government back in England knew back then and knows nowadays that Malvinas belongs to Argentina and South America and not matter how much oil or water you might find that's how is going to end.
Apr 01st, 2011 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Lord Chalfont now regrets not standing up to the pressure and sticking by the original plan.
”I think we should have pursued this,“ he said. ”Looking back it was one of our big foreign policy and political errors.”
Nobody in the western world takes argentina seriously nowadays
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0so on the long run the falklands will achieve their independence and the argies will have to accept this, Obama will support the falklanders.
@67 & 70 Think,@69 Frase. Sr Think may have“answered”the question but he gave no reasonable answers. lf l remember it was along the lines of “because we want them”. That is not good enough. How do you think that would look in a court of law?
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0e.g. judge-“why did you steal that car?” prisoner-“because l want it”
Because Think didn't answer properly l thought that as Martin-Fierro, who had a lot to say for himself, may have had some evidence that proved ownership. But no? l notice that sr Martino hasn't answered either..............is it because he has no idea as well?
So have any of you heroes got an answer? Or are we just trying to muddy the waters?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTHt8oC5BF8
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 08:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Because we want them” is a good, reasonable and disarmingly honest answer.
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't address the legitimacy of the desire but it WAS an answer to the question posed.
(76) Isolde
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
Sr. Think may have“answered”the question but he gave no reasonable answers. lf l remember it was along the lines of “because we want them”. That is not good enough..........
I say:.....My answer was:
“Argentina claims South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands for the very same reasons as Great Britain does: * ** WE WANT THEM ***”
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/03/17/argentina-further-tightens-the-noose-on-the-falkland-islands / Post82
Please notice those little words:
“**..for the very same reasons as Great Britain does..**”
They are essential for the correct understanding of my answer…………..
Yeah but we HAVE them. You don't.
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NERRRRRRRRRRRRRR NERRRRRR
Patagonia looks nice. Perhaps we should add Patagonia to our already extensive South Atlantic territories. I mean we see Patagonia, we like Patagonia so why shouldn't we be having Patagonia. I bet them Patagonians would just love to be British....in time.
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We were also the first in Ushuaia in Tierro Del Feugo and established the city in 1870 the first argentine citizens did not arrive till 3 years later and they were school teachers called Juan and Clara Lawrence. So i guess we have a better historical claim to Tierro Del Feugo then the argentines do lol.
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 080 Zethee “Yeah but we HAVE them. You don't”
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All you got is Poca Cosa and Moosa Koosa.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
Go tell them what you have.
'Forces serving in Libya to be told: you face the sack'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
DONT CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Great comment on that article, Robin Hood save us!
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Some day, a real Englishman of guts, gonads, intelligence and integrity will emerge from Sherwood Forest - or Wherever - to save Britain. Until then, pray! Pray very hard!”
Lordlondon
Let them say what they think is right, they cant see that their government fired a lot of their people jobs, and they are paying a lot of money for war, nice way to move they dont have the same money than before and they prefer to sued the money to war before to get people jobs cuac cuac
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination what a joke only the pommies can come up
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0with that bull. The civilians of The Islas Malvinas are 95%
English background so of course they choose Britain as there motherland,
the Argentines and other Europeans living there where force out of the
Falklands illegaly by the Brittish Army during the early 18'00's any way Islas Malvinas a few thousand miles off the Argentine coast compared with England several thousand miles away !
87 You don't appear to understand what self determination means.
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination is not a Pommie concept but merely a principle supported by all democratic and freedom loving peoples.
Distance isn't a factor in determining, defining or confirming sovereignty.
No Argentinians or other nationals were evicted illegally by the British Army from the Falkland Islands during the early 1800's.
The Falkland Islanders are not 95% English background.
Apart from that I agree with everything you say.
#87 - “Malvinas a few thousand miles off the Argentine coast compared with England several thousand miles away !”
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suggest you learn your geography mate as your logic in that sentence makes no sense. Because according to your sentence your putting the islands as closer to england then they actually are, weaking your claim to them in the process if they where so ar away from you as you seem to think.
As for self determination, well your countries very existence is a result of self determination when you decided to become independent from spain (although not a recognised right at the time). So what your saying is its ok for you to have self determination but not for the islanders - Again, a very poor sense of logic.
We argentines were a people (pueblo) subordinated by other (spanish), and we werent spanish ......in 1810 we got independence and it was a fact that spain had nothing to do with any kind or way of government in Provincias Unidas
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And now you would like to subordinate another group of people who aren't spanish or Argentinian.
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you are not spanish not argentinian, because you have british nationality and british passport so you can go and live there
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we dont want to subordinate nobody we are claiming sth that is ours
The islanders are home, a home they have lived in for almost 200 years.
Apr 02nd, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They have just as much right to live there as you do in Argentina.
@79 Think, well what else do you want? Perhaps you would like Chile as well? And l'm pretty sure that you would love Uruguay. So are you going to claim them also & make a song and dance because you can't have them?
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 02:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0And as for“the same reason that Britain does”, how pathetically weak.
The British already own them, you do not. Do you really expect Britain to just say, here you are mate, come and get these islands? You, collectively, must be bigger fools than l had thought.
l am still waiting for sr Martino's answer although l suspect it will be as nonsensible as yours. Well, Think, l want Chubut province where you live. Are you going to hand it over?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@92 Malen, but unfortunately for you my dear, it IS NOT yours.
So if you don't want to subordinate us, what then would you do with us?
l can guess but l want to hear it from you.
(94) Isolde
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“Do you really expect Britain to just say, here you are mate, come and get these islands? ”
I say:
No......... Not before a cost-benefit analysis compels Britain to hand over those Islands….
As Hong Kong............
@95 Think, thats pretty lame, Think. You can do better than that.
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Burning the midnight oil like me, l see. Don't you just love the sunrise when the world is fresh & new?
Nope…….. .............................................
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don’t particularly like sunrises….
They somehow disrupt the mellow flow of my early morning twilights.
Zethee a british citizen cant have the right to live in Malvinas or Falklands never mind if you as an english have been there 178 years
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We argentines have the right to be here it was always our land before spanish came and also it was always our people and for more than 200 years
Isolde me caes simpatico/a but you are always lying (mintiendo) so much!!!
Merely 5 persons have made gadget comments here
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0under the different log in accounts. Who care.
“We argentines have the right to be here it was always our land before spanish came and also it was always our people and for more than 200 years”
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before the spanish “came” you wasn't even in Argentina. I don't know how you seem to think you can own land before you've even been there.
And which facet of international law Malen per chance says that nobody after nearly 200 years has the right to live permanently in that location.....
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will give you a clue....none.
The only people seemingly claim that historical duration, no matter how long, does not give you any rights to inhabitant a territory claimed by somebody else, are un-surprisingly the Argentines and Serbia over Kosovo.
You also seem to be suggesting that 90% of your fellow Argentines descended from European immigrants, colonists (or Pirates if we used Argentine translations) do not have the right to live in Argentina? Surely you don't beleive this to be true Malen?
Think Thinky, I don't know where you came to the conclusion that a colony (it was indeed the last “proper” colony in the world) with a higher GDP than the motherland somehow compelled the UK to give it away because it was too expensive to maintain :)
I shall explain in Turnip terms, if a Turpin is growing at a phenomenal rate by itself with no capital input from me, i'm not exactly going to give away because its too expensive to maintain I'm not spending anything on it :)
If you want to know how we really are as a population travel, not only to BS AS but also to the north east and west and south of all of our big country and you will see our crisol de razas descendance ......
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and we have been always Argentina Zethee because is our history precolonial, colonial and post colonial steps to become Argentina
and independance cant be based on an usurpation or a dispossession (despojo) like you did in 1833
Pre colonial, you was not on the islands.
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Basicly you're saying the islands are ours cause i said so.
The isles are integrated with the mainland
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Portugal and Spain arrived here in South america first in 1500 and to the isles also with Magallanes
and third you arrived to the isles in 1700
there has been argentinian population and government in the isles before you took them in 1833
“The isles are integrated with the mainland ”
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Under international law territorial ocean is 12 KM from the coast line. Islands are what, 400 KM from your coast? bit of a stretch.
“and third you arrived to the isles”
Err, no. The first people to arrive on the islands were the British and French. You should learn history before you go claiming stuff that isn't true.
“there has been argentinian population and government in the isles before you took them in 1833”
There has been British population and government in the isles before you took them in 1829.
territorial integrity with argentina has always existed and we heritated the isles from spain
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0british and french arrived first probe it........
population and government before 1829 and what happened?
we took the isles in 1829?? tell me the history and the sources please
#104 - “there has been argentinian population and government in the isles before you took them in 1833”
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Err no Malen, there was no argentine government till 1850's and certainly no Argentine Government on the isles in 1833. Luis Vernets commercial settlement was there only as a result of Luis vernet having requested, and subsequently granted, permission from the British to set up a commercial settlement only. When buenos aires appointed him governor they did so illegally, as they had no sovereign rights to the islands as they were British, hence why Luis Vernet stressed to the British that his interests in the islands were purely commercial.
The united provinces government was indebted to Vernet and tried to pay him off by giving him land that Vernet himself knew did not belong to the buenos aires. After the Lexington incident, Captain Duncan declared the islands free of all government, though his declaration was not legal and his position did not allow him to make such a declaration without the british first ceding their sovereignty - which they did not cede and as such the islands still remained british despite Captain Duncan's declaration. Therefore in 1832 when the argentine government tried to illgally (Steal the islands) set up a garrison on the islands, the British saw that as an act of war (invasion of their sovereign territory) and sent a naval task force to remove the illegal argentine garrison, which they did peacefully and as a result allowed all non military argentines to stay if they choose too, and as it was resolved peacefully it prevented a war between Britain and the united provinces. If such a war had taken place, it would have resulted in a very different argentina compared to what we see today.
And malen - Spain ceded their claim to sovereignty in 1771 to britain. So any claim you think you have by inheritance of lands from spain is null and void.
So as Zethee said - “You should learn history before you go claiming stuff that isn't true”.
territorial integrity is not more an issue in the world,nowadays with the human rights isssue the desire of the inhabitants is valid.
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0take the island of saint Pierre and Miquelon ,10 miles off the coast of Newfounland-Canada ,it belongs to France,the inhabitants want to stay French ands Canada ,one of the most civilized countries of america,respects the desire of the islanders.
Fonts??? of all this crap we are they??
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can go to the UN with all this and make this third world country of south american un poroto if you are so right do it...we are waiting since 1965 i think ........
“territorial integrity with argentina has always existed and we heritated the isles from spain”
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When spain recognised you as a nation they didn't even have the islands to give you. It is a ridiculous claim, You can't give someone something you don't possess.
Can you answer 106 comment please
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0go to the UN im waiting take all your probes dont forget
#109 - We offered to goto the ICJ, Argentina refused, because they know they would lose, the recent Kosvo judgement confirms self determination takes precedent, something argentina disagreed with. The Un Charter stands up for the islanders right to self determination, and britian does not need to take it to the UN as we currently own the islands. So why on earth would we goto the UN to claim something we already own? Idiot.
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for “Fonts”, if you want mecropess to change the fonts of the comments board - Ask them not us. If you ment wheres the proof - well official historical records are the proof, and are found at the national archives in britian and confirmed by offical historical records in spanish and other countrys national archives. If you expect us to post links to documents that are not necessarily online, your asking for the impossible. Though argentines favourite history website Wiki confirms alot but is only a brief historical record which is not always accurate as it is edited alot by your fellow argentines to look more in favour of argentina. Such as the Ushuaia having the bit where a british missionary first setup the colony Ushuaia in 1869 as a missionary, to leader of the missionary group being just being someone that stayed there. Funny though because the same page still says the first argentines did not arrive there till 1873, so we were still in tierro del feugo before you idiots.
“106 comment please”
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK was on the islands 1765 – 1770 and again in 1771 – 1776.
Go to UN? Why, everything is fine as far as we are concerned.
I think Malens gone into hiding.
Apr 03rd, 2011 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Either that of the truth was to much for his pea sized brain to handle, causing it to explode lol.
im not all day in the computer 114
Apr 04th, 2011 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0you seem to be so educated guy specially when you insult tipical of english people in this page..... so links to documents are imposible....... interesting...all you have is always secret........
and Zethee we were first in 1520
and I see many coincindences in your comments: when you say “you took them in 1829”(105) and then in (107) your friend says “then in 1832 the Arg. gov. tried ilegally to settle a garrison” .......you may have many secret proofs of all this Im sure
and Zethee tell me of the government that was there during those years illustrate me or is it secret also??
“and Zethee we were first in 1520”
Apr 04th, 2011 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is the biggest most greatest lie anyone in this website has ever came out with. The first person in recorded history to arrive on the islands was in 1690.
”and I see many coincindences in your comments: when you say “you took them in 1829”(105) and then in (107) your friend says “
How is it a contradiction in my comments if it was someone else who stated it?
“then in 1832 the Arg. gov. tried ilegally to settle a garrison” .......you may have many secret proofs of all this Im sure”
I will explain; it is not a contradiction at all, just a lack in understanding. Argentina twice tried to settle the islands the first time in 1820(not 1829, typo.) Though the man who claimed the land for Argentina was not asked to and didn't even tell argentina he did so is mostly ignored. This settlement quickly failed.
The second attempt was in 1824 Luis Vernet settled the islands and it is worth noting now that he on several occasions stated that he was no governer of argentina, his intrests were commercal and he wanted british governance. In 1829 Argentina claimed he was there governor which he confirmed he was not. The UK protested this. The USA removed him because of his piracy.
A few years later you sent more troops and attempted to settle the islands again, and we sent a force to remove your force and resettled the islands and have had them since.
1)in 1520 the isles were discovered and called as san antonio by a man of Magallanes expedition
Apr 04th, 2011 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 02) you say: arg twice tried to settle the isles in 1820 and in 1824 and then in 1832??? three times ah.... by the way in those years you now are mentioning you werent in the isles...in (113) you say you were in the isles between “1765-1770 and 1771-1776” how could we took sth that wasnt yours at that moment??????
and second in (105) you said“ before 1829 you had population and a government” please tell me the names of the man that governed the isles before 1829
@117 Malen - As said before learn your history idiot (not an insult when its a matter of fact).
Apr 04th, 2011 - 04:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are talking about the Ferdinand Magellan Expedition to circumnavicate the globe.
As Brazil was Portuguese territory, Magellan avoided it and on December 13 anchored near present-day Rio de Janeiro. There the crew was resupplied, but bad conditions caused them to delay. Afterwards, they continued to sail south along South America's east coast, looking for the strait that Magellan as it was believed it would lead to the Spice Islands. So they sailed down the argentine coastline looking for what is now known the straits of Magellan. As such they where in constant visual distants to the coast some 300-400+ miles from the Falklands. Logic dictates it would be impossible for them to see the Falklands at such Distants, and they would have never lost sight of the coast to avoid missing the entrance to the straits.
The fleet reached Río de la Plata on January 10, 1520. On 30 March the crew established a settlement they called Puerto San Julian (Argentina). On April 2 a mutiny involving two of the five ship captains broke out, but it was unsuccessful because most of the crew remained loyal. This confirms the the Ship San Antonio stayed with the fleet and did not turn back, as such it could not have been any closer than the rest of the fleet to the Falklands, that being 300-400 miles from the Falklands.
Oh and to top is all off they were SPANISH whom happened to ceded sovereinty in 1771 to the british and did not make a claim till 1760's. making your claim to have inherited them from the spanish, nonsense.
When you tried to settle the islands, they were under british sovereignty, just because we did not have anyone there at the time doesn't change the fact they were our sovereign territory. We even laid a placque claiming them before everyone left the islands in 1776.
There was no settlement in 1820. Jewett left no one one the islands. The first attempt at settlement was in 1824, and it failed within 5 months. The second was in 1826, and in 1828 Vernet approached both the Argentines and British for approval for his colonial venture.
Apr 04th, 2011 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Follow on post from #118 (as ran out of room).
Apr 04th, 2011 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh by the way Malen - In 1504: Binot Paulmier de Gonneville (France) sights islands that may have been the Falklands.
1690: John Strong (England) landed, and named the sound and eventually the entire island group after Viscount Falkland, Admiralty Commissioner. 1765: Ignorant of de Bougainville's presence, John Byron (Great Britain) claims Saunders Island and other islands for Britain. Britain builds a settlement on Saunders Island the following year. 1771 jan 22nd - Spain Cedes sovereingty of the Falklands to the British.
As for the links to the historical documents, well their not online but heres a link to the national archive for you to look for them yourself, though you won't find any documents online, as they haven't been put online yet. The ones that are online do not date back as far as the 1700's, though they are in the archives at the national achives building. - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ Good hunting hopefully you will learn something.
So you see, Malen, you have been taught a lot of lies by your country's education system. l know you don't believe it and l know you don't like it but that's just too bad.
Apr 04th, 2011 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just remember these three things:-
1) Argentina has NEVER owned the Falklands.
2) Argentina does NOT own the Falklands now.
3) Argentina will NEVER own the Falklands.
lf you still believe you are right, then take your proof to the ICJ or shut up.
Sorry guys and girls but i dont know why i dont believe you nothing of nothing
Apr 04th, 2011 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0theres here in your posts a dancer of years that dont have coincidences and then trying to change our history and in that page i saw nothing
any in post 117 i asked zethee for the names of the british people that governed the isles still waiting
i learned well things at school and we have “libertad de cátedra” at school so im able to listen all histories and take my own conclusions
and isolde i will not shut up you are nobody here to say that ...
Believe your false history taught to you by your government if you wish, it doesnt change the fact that the rest of worlds historical records confirm what the british records, including spains.
Apr 04th, 2011 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for British governors, well here you are:
Military Administrators of the British :-
1767 - 1768 Captain John McBride, HMS Jason
1768 - 1769 Capt. Rayner
1769 - 1770 Capt. Anthony Hunt, HMS Tamar
1770 - 1770 Capt. George Farmer, HMS Favourite
1771 - 1772 Capt. John Burr, HMS Hound
1773 - 1776 Lt. Samuel Wittewrong Clayton
1833 - 1838 Lt. Henry Smith
1838 - 1839 Lt. Robert Lowcay
1839 - 1839 Lt. Robinson
1839 - 1841 Lt. John Tyssen
Lieutenant Governor of the Falkland Islands (ansons harbour):-
1841 - 1843 Lt. Richard Clement Moody
Governor of the Falkland Islands:-
1843 1848 Lt. Richard Clement Moody
1848 1855 Lt. George Rennie
1855 1862 Capt. Thomas Edward Laws Moore
1862 1866 Capt. James George Mackenzie
1866 1870 William Cleaver Francis Robinson, CMG
1870 1876 Colonel George Abbas Kooli D'Arcy
1876 1880 Jeremiah Thomas Fitzgerald Callaghan
1880 1886 Thomas Kerr, CMG
1886 1887 Arthur Cecil Stuart Barkly
1887 1891 Thomas Kerr, CMG
1891 1897 Sir Roger Tuckfield Goldsworthy, KCMG
1897 1904 Sir William Grey-Wilson, KCMG
1904 1915 Sir William Lamond Allardyce, KCMG
1915 1920 Sir William Douglas Young, KBE, CMG
1920 1927 Sir John Middleton, KBE, CMG
1927 1931 Sir Arnold Weinholt Hodson, KCMG
1931 1934 Sir James O'Grady, KCMG
1935 1941 Sir Herbert Henniker-Heaton, KCMG
1941 1946 Sir Allan Wolsey Cardinall, KBE, CMG
1946 1954 Sir Geoffrey Miles Clifford, KBE, CMG, ED
1954 1957 Sir Oswald Raynor Arthur, KCMG, CVO
1957 1964 Sir Edwin Porter Arrowsmith, KCMG
1964 1970 Sir Cosmo Dugal Patrick Thomas Haskard, KCMG, MBE
1971 1975 Sir Ernest Gordon Lewis, CMG, OBE
1975 1977 Sir Neville Arthur Irwin French, CMG, MVO
1977 1980 Sir James Roland Walter Parker, CMG, OBE
1980 2 Apr 1982 Sir Rex Masterman Hunt, CMG
Carried on from post #123
Apr 04th, 2011 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British Military Commander at Port Stanley:-
14 Jun 1982 - 25 Jun 1982 Major General John Jeremy Moore:
Governors of the Falkland Islands at Stanley:-
1985 1988 Gordon Wesley Jewkes, CMG
1988 1992 William Hugh Fullerton, CMG
1992 1996 David Everard Tatham, CMG
1996 1999 Richard Peter Ralph, CMG, CVO
1999 2002 Donald Alexander Lamont
2002 2002 Russ Jarvis (acting)
2002 2006 Howard John Stredder Pearce, CMG
2006 2006 Harriet Hall (acting)
2006 2010 Alan Huckle
2010 present Nigel Haywood, CVO
Now argentine governors/administrators:
Republic of Buenos Aires Governors of Puerto Luis (Port Louis):-
1829 1831 Luis Vernet
1832 1832 Juan Esteban Mestivier
Though both were appointed illegally as the islands were british sovereingty.
Argentine Military Commander at Puerto Argentino:-
2 Apr 1982 3 Apr 1982 General Oswaldo Jorge Garcia (interim)
3 Apr 1982 14 Jun 1982 Brigadier General Mario Benjamín Menéndez
So we have had around 50 british government administrators and governors, where you have merely had 4 and 2 of them were during the 1982 conflict so they do not actually count technically, and the other 2 were appointed illegally as the islands were still british sovereingty at the time, which means they do not count either. So that means we have had around 50 and you have had a big fact ZERO.
“1829 1831 Luis Vernet
Apr 04th, 2011 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Though both were appointed illegally as the islands were british sovereingty.”
not only illegal but illogical seeing as the man said he was not there as an Argentinian representative.
Actually, Vernet was never a Governor, he was never officially appointed by Argentina (there is no evidence), and whenever he was asked whether he was, he denied it. In any event he was on the islands with British permission, and the British didn't appoint him Governor either, his activities were always purely commercial in nature.
Apr 04th, 2011 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As far as the United Provinces is concerned the first illegal decree of 10th June 1829, setting up the 'Political and Military Command of the Malvinas', was made by an illegal Government in Buenos Aires, which came to power under General Juan Lavalle in a military coup in December 1828 by the murder of Manuel Dorrego. This was immediately protested diplomatically on 19th November 1829 by the British, preserving British Sovereignty. All actions of the Lavalle Government were declared illegal by Brigadier Juan Manuel Ortiz de Rosas after overthrowing it later in 1829.
The Lavalle Government attempted to use Vernet as a means to promote its claim of Sovereignty, but this was scuppered by Vernet himself applying to the British Consulate in Buenos Aires, and presenting his land grant to the British Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths, seeking British Permission for it, which being of a purely Commercial natures, permission was given and countersigned.
This document exists, and the Vice-Consul's Signature is present.
So if we're absolutely correct, ONLY the British gave Vernet a land grant for his Commercial activities, since the Lavalle Government and its actions were null and voided by the de Rosas Government.
As he had British permission for his activities, he twice requested the British invest in his business, writing to British Minister to Buenos Aires, Woodbine Parish, his letters included confirmation that he wanted British Sovereignty of his settlement. In addition, in late 1831 he made a plea to British Naval Lieutenant, William Langdon during his visit to Port Louis, that he wished his enterprise to be under British Sovereignty.
BTW Vernet approached the British consulate in 1826.
Apr 04th, 2011 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yep - you are all 100% correct and have confirm alot of what i had previously stated. I only mentioned them as administrators, as the argentines on here claim them to be, regardless of evidence to the contary. Hence why i also noted they were appointed illegally as the islands were British sovereingty. Justin your right the correct year was 1826 not 1824, i made a typo :)
Apr 04th, 2011 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny now Malen has the answers he asked for that he has not been back for another round, isn't it lol.
Funny you seem to have been all day in the web......it confirms me yes that first governor was henry smith
Apr 05th, 2011 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0if there was a decret (for argentina) thats clear for us, if for you its illegal its your problem not ours
and all argentinian proofs are in the web nothing to hide
and if you are so sure of your proofs and facts go to the UN...dont expect us to put down this argentinian valid claim because that will never happen
Malena
“thats clear for us, if for you its illegal its your problem not ours”
Apr 05th, 2011 - 01:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islands are ours. Problem is yours.
“and if you are so sure of your proofs and facts go to the UN”
Why? We have the islands. We don't want anything changed. Why on earth would we want to do anything. You're the ones who want change, and if you are so sure of yourselves you should take it to the UN.
“dont expect us to put down this argentinian valid claim”
I think i can speak for every british poster here whan i say that none of us expect Argentina to put a valid claim for the islands. It's impossible because you don't have one.
“Funny you seem to have been all day in the web......”
Apr 05th, 2011 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah it's so funny watching idiots like you goto work, when i own my own company and can choose what hours and what day's i pop into the office's and when i don't. And no i did not spend all day on the web, i actually went to the coast today had lunch and a pint in a pub opposite the beach as well as doing some shopping in the afternoon. Ever heard web enabled Ipad 2? its an amazing thing, it lets you view the web on the go without having to wait till you get home in order to view the web on your PC.
“and all argentinian proofs are in the web nothing to hide” - which means nothing, as the majority of whats posting on the web is make believe and user generated like errr wiki, your favourite online history source. What matters is official argentine documents that can be confirmed by other countries official documents that were directly connected to such documents. Do you have any, that your government has not fabricated? Nah a i doubt it.
Forget the UN as zethe said why should we goto the UN. We offered to take it to the ICJ on more than 1 occasion and each occasion argentina refused. Ask yourself this Malen, if your right, and everything your country taught you at school is correct. Then why is it they refuse to take it to the ICJ? Simple, its because they know their claim is based on hearsay and lies, and an illegal garrison in 1833.
Comment removed by the editor.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0@127
Apr 05th, 2011 - 05:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet, through a tenuous friend of a friend association with Bernado Bonavia, a former Commandant of the Spanish establishment on the Falklands learned of the existence of wild cattle on East Falkland. Being the friend of Jorge Pacheco, who was owed money by the Buenos Aires Government, they approached the Government on 23 August 1823 for permission to exploit the wild cattle and seals of the Falklands. The Buenos Aires Government decided it could do so, so Pacheco and Vernet prepared an expedition and also made an application for a small land grant, cannons, and the appointment of a retired militia officer Pablo Areguati to be unpaid 'commander' of the settlement.
The Buenos Aires Government saw an opportunity to use the expedition to provide evidence in support of a claim for Sovereignty, and the land grant was made the same day, but no cannons were supplied, and Areguati was never appointed to any rank. No official announcement was made of this expedition or the land grant, so as far as the British were concerned, their was nothing to protest at that time as they were unaware of what was going on.
Neither Pacheco or Vernet went to the Falklands in January 1824, when Areguati took 26 gauchos to arrive at Port Loius on 2 February 1824. The expedition was a disaster, and within 10 days Areguati wrote to Pacheco that they were perishing, the whole expedition collapsed and everyone had returned to Buenos Aires by August 1824.
Vernet himself went to the Falklands in June 1826 with 25 gauchos, and struggled for two years to recover his loses on the 1824 expedition, and eventually returned to Buenos Aires to approach the Lavalle Government with a much larger land grant, which was countersigned by the British Vice-Consul.
It was Vernet who wished to establish a colony, and was looking to ensure he had a hand in both camps to protect his interests from future problems.
Buenos Aires had no such designs on establishing a colony beyond the limits of its authority.
@129 Malen, after viewing all the evidence written above, l think you should shut up. You own nothing in the Falklands. You have been taught LIES at school. lf after all this you still think you are right, ask yourself this question-why doesn't my country take this case to the lnternational Court of Justice? We don't have to, if you have a case, you do. Why don't you? Answer please.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry but history is on our side yes zethee as you say in 130 “if you are so sure you should take to the UN” thats where we took the case
Apr 05th, 2011 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0teaboy you have ipad2 ahhhhhhhh what important person you are
insult more please because its the only thing you know to do
Malena
What is fascinating, and this is just for the sake of information; is that from 1 February 1820 to 8 February 1826, Argentina was in a state of Anarchy, the period is even referred to as 'Anarchy of the Year XX' within Argentine History, when the Argentine 1819 Constitution was repealed during the armed conflicts between the central government and the federal league provinces, this meant that Argentina had no head of state.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So who Vernet may have approached in 1823 for his initial small land grant, would have been someone associated with the unconstitutional central government in Buenos Aires. Hardly anyone in a position to be able to grant lands over 1900 kms away across the South Atlantic, but they apparently agreed to it anyway.
The Argentine 1826 Constitution came into effect, rendering any document Vernet had in his hands invalid, but it seems he didn't try to secure his position on the Falklands until his approach to the Lavalle Government and British Vice-Consul two years later.
“Sorry but history is on our side yes zethee”
Apr 05th, 2011 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, it's not. Read the info that's been presented to you.
Your first governor wasn't even Argentinian and on several occasions asked to be British and then had to leave the islands because he was a pirate. Your second governor was murdered by his own people after they raped his wife just one year after getting there.
How on earth does one year of governance give you more rights to the place than 180 years of governance the islanders currently have had.
“thats where we took the case”
You have not taken it to the ICJ. Nothing else can help you.
“Your second governor was murdered by his own people after they raped his wife just one year after getting there.”
Apr 05th, 2011 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not one year, Zethe. 56 days. Mestivier arrived at Port Louis on the 6th of October 1832 and was murdered 30th November 1832
Pathetic compaired to 180+ years of governance the islanders have had.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They can claim Vernet was a governor as much as they like. In a court of law there is plenty evidence that proves hewas not.
Probably why they won't take it to court, they'd get ripped apart. Even the “maps” that show the islands as not a part of Argentine territory. I read that was one of the reasons they lost the mills case.
Beagle* case
Apr 05th, 2011 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@#135Malen, whats up - does the fact i have an ipad 2 make you jealous?
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me tell you something malen - i worked my balls off setting up my company training employees and filling the office with staff along with the company wharehouse. I started on my own using the computer in my bedroom in mid 2009. New Year 2010 i opened up and office with a wharehouse took on staff in small stages (easyier to train that way), trained them up. 50% of the staff i originally took on either couldn't do the job or decided it was not for them within the first week or 2 the others stayed and are still here today. i took on more staff to fill the office appointing some staff from the first wave i trained as trainers, too to help train the new ones and i now have around 60 staff in the office and 5 in the wharehouse. In 2010 alone the company made a profit of over 12 million pounds, each member of staff averaging £4,000 - £6,000 or more net profit a week. And it all started with just £250 to my name in my pocket working from my pc in my bedroom in June 2009. So Malen, what i do with my life each day is upto me, i've earnt the right to go and do whatever i like in my life and to buy whatever i like (such as ipad 2). So until you have done what i have done, you have no right to question me or falsely imply to the readers of this site, that i have been online all day like you did in post 129. As i only use the ipad to check my emails every couple of hours and to check on my staffs call levels and sales for the day through sipgate, which is the phone system my company uses that also acts as a database. As for me being an improtant person - Well my customers think so and so do the 65 people that i employ, who rely on me to pay their wages to them each month.
So as i said malen, until you have achived what i have achieved in life you have no right to question what i do each day. If my having an IPad 2 offends you, tought shit. Thats your problem nt mine as i've earnt the right to have one
Teaboy -
Apr 05th, 2011 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0don't get goaded into revealing too much of your real situation.
Malicious individuals will use this as ammunition to do you harm.
Geoff.
i am not interesting in nothing of your life not ask you about it ...it was your comment i have this i have that that it seems you need to show others
Apr 05th, 2011 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i didnt feel offended for nothing except the insults
i dont have problems and really i dont envy you in nothing
i dont believe in your evidence but yes you can post more here
Malen, i do care what you say, you clearly implied i was online all day, my comments were in reponse to explain that i am not online all day, but i am able to access the web no matter where i am, hence why it may appear i am online all day.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Geoff - your right they probably will use what i tell them about me as ammunition. Though how using what i have achived against me is not going to benefit them, as it will only show others what jealous and immature idiots they are. I personally do not hide the fact i have a business or the fact i am well off from it, as am not ashamed to tell people my story of how i got to where i am in such a small amount of time with so little starting captial to begin with. I even help others turn their business ideas into a profitable businesses, simply because i enjoy it doing it. So if some idiots what to use what i have achieved against me, then more fool them, to be honest.
Teaboy2, l applaud you & wish you well in your business. l also endorse what Geoff said. don't reveal too much information about yourself.lts not just the Argentines that you have to worry about. Anyone in the world can log on to this site. Peace.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Isolde.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh what a pity you do care of a comment like that..........
Apr 06th, 2011 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Malen. Sorry to burst bubble Malen, but i missed out the word “NOT” in error, it should have stated “I do NOT care”, but hey i had only just got up when i posted it, so i was still a bit sleepy. anyway i have better things to do with my time then carrying on playing your pathethic lets pretend history did not happen game. Cya, off to spend some money now, wining and dining now. Enjoy your crust less white bread buttered with a thin slice of meat, cheese and lettuce leaf with beer for supper tonight - won't you malen.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 03:10 pm - 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!