MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

“ ... It’s time the UK abides UN General Assembly resolutions which every year call on both sides to sit and discuss the Falkland Islands question ...”

UNGA ? - What a liar!

None since 1988 and the C-24 is a discredited sub-committee, out-dated and biased with Argentina's cronies !

http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/

ArgentIna can be confident all it wants, but the problem with misplaced overc

The Argentine government must be feeling a little unsettled after the election results in Santa Fe.

It's time for Argentina and UK to get at the table to agree about Falklands. The only and best way they can do is accepting, and supporting in every international forum, the right to self determination of the islanders.
Kosovo and Gibraltar show it is the best, and every one (islanders too) will get benefits from there. The question is: ”are the governments (in UK and Argentina) ready for it?”.

Rob - then acknowledge and talk to the FI gvt then.

“ ... ”The British Government’s relationship with its Overseas Territories is a modern one based on partnership, shared values and the right of each Territory to determine whether it wishes to stay linked to the UK or not. The UK has no intention of imposing independence against the will of the people concerned. Where independence is an option and is the clear and constitutionally expressed wish of the people of the Territories, the British Government will give every help and encouragement to those Territories to achieve it. For as long as the UK’s Overseas Territories wish to retain the link to the UK, the British Government will remain committed to their future development and continued security....”

I understand that the British government considers the islander's wishes to be paramount. The islander's have already expressed their desire to remain British. I think you'll have a problem getting your government to accept the same Rob !

“The French minister pointed out that the presence of French corporations in Argentina could increase once a settlement on an investment disputes suit is over.”

Is there any country other than Venezuela which Argentina does not have a dispute with over something or other?

This just shows what a fantasy delusion world Timmerman(and thus her layship) live in! Firstly at the UN he spouts what he and his Govy know to be a formal lie - that Argentine settlers were evicted in 1833 - and now he claims that UK uses its position on the Security Council to tharwt attempts by Arg to get talks going on the date they can takeover( as we all know they would allow no other possible result of any such talks regardless of what Islanders want)!!
Please can anyone on here list the times and details of whereKUk in the Securuity Council has tharted Argentina as alleged? And exclude 1982 as we all know who refused to abide by a binding Security Resolution then - 502 - dont we!

Redhoyt, I know you right. Will be a great problem getting my own gvt, and my fellows countrymen, to accept it.
Anyway, if the UK support self determination for Falklands (and I am pretty sure they do) I think they must demand it to be accepted officially by United Nations. After that Falklands will be free to decide to retain or not their link to the UK. That's up to them.
If the UK does it chances are UN will accept and will be the end of the claims and enmity from Argentina.
Of course, if it happens we (“argies”) will keep saying forever that you (“pirates”) stole the islands from us. jajajajajajaja

Interesting point, and I suspect there is a problem. Something I'm trying to find out about and I believe that it is in some way connected to the 'sovereignty umberella' that was agreed between Argentina and the UK back in 1989.

The UK has disengaged from the C-24. Apparently when the C-24 meets a seat marked 'UK' is set out for the permanent representative but he doesn't sit in it. He's there apparently, but takes a seat at the back and does not speak!

There are a number of reasons for this, all available here - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/overseas/ot11.htm

The Rep does speak when the C-24's Draft Resolution goes to the Fourth Committee, and he does demand that the progress that the UK has made with regard to Article 73 be recognised and the Falkland islands delisted.

The Argentine Rep will also make demands.

And then, nothing! And this nothing seems to track back to the 1989/90 agreement, ie, that nothing goes forward to the UN General Assembly.

” ... All C24 resolutions on UK OTs reach the UNGA, except that on the Falklands (a position agreed by the UK and Argentina since the resumption of bilateral relations in 1989/90)....”

I'm still looking, but there appears to be an impasse.

Redhoyt (#10) read the speech of the islanders (I don't remember the names) in the UN. They said something about trying to get the right for self determination accepted by EU (I am not sure and could be wrong). Anyway, if this is the case the UK must give them an stronger support.
Please, do me a favor. Can you send me all the links where to research about your comment # 10? my email is betopb@post.com Thanks

I wonder if it has occurred to Timerman that the French have not asked the British to open negotiations on the future of the Channel Islands!

9 Rob the argentine
nice posted,mate!!!!so rotten that you can say now, man! I told you, the time is running out for brits, no choice, man!!

We should negotiate with Argentina, with the following agenda:

1. Reparations for Argentina's illegal invasion of a peaceful island community.
2. A transition plan for Argentina to recognise the UK's legitimate rights to the Falkland Islands.
3. A public apology for all of the nasty and stupid things Argentina has said.
4. Recognition of the inalienable self-determination rights of the Falkland Islanders.
5. A solemn promise to grow up and stop whining.

These are the only things we're prepared to negotiate on.

Rob

UN Charter = http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml

Fourth Committe = http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml

C-24 = http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml

UK's relationship with C-24 = http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml

Dick Sawles message to the C-24 = http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml

Happy reading

Kiwi'sArse - stop smoking that stuff!

no need to have both UN & Security Council !
must be abolish these junk institutions.

USA,China,Russia,France,UK ...
none of them can perceive and solve the present World problems. !

Justin (#14) I, as argentine, accept all the five but the UK must accept Cristina and all the members of her government living forever in London and running for Mayor of London. jajajajajaja

I wonder what Juppe made of him banging on about the Falklands? He probably stifled a yawn and asked for a map.

It seems incredible that in the 21st century the Argentine approach to propaganda is simply to make stuff up.

CFK and her underlings are just making themselves look stupid - but don't seem to notice.

@13 Kiwisarg,
Can you post again when you are sober, man?

@18 “CFK and her underlings are just making themselves look stupid - but don't seem to notice.”

To the wider world she does look increasingly unstable and unreliable but she is only interested in appealing to her core voters to remain in power. They are either benefiting directly from her corrupt government or benefiting from payoff and gifts she likes to distribute to the poor and uneducated.

I do not blame the poverty stricken from being bought so cheaply. If you lived in abject poverty and someone waved a pretty gift at you, you could easily mistake that for a generous and kind act. In reality it is both demeaning and insulting.

Give people the education and ability to earn the money to buy the essentials and they have dignity. The problem with that scenario is that the more educated the poor become, the less likely they are to need CFK.

Sorry, a bit off topic but surely this issue has been raised again because CFK's government is smarting from the Santa fF election results. If at all worried, wave the nationalist flag.

[]- Elaine B.

indeed..you'r right !

here is the righteous sample from England...

remember the indigent Indians ??

the per capita income of ethnic Indians in Britain is about £ 15,860
higher than that of any other ethnic groups,and almost 10 % above
median national income level !
furthermore that ,
the unemployment rate among ethnic Indians is close to half of
national avarage ( 50% below)....
furthermore that ;
in Britain,some 32% of doctors in the National Health Service
are Indian origins...

Qu'est que c'est que ca ? Vous parlez seulement merde, Monsieur Timmerman.

I can't think of a less appropriate place for Timmerman to make a statement on the Falkland Islands. As a country with so many overseas teritories of its own, France is going to be the last country to support him on any sovereignty claims. The French really couldn't care less about waht he has to say on the matter.

Maybe he's thinking that by doing this in France, then somehow people will get the misconception that the French Government support him.

#17 Rob: Does that mean that Argentina gets Boris Johnson in exchange? I'm not sure who would be getting the worse deal there. I don't think CFK would want to go the the UK, though - the price of botox is way too high over there.

Geo - don't know where your getting you figures from but if you think £15,860 is the average national wage then your of the mark quite a margin.

#24 Legion: He's referring the the median wage. This is always going to be lower than the average, which gets pulled up by the few who earn megabucks. Saying that, his figure is way out of date anyway - I think it's closer to £20k now. The current average wage is something like £30k for men and £24k for women, I think.

@23 Hey! Leave BoJo alone! I love that man; purely for the entertainment factor. : )

#26 ElainB: No offence to BoJo intended - I think he's pretty good fun, too (sometimes it's hilarious watching him on London Assembly question time), and he's really committed and passionate about London.

Not sure what the Argetinians would make of him, though!

@ 27. No offence taken at all. : ) BoJo has cornered the market of the bumbling buffoon character. The truth is he is intelligent and ruthlessly ambitious...... don't you think he wants the PM's job? I love watching the body language when they are together. BoJo alpha males Cameron every time.

What would the Argentines make of him? Hmmm. I would like to see that encounter. They would most likely enjoy his passion but be utterly baffled about point he is trying to make; like us. : )

How would CFK be perceived in the UK? They would probably think she was Katie Price's mother.

#28 ElaineB: BoJo would absolutely love the job of PM! I get the feeling that he's a bit of a niche market when it comes to voters, though, so I can't see it really happening.

CFK as Katie Price's mother ? I can see that, but KP is at least vaguely attractive. CFK's ugly gene would have to be recessive.

I think we should call CFKs bluff and hold these talks - somewhere nice - maybe the Caribbean.

Turn up, quote a few UN principles like the right to self determination etc then tuck into the smoked salmon and laze by the pool for the week.

#30 Idlehands: Sounds like fun. Can I come too, please? I'm thinking Tahiti or BoraBora (the Argentinians should be happy with that, seeing as the French are supposedly their best friends now).
I'm not a Falkland Islander, but my brother was there with the Royal Engineers during the war in 1982. He was on HMS Alacrity and was initially due to land before the main force and clear one of the beaches of mines. Fortunately for him, there was a change of plan and they decided to land somewhere else. He ended up spending much of the conflict at sea, then clearing ordnance and building the runway when it was all over.

@28

E, who is BoJo? not to be confused with BJ, too early in the morning to talk about that? :-))

@19

Isolde, I just emailed Mr T and instructed him that all negotiations are to conducted between YOU and I, so for the rest please BACK OFF !!!! (i'm still getting the rank of General correct?)

[] - 24 LegionNi

£15,860 = $ 26,000
source ( # 21) : University of Essex
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------furthermore that ; (500 is OECD avarage),M(males)..FM(Females)

combined reading literacy :

UK...M (480)...FM (510) ....... JAPAN... M (483)...FM (513)

mathematical literacy :

UK... M (504)...FM (487) ....... JAPAN ... M (533) .... FM (513)

scientific literacy :

UK ... M (520)...FM (510) ...... JAPAN ... M (533) ... FM ( 530).

@32 Boris Johnson: Politician, journalist and columnist, currently the Mayor of London. Ex. Etonian and Oxford (as are many of our Prime Ministers). Fancies himself as a future PM.

He is both an astute thinker and ambitous politician who has perfected the art of appearing to be an affable, mad-professor with untameable hair and an eye for the ladies.

I like his refreshingly unpolished blunders through the political world, though some would argue he absolutely stage-manages every event. Though I would refute that he staged the occasion when the press were camped on his doorstep after his last affair with Petronella Wyatt. He returned from a morning jog, threw some denials to the press that his marriage was in trouble, smiled and waved for the cameras, then tried to enter his front door to find his wife had locked him out! Priceless.

It must be in the genes. His father, Stanley, was recruited for the intelligence service but had to quit because he couldn't remember his cover story. (I am not making this up).

[] -hey mate

i know who you are.....i don't want to reveal here...

do you really need hideyourself behind the unshowy names like Crackpot ?

this name imprints to us as if ,like Crunchput !

Geo

Your figures are out of date.

Median earnings of full-time male employees were £538 per week in 2010 for the UK. That is £27,976 per year.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

so 27,976 times 1.6 is $ 44,761.60 US dollars , not bad at all ...

@34

E, you are describing Bill Clinton , almost, right?

#21 & #33 geo: I'm failing to see what your point is here. So, you're saying that literacy is about average in the UK. That's hardly groundbreaking news. At the same time, the UK has some of the top ranked universities in the world (3 in the top 10 from the latest rankings), so the place is hardly illiterate.
Also, your figures on unemployment and average wages among Indians are way off the mark. Unemployment is lowest in the white population in the UK. All other ethnic groups have higher unemployment rates including Indians (check any official UK statistics). All the same, I don't see why any of this is relevant to anything.

[] 36 + 37

Gov.Uk statistics are much worse than INDEC !

I'm not Economist but i well know that the differences between
current prices & nominal prices ..and relative puchasing power parity

OECD says that UK has median(no children) avarage wage earning is
26,220 Euro (2010)..

£ 15,860 would be compact ,real ,purified from CPI level !

Asalariados sin contribucion jubilatoria???? :-))))

Geo

Would you like to post a link to the source of your statistics?

#35 & #40 geo
I very much doubt that you know who I am, as I only started posting yesterday. The only clue I will give you is that my name is an anagram of “crackpot inventor”. If you can work it out, then you deserve a PhD (I've already got one, by the way).

Also, there is no such thing as a “median average”. It's either median or average (ie, mean) and can't be both.

I think you're referring to Gross National Income (GNI) per capita rather than wages. This is worked out by taking the countries whole income for a year and dividing it by the the total population. This does reflect avaerage income per person (including children, OAP,s etc), but not what people are actaully getting paid in the workplace.

So your figure of 26,000 Euros is about right for GNI (ie, about £24,000). I believe that Argentina's GNI is only about 6000 Euros at the moment.

Geo

You state your median figure is for the UK but then in your latest post #40 you state it is the median figure (no children).

Are you excluding the wages with anyone with children??? How would that then be the median figure for the UK? It wouldn't it would just be for one seciton of the population of the UK.

[] - 42 Legion

here is the link :

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/24/india-s-most-important-exports-brains-and-talent.html

-----
[] - 39

UK has high level universities !! once it was true ..
best university is in your brain.
---------
[] - 41

never say jamas !

@38 In some respects, yes. He has the charisma but he is not smooth, like Clinton. His route to the ladies hearts is by appearing to be a slightly vulnerable, absent-minded professor type but the end result is the same. I guess they are playing to their audiences.

I meant to add that Boris was, indeed, called BJ for a while but given his indiscretions, it was adapted to BoJo. (He hates both).

Can I get in on this Caribbean beano?

#42 Geo: The UK has about 25 universities in the definitive list of the top 200 universities in the world.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/top-200.html
No South American universities make the grade, although two Spanish ones do.
I admit that this list may be biased somewhat towards English-speaking universities, as one of the citeria involves research publication citations, and English language articles are always going to get cited more often (although any researcher worth his salt would only publish in English, no matter where he was based, as it is the international language of science).

Redhoyt (#10) read the speech of the islanders (I don't remember the names) in the UN. They said something about trying to get the right for self determination accepted by EU (I am not sure and could be wrong). Anyway, if this is the case the UK must give them an stronger support
Still,rob,there is a legal problem.
Like Jon,has pointed very well.The geographical,historical and juridical rigths of Argentina over Malvinas.
By the way ,rob,no mention about the chagosian?Still they are waiting.....
I think you are all wrong.Malvinas,is independent of any political party.
Had been protested heavily since 1833.
We do not have to acceptit and if you like rob,you can leave Argentina,I do not care.You can go with those titans,like briton,typhoon,redhoyt....
Anyway, who cares,like Jim Rogers,said: uk is finished,so you can emigrate to uk,and work to pay the Huuuge debt....

[] - 47

agree,English is internationally used a practical language ...but it is not
everything...these are merely the derivatives of cultural imperialism .
......i have few relatives from British & American Universities
frankly i must say that their levels are not enough....

i'm from an ordinary university ,social sciences..modestly saying
i can easily repast many brains who includes Nobel owners...

#49 geo: Like all countries, the UK and the US have both good and bad universities. The good ones are very good indeed and the bad ones tend to be very bad indeed.

That's no idle boast, saying that your brains are superior to those of a Nobel Prize winner. What do you base that assumption on? Have you ever gone head-to-head with a Nobel Prize winner? I did have an opportunity to chat with one once - Bert Sakmman (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1991). In no way did I feel superior.

p.s. When it comes to international scientific research, English is everything, I'm afraid. If you had a groundbreaking piece of research you would hardly publish it in some local journal that nobody is going to read. You would put it in one of the top international journals, and all of those are in English. It's just a fact of life, I'm afraid. Of course, it is partly a consequence of the British Empire in the 18th and 19th century, but it's more to do with the USA now. On top of the cultural expansion, English has become widely adopted because it's easy to get yourself understood with only a limited knowledge, even if you make mistakes.

@32 “who is BoJo? This ”man“ cousin, E.I.

Don't miss the end
”We need the Falkland Islands for strategic sheep purposes”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omQ5JjjLsE&NR=1

@1 Red, 16 June 2003 The Special Committee in the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples O.N.U... ”distressed that, notwithstanding the time that has elapsed since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX) , this prolonged dispute has not been settled”.
The world looks ;-)

I knew that the likes of Marcos and Malvinese would turn up here and embarrass themselves and their nation once again.

Marcos - Boris Johnson is good value for amusement purposes.

Let the moaning Argies continue to moan, they are easy to ignore and do not have the balls to take their ludicrous arguments to the ICJ.

@53

Where is “Think” ? I miss the old fart !! After all the beating that he received from you all .... Shame on you people!! :-))

@54 Maybe he enjoyed a little spanking.

Re: BoJo. Indeed, we were having a little fun at his expense. He can take it; he has a sense of humour.

@54
Probably busy sending all the Argentinean military of the 70's to jail, they keep recieving a beating from all of us.

http://www.clarin.com/politica/expulsion-mendigos-investigada-anos-despues_0_518348405.html

Think appeard to merge his personal bitterness and prejudice againt Britain with the horrific events in Norway. When I asked him why he decided to refer to agressve British posters and not to all the aggressive posters on these forums (regardless of Nationality) he let fly with all of his pent up agression and clear Anglophobia.

He also tried to argue for a descision to force innocent Argentina civilians to ugergo medical investigations against their will. Go back to that story and you will see that I gave him a good and honest battering and pulled his argument to pieces.

He also started issuing personal insults (parasite if I recall) for no apparent reason than pure bitterness.

He will crawl out from under his rock sometime soon, but lacks the integrity he once had, IMHO, DYOR etc. etc.

(57) Beef

Why don’t you turn off your I-phone as you promised your wife and enjoy the sun over the Loch?
You really need some vacations……..

Ps:
Have you checked the South Atlantic Oil Share prices today?

Chuckle chuckle ™

@57 “but lacks the integrity he once had ” ......

I believe he still has it , personal experiences clutter our thoughts sometimes ....

[] - 50 Crackpot

Would you want to try to discuss any subjects with me ?

i don't want to discuss on Falkland Islands,becouse that there are no
any eligible debaters and Falkland Islanders here ! (e.g : i want to
discuss about Charles Darwin's adventures at South America and Falklands ..but i don't found any informed persons ...anyway )

e.g :i am waiting a coming article about Venezuela ....
i invite and want to see you there !.........
--- --- --- ---
one of my cousins is from Duke University..
the other cousin is from Chicago University...
one of my relatives is from LSE (London..pardon Londonabad) but he didn't buy his diploma there......
the other relatives from Cornell University ....

@56

Typical “K” propaganda, let's beat up on the Military BUT let's not talk about corruption, inflation, lack of security, bla, bla y mas bla .

How is Hebe and Shocklender doing? What are your plans for Clarin next? You all stop the distribution, attacked and harassed the kids for the DNA test and now you prohibit the sale of the newspaper in the Central Market. .... and that's Democracy or DEMAGOGIA ???

[] - 61

for all i know Hebe's son Bigotito is well but his wife is cancer. !

Geo,

Dictadura and Malvinas , that's all you have??? as a Political Platform? wtf !!!!

#60 geo: I thought that we already had been discussing subjects. So far, you've just come up with a load of spurious and pointless facts and figures about illiteracy rates and ethnic minorities in the UK. If you don't want to discuss the Falkland Islands, then what are you doing here?

If you seriously think that the academic standards are poor at Duke, Chicago, LSE and Cornell, then you need your head examined. However, as you have already said, you have an intellect superior to most Nobel Laureates, so I guess those universities must seem like kindergardens to you.

@61 Artillero- GA3-GIJoe
What happen? You were so relaxed after your vacation?? :-)))))

jajajajaja!!!! ustedes me sacan de quicio cabrones !!!!! :-))))

Haven't left yet think, you stalking again I see.

Checked out a lot of shares in the red today but didn't buy or sell today. I am more interested in the new RKH report issued today. Hmm, field development plan to be issued by 2013, looks like production is on the horizon. What can your country do about it? Chuckle Chuckle.

Some fine single malts will be tasted over the weekend I am sure!

[] - 64 Crackpot

my invitation is valid for you in everytime !

[] - 63 Artio

the real reason of 1982 invasion attemting of Falklands
by Argentine Army.. must not be known !.

Being an Argentinean and with a British family, I see this very clear.
Perhaps it is not so clear for islanders, but everything will be related to the lack of oil in the island.
UK is no more interested in those island after seeing that there is no oil there.
Ok , they founded 150millon barrels(this is a 20 days production of the NorthSea), too few and far away, not commercial.
UK will be interested in the next years to come, to cut the US$ 500 to US$800 million budget in the island.
That means; No Nuclear Submarines, ships, aircrafts, equipment , food, and soldiers in the Falklands(Malvinas) .
Of course the political cost is high, unless the British people understand that holding the islands it's just wasting money.
British people aren't stupid , when it comes to money they will choose the right direction.
I think it will take at least 20 more years.
But soon or late, “Malvinas” will return to Argentina.

Morning all, usual rubbish from the Mrvin twins I see, Juano needs to sober up and see the world as it is, wishful thinking will get you nowhere!

So, ...... Falkland islands still British? Still flying the flag? Yes! Wonderful .... now, what'll happen today ? :-)

Jajaja, don't you see?
It is not wishful thinking.
It is, what is going on right now, South America is just making for UK as expensive as it can be, to maintain the islands..... and wait.
The effects in the Falklands (Malvinas) would be terrific if it wasn't for the help of UK.

(67) Beef
You say:
“Haven't left yet think, you stalking again I see.”

I say:
Stalking?
Reading and commenting what somebody writes in a public bulletin bord is stalking?

He also tried to argue for a descision to force innocent Argentina civilians to ugergo medical investigations against their will. Go back to that story and you will see that I gave him a good and honest battering and pulled his argument to pieces.

corned beef: You are sooo ignorant,why is that?Is that stupidity is a virtue for you?
The Noble case,is studied as a case in the law school.Is very complicated issue,legally.And the government,is not infringing any law,in asking that.
Because the real parents,have the rigth to know the misapropiation....
Do you really have a PhD,in economy?
You should me more careful,what you write........(well the fact you are writing here,in such a good company,like briton,typhoon,ladybug,etc it syas it all!1
I think Jon,the Icelasder was very rigth!

Juano - well done, so how come our costs don't seem to have gone up?

Juan - who says we have 150m barrels? This is only the current low case estimate and we are curretly in appraisal phase. The booked reserve figure will become apparent in 2012. We can wait.

Based on the costs of FPSO then 150m is more than commercial and that is why RKH is also development planning during the current appraisal. Why would some of the largest Insitutional Investors in the UK invest in something that has no commercial value?

Try harder next time.

@Juan01 considering the British government and British taxpayer does not benefit from oil in the Falklands (if there is any in commercial quantities) your assertion is a bit hollow. The Falkland Islands government issues the oil licences and the Falkland Island government collects any revenues for the benefit of the Falkland Islanders. Oil in the Falklands has nothing to do with the UK (apart from commercial opportunities which are open to any country - including Argentina)!

If Argentina wants Britain to sit down at a table and tell them to their faces to sling their hook I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem if it makes them happy.
If the Argentinians are so confident that the Islands will be returned to them at some stage in the future why don't they just wait and wait and wait.
And Still.............The Union Jack flies high and proud over these our beautiful Falkland Islands and other resource rich South Atlantic territories.

Of course that ,i didn't /don't support the Argentine Army (1982)
invasion attempt to Falklands...kind of rape ..unacceptable !
but
some Arg. guerilla /agents stayed ,might be living since 1982 there.
~~~~
i know Falklands has some oil reserves, notably has bituminous coal
but
the real owner these reserves must be Islanders ,neither UK nor Arg.
~~~~
i don't approve “” self determination “” !

#78 geo:
“...but some Arg. guerilla /agents stayed ,might be living since 1982 there.”

I think someone would have noticed by now on islands with only 3000 residents. What would they have been eating all this time - penguins?

“...but the real owner these reserves must be Islanders ,neither UK nor Arg”

The Islanders already are the real owners of the reserves. They issue the hydrocarbons licenses and they will receive the revenue and spend it as they see fit. There has been talk of using some of it to contribute to the (realively small) UK costs of defending the islands.

“...i don't approve “” self determination “” ”

It's an inalienable right - whether you approve of it or not is irrelevant.

Juan, you're comments regarding the British cost of “keeping hold” of the Falklands assumes that the British Governments funds/subsidises the Falklands. This is incorrect. The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) is self-sufficient. We have Reserves that are 140% of our GDP, and the previous financial year FIG announced a budget surplus, and FIG should be fine for the forthcoming financial year. We do not receive any assistance from Britain or its taxpayer.

Defence on the other hand is provided by Britain, which would not be required if there wasnt an aggressive neighbour. The defence of the Falklands represents 0.5% of the British Military Budget, a mere £70m in total. That is the extent of Britain's contribution of ensuring the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders are met. These are the facts.

Youre theory of Argentina colonising the Falklands because Britain can no longer bankroll the “occupation” of the Falklands is completely misguided and I advise you adjust your expectations. What keeps the Falklands British is the Islanders right for self-determination, not the prospect of Oil, because all current and future revenues made from the Oil Industry in the Falklands goes to FIG. This is another fact.

Juan, you will be sorely dissappointed and embarrassed in 20 years time.

We should negotiate with Argentina, with the following agenda:

1. Reparations for Argentina's illegal invasion of a peaceful island community.
2. A transition plan for Argentina to recognise the UK's legitimate rights to the Falkland Islands.
3. A public apology for all of the nasty and stupid things Argentina has said.
4. Recognition of the inalienable self-determination rights of the Falkland Islanders.
5. A solemn promise to grow up and stop whining.

These are the only things we're prepared to negotiate on
I think justin,you are Crazy!!
First apologize to all the infinite crimes done by the brits,in the last 300 years,worlwide.
No way Argentina is going to apologize to uk.
First you give back our property,Malvinas,then uk apologizes Argentina,for the mistreatment...
Youre theory of Argentina colonising the Falklands because Britain can no longer bankroll the “occupation” of the Falklands is completely misguided and I advise you adjust your expectations. What keeps the Falklands British is the Islanders right for self-determination, not the prospect of Oil, because all current and future revenues made from the Oil Industry in the Falklands goes to FIG. This is another fact.

And another fact,you don NOT HAVE the proper titles.....

Those are our pre-conditions on any talks, you will note an apology to the Falkland Islanders is a pre-requisite.

“ ... Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government ...”

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml

'Administering power' - there's a title for you! Sanctioned by the UN too :-)

Please Malvinero1 enlighten of what you mean by “proper titles”.

Do you mean the administration and sovereignty? Because the administration of the Falklands is by FIG and the democratically elected Councillors, and Britain have sovereignty. The only power Argentina exercises over the Falkland Islanders is an attempt at a economic blockade and their constant lobbying to countries and associations.

Like I said.Malvinas was taken by force,and according the accepted,international Law,you need a treaty.Furthermore the Malvinas,lie,inside the continental shelf of Argentina...
Did you see any treaty,from Argentina ceding the Malvinas?
Convention of 1850?No mention about Malvinas.malvinas was not the cause of the treaty.
Too bad,ladybug,you are loosing at the UN.Every year.Argentina 46-uk 0
See you next year at the UN.We hope this time edward is not going TO IMPLORE!(too much criying)

The continental shelf is irrelevant! Geography is irrelevant! Argentina is irrelevant!

Yup, see you next year ... and the year after, and the one after that .... ad infinitum :-)

@85 Unfortunately, Britain was in place on the Falkland Islands before 1833. The United Provinces ILLEGALLY occupied part of British sovereign territory. But only the garrison was required to leave. Not civilian settlers.

Regarding the CONVENTION between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship, the omission of the Falkland Islands demonstrates that the sovereignty of the Islands was not an “existing Difference”. No issue!

By the way, how do you get to claim land that you occupied for less than 2 years, when Britain had already occupied it for nearly 100?

It isn't yours, it has never been yours and it will never be yours. Get used to it!!

[] - 79 Crackpot

Thanks your comment (79)

-------------------------

I wrote something at today's Venezuela article which titled
“”Venezuela remains committed to compensate oil companies.....“”

i expect your precious comment !!

@88

the real reason of 1982 invasion attemting of Falklands
by Argentine Army.. must not be known ! .....

I want to debate that, are you ready?

Malviner - what do you expect to achieve at the UN? You have achieved nothing to date and unless you actually decide to go to the ICJ then you have no legal platform at all. UN general assembly resolutions are non binding so they are not even worth the paper they are written on.

Now, who are you going to negotiate with? The UK position is that sovereignty is not negotiable, you fail to recognize the FIG so this leaves you to negotiate with yourself!

In other words “get stuffed” as there is nothing you can do about it. The drilling continues. Exciting times ahead!

so what stocks should I buy? :-))

Ah yes, the geography debate. The Falklands is Argentine because it is close to Argentina, by that logic Britain should be French and Greenland should be Canadian. Unfortunately for Chile, this standard imperialist justification has been a Argentine policy for many years! Argentina loves to take land.

Are we losing at the UN? Are Argentina even winning at the UN? It is a bit of a moot point really, because the C24 committee seem to forget the right to self-determination to all peoples, even though their goal is to uphold that right. So overall, the UN is losing. And havent you noticed the exact same outcome comes out of C24 every year? Also, have you noticed its affect on the sovereignty of the Falklands? The answer is none.

Typhoon, you are spot on. Couldnt have written a better response to Malvinero.

Also Malvinero I have noticed you havent replied to my comments regarding the funding of the Falkland Islands.... have I blown your colonisation theory in 20 years theory out of the water?

#88 geo:
“I wrote something at today's Venezuela article which titled
“”Venezuela remains committed to compensate oil companies.....“”
”i expect your precious comment !!”

Not particualrly interested in Venezuela, I'm afraid (I'm more interested in overseas territories). Don't know much about the place, except that: 1) it has a lot of oil, 2) it has a very high waterfall, 3) it has a psychotic president, 4) cosmetic surgery is very popular (CFK should feel right at home), 5 ) beauty pageants are very popular (hence all the Miss Worlds), and 6) it's where my dentist comes from.

Artillero - what is your attitude to risk and what are your investment aims/targets? Are you looking for income or capital gain? How long can you lock your cash away for?

Answer some of these questions and the options will start to narrow themselves down.

[] -89 Artio

Ok !
I say/insist that Argentina was not knowing the Falkland Action attempt
(1982) made what for ...

[] -- 93 Crackpot

our point is not Venezuela .

http://www.harvestnr.com/operations/venezuela.html

this is a Soros company ,the same Soros has Interoil which indrectly
controls the Desire Petroleum ( for all i read from old some commets here)

Hugo Chaves is anti-American, Socialist, US enemy ,Argentine friend
is he true !?
I ask what is it !!??

hypocrisy ? ...intrugue ?... strategy ?..

Something I just noticed in the Dick sawle speech to the C-24 in June -

“ ... As the former Chair of this Committee pointed out in his address at the University of Belgrano last year, if Argentina were to gain sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, then it would immediately have to relinquish sovereignty as it would be obliged to respect our right to self-determination under resolution 1514 ...”

http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/

Anybody got a copy of the speech ?

@95
I say/insist that Argentina was not knowing the Falkland Action attempt
(1982) made what for ... ....

what is the question? what was the reason for the conflict in 82?

Red - Argenitna would not honor any democratic rights of the FI. Look at their record on refusing to recognize the democratic rights of Kosovo.

Beef, I know that. I'm more interested in the person who made the speech, the ex chairman of the C-24!

[] - 97

I say/insist on that England has no idea about Argentine (1982)
Falkland invasion attempt made what for ....

that is enough !

#98 Beef
To be fair, Argentina are by no means alone in refusing to recognize the democratic rights of Kosovo. In fact only 40% of the world's countries recognise their right to independence.
Spain certainly doesn't, as they're too worried that it might have an influence on the indpendence movements in Catalonia and the Basque Region.

@100

That's enough what Geo?

Gunner I think he means that the UK had no idea what the intentions of Argentina were in 1982....i.e considering we had one MI6 field intelligence unit based in Belize and one officer based in Guyana (in the UK embassy) we had no idea of Argentina's intentions towards the islands ....piss poor intell basically....but mind you Argentina's intell on the abilities, capabilities and motivation of HM forces and govt where equally as shocking if not worse....is the old saying goes it is better to lose a battle through poor intell, than it is to start a war on poor intell...

96 Redhoyt “Anybody got a copy of the speech ?”

Rotted, Mr Dick Sawle is from England like you, his speech is irrelevant.
This speech is from a real Malvinense.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13780144

@103

Rhaurie, do you all have a M16 office in Montevideo?

Marcos - you should know all about irrelevance. Argentina is unable to exert influence of the FI and we do as we please. There is nothing you can do about it, now that it irrelevant, powerless, spineless, pointless, worthless. You choose.

Crack - it is only a matter of time for Spain to recognize Kosovo. Their rhetoric over the issue is a lot softer than Argentina's but I guess that wouldn't be too hard though.

#106 Beef:
You're probably right. Spain is going to have to go along with EU policy on Kosovo at some point. They're sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place on the matter. Their problem is that the regions in Spain have such a high level of autonomy already (and such distinct cultures, languages, etc) that, for some of them at least, the next logical step is full independence, and those movements are getting more and more vociferous. Catalonia has already declared itself to be a “nation” in its recent charter.

What a boring man you must be Beef, on or about to go in vacation and commenting about a group of Argentinean islands 14000 km away from your tent? Go for a walk, enjoy your day, don't let the falling stock prices get to you.

104 Marcos Alejandro
Dick Sawle is our elected representative.
Do you know how many votes Jamie Peck got when he stood for council?
Which part of 'democracy' don't you understand?

M_of_FI,
“The defense of the Falklands represents 0.5% of the British Military Budget, a mere £70m in total”
Totally false!
Only the 4 Eurofighter Typhoon are 95€ each x4= 380€. they are used exclusively in the islands so you should paid its cost, pilot training, etc.
http://www.discoveryfalklands.com/falkland-islands-news/typhoons-billions-over-budget-02-03-11/
So, you don't count also the training of 2000 soldiers, Submarines, Submarine-Ships personnel, Logistic, etc.
It seems that you only paid for their food.

Crack - the same applies in the UK, specifically with Scotland (where I will be sampling the whisky tomorrow). After the ICJ ruling the international law argument is dead in the water.

109 Monty69
Do you know how many votes your English colonial Governor Nigel Haywood got?

Which part of 'democracy' don't you understand?

#111 Beef: Highland Park - that's the stuff. Terrible name, but great whisky. Most northerly distillery in the British Isles (in the Orkneys). What a loss to the UK if Scotland decides to leave!

#110 Juano1: The only real costs are the running of the base itself and the cost of logistics too and from the Falkland Islands. All of those forces and weapons systems would still exist irrespective of whether the UK had a commitment to defend the islands or not. Furthermore, the UK saves some money due to the training opportunities that the islands provide.

Marcos - not on holiday yet! Now then, SPs rise and SPs fall, don't tend to let it bother me as I can do something about it.

Is British soverignty of the FI getting to you? Chuckle Chuckle.

@114

Be careful Beef, “Think” will sue for Infringement ... :-))

@Juano (110) Crackpot has responded how I would have responded( thanks for that Crackpot!)

@Marcos (112) - Ah, the wonderful Argentina inability to understand the role of the Governor. It is a classic. It is up there with the georgraphy justification. You have been told many, many times by various posters on the Governor's role, and each time you have ignored it. Your ignorance is holding you back Marcos! New Zealand, Canada, Australia etc all have British Governors, does that make them colonies of Britain? Lets see you dig a rather big, deep and stupid hole for yourself.

Rather than go crawling to the french for back up,
when we know they have no interest in the falklands,
im surprised the argies havent sought the help of spain, in their attempt to grab the falklands,,

but sooner or later, argentina will give up talking,
and waiting, Then what,??? just a thought

[] - Artio

enough = enough
*****
El Think(Es Ding) 's spirit walks around here not his name .
---------------------------------------

[] - Beef

you can 't compare Kosovo ( Kosova in Albanian Language) with
any other autonomous regions....don't forget , this region has spesific
situations which are , inner region / touched by other independent
Albania/ touched by Macedonia who has some Albanians minorities/
and post-war derivative. !

i don't have any relations with Kosova .

@118

Well ? that goes the debate !!

“Think” is like the B2 bomber , shows in the radar when opens the door to drop the bombs .....

Geo -
Kosovo is not an autonomous region. It is a nation state. The ethnic make-up if a state is largely an irrelevance and what matters is they are free to determine their own future, regardless of what others say about territorial integrity. The ICJ appeared to support that notion.

116 M_of_FI
Don't get upset mate, is not my fault that your English Queen gets to choose your colonial Governor for you. Next time tell her to choose a local kelper at least not an Englishman and a former British Consul in Basra Iraq.

# Crackpot
1)“ All of those forces and weapons systems would still exist irrespective of whether the UK had a commitment to defend the islands or not”
So.... you are telling me that UK economy is so strong, that has many “Eurofighter Typhoons”
in excess and 4 of them are in the Falklands(Malvinas) without any cost for them? (Magician or foolery)
Come on ! This is a “Imperial--Colony” relation where UK says “I pay the bills, you chatter about self determination ”
2) “Furthermore, the UK saves some money due to the training opportunities that the islands provide.”
With this magical economy principle, UK could save all the army budget by sending the entire army to the colonies .

The Queen doesn't choose the Governor. Guess some people or too dumb or too bigoted to figure that out.

Marcos is just too thick and British sovereignty in the FI is getting to him.

[] - Beef

i didn't say Kosova is autonomous region !
but
China &Russia haven't recognised them yet as a nation state .
Ethnicity is very important & sensible factor at Balkans/ Caucasians !

-------------

[] - Artio

El Think ( Es Ding) is very interesting character for me .

His(her) writing style is like Americans
His(her) mentality is like Russians !!

#122 Juan01:
”So.... you are telling me that UK economy is so strong, that has many “Eurofighter Typhoons”

The UK has 70 at the moment and another 90 are due to be delived by 2015. In fact, the initial order was for 232, so the UK has actually decreased the number. I didn't say that there was no cost involved in having them in the Falklands. Most of the extra cost is getting them there, and then them them supplied. However, they will have to be maintained wherever they are stationed in the world (hence no extra cost there).

“With this magical economy principle, UK could save all the army budget by sending the entire army to the colonies .”
The pilot training opportunities in the Falklands are invaluable, because the flightpath restrictions are much greater back in the UK, and low level flying cannot be done in most areas.
Sound like a good idea, sending all the forces to the Falklands. It's a bit impractical, though, as the islands don't have the infrastructure to support them all over the long-term. It's also totally unnecessary, because the Argentine forces are so piss-poor at the moment. The current garrison is more than enough to deal with them.

123 JustinKuntz
Oh poor Justin, his rear end must hurt badly after the punishment he recieved by Mr Argerich.
Hey by the way the British Foreign Secretary William Hague has admitted that the 'evidence' that led to Megrahi's release was 'worthless.'

“The Governor is appointed by the Queen on the advice of her Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the United Kingdom”
Is that correct?

#127 hey Marcos, another one with OBK syndrome ? ( Often butt kicked )

Must be a national sport in England......everyday more adepts.

122 Juano, its the same with the army - here in the Islands are some unique training areas they do not have elsewhere in the world- areas where all 3 services can operate combined exercises. Same with the Navy- UK has a worldwide Navy - the ships dont just come here - they visit and exercise with friendly nations in the area - eg in the last 12-15 months with Chile, Brazil,South Africa,Peru.
All it costs are the transport for materials and manpower and the base maintenance costs. All wages, accomodation, food, training materials etc make no difference as the people would still be in the UK forces even if not here.
Marcos - The Governor is appointed by the British Govt - just the same as is the Governor of Australia - the Queen does the final “appointment” yes -but please learn something about how the Br Constitution works-the Queen does NOT have the say in who gets the job!
s

#127 Marcos Alejandro:
The Governor is appointed by the Queen, but that doesn't mean she actually chooses him, it's just protocol. The process varies across the Commonwealth and BOTs. In the case of the Falklands, it's the UK Government that chooses them. In Australia and Canada, it's the Prime Ministers of those countries.

Marcos does not understand constitutional protocol. British soverignty in the FI must be getting to him.

Marcos knows this, he's just trolling, again. Do not feed

UK's first Stealth fighter in successful catapult test
Royal Navy version of the F-35 shot into sky
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/28/f35c_cat_test_shot/

The cost of the things today certainly is not cheap.
But when you compare costs to defend overseas territories,
As long as the UK, is wealthier than Argentina, then the cost is rather irrelevant,

The Falkland’s, or garrison, whatever suits, the cost really is minimal
If you compared this to Germany or Cyprus,
But I think your main problem is,
Not can we afford it for ever,
But should be, will we pay the price of freedom, integrity and democracy,
When looking at two world wars, Korea and many other wars,
The answer will be [yes]
So if by any chance Argentina was waiting for the money or interest to run out, then I’m afraid you are in for the long haul,
Perhaps another 1,000 years .mmm
..

You Brits are funny……………

You spend billions of Pounds in maintaining a pretty useless Monarchic system based in the sound family values of Henry the VIII…….

Then you spend tillions of words trying to explain to the world that this monarchy does not have any function at all………….

Chuckle chuckle™

#134 Think:
The monarchy probably costs the UK about £200 million per year, actually. However, only about £40 million (about £0.69 per person per year) of that has to be paid for by taxpayers, as the rest is generated by income from the Crown Estates and investments. This is probably cheaper than what most presidential systems cost to run.

It does, and it doesn’t,[ British way of life,]
As for henry, think,
6, wives were very expensive to keep
And have you any idea how much it cost to have someone head off,
Not cheap I can tell you.

128 so_far OBK? Jajajaja

129 Islander1 ; 130 Crackpot Thanks
132 Monty69 I still don't get it quite well, can you explain please? :-)

134 Think Jajajaja

#briton
“Not can we afford it forever,
But should be, will we pay the price of freedom, integrity and democracy”
Freedom and democracy is what we, people of Argentina and SouthAmerica have and want.
Argentina is a democracy living in peace, if you want to look like a John Wayne fighting for freedom, your argument must be real, not just talking about self determination, and behaving like an Empire and having a monarchy, most of the world doesn't believe in you.
The world does not believe anymore in the UK promoting freedom and peace but killing babies in Iraq.
Once you stop listening other voices in the world you are in the way to behave like those you hate.

@134 You spend billions of Pounds in maintaining a pretty useless Monarchic system based in the sound family values of Henry the VIII…….
very good jajajaja me hiciste reír Think...

See there you go again.
Brain washed, believing only what you want to believe,
there is no way anybody can convince someone who has sadly been indoctrinated, your reply says it all,
[If you have it, why do you want it]
If you are living in peace,=
[why are you threatening and abusing, and blockading to Falkland’s people] who are the true people that want to live in peace, but Argentina won’t let them,

The empire no longer exists, and as for promoting freedom and peace, that is exactly what we, and other try to do, , and the very poor people of the world who are starving, [will most certainly disagree with you .]

as for killing babies, this is a disgusting insult and slur, coming from a people who kill their own people by the hundred, and throw nuns, out of helicopters,] yes a disgusting insult,

And why insult john Wayne, he is an American icon, and has nothing to do with the Falkland’s, and many American’s will not be happy, that you insult him,,
,
Why do we wish to have, like those we hate, [according to you]
We don’t hate anybody, and if you think we do, [prove it]
mmm

You spend billions of Pounds in maintaining a pretty useless Monarchic system based in the sound family values of Henry the VIII…….

At least Prince Charles spends money to spread green message...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/06/prince-charles-green-train-campaign

yes.
our prince
our money

[problem ??]

No problem at all Briton, just read the comments of the British below that article, here is number 1:

“Oh f.......g hell, please shut up, just shut up please.
Jesus Christ, if you were thinking of a way to turn people off of the environmental message, you could not dream up better than this”

?

Que?

@116 “New Zealand, Canada, Australia etc all have British Governors, ”
Not for the last 50 years, give or take a bit.... normally native born these days.... and recommended by the country's PM.

Having a governor seems to make for functional democracies... not the flawed variety....

#104 - MoreCrap, not Sawles speech you idiot, that's where I got the info from. I'm interested in the speech from the outgoing chair of the C-24 who told Argentina that the islands get to be independent regardless of who is the supervising power!

That must of hurt!

Morning all - anything changed? No! Good!

Reading that article again... did Timmerman and Juppe actually discuss the Falklands or is this just Twitman mouthing orf to his home audience after leaving the meeting?

Democracy in action :-)

“ ... Yesterday saw the last day of this year’s Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, the 57th in its history with the Falkland islands being represented by the Honourable Dick Sawle....”

http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/

Not that Argentina knows much about democracy - http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/

Perhaps they should ask Uruguay to explain it to them :-))

147 Rotted, If that English Dick....Sawle said that most likely is a lie. You are the only dumb who believes him, you are English too right? :-)

Telling lies to the C-24 ... now come on, that's Argentina's job :-)

I don't put down the British origin people,
They are just the copy of one reality of nature as the saying of
the Bee Colony , who have as the same as one Queen Bee and
Workers Bees around...

The UK has not been bold enough to convert herself into the
modern modern models as like Republic....becouse the reason why
they have fragmentation phobia away.

#152#: “The UK has not been bold enough to convert herself into the
modern modern models as like Republic...”

Actually, the British were way ahead of most people on that one. The monarchy was replaced by a republic from 1649- 1660. Ever heard of Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War?
However, it ended up being a terrible sytem (basically a form of dictatorship, like some other countries I won't mention) and the monarchy was restored.

(153)

As you know that the Republic Culture - Discipline is more different than others, means that in 15 th Century the British were inept on this.

the most important factor of staying on Monarchy is to sustain their
oveseas interests and standarts , therefore that they had must have
the compound of -unwritten constitution and house of lords -.

152
What are you smoking?
153
Usually agree with you Crackpot but cant agree with you over Oliver Cromwell. He was a great leader who replaced an ineffectual and treacherous Charles 1. Cromwell stamped out Parliamentary corruption and wouldn't have allowed the shenanigans recently exposed by the Daily Telegraph and which still continue to a lesser extent today. He transformed Britain into a great trading nation, established a powerful army/navy and laid the foundation of Empire.

@155 And yet the country returned to a monarchy? Do you think that was because the country was still so divided between monarchists and republicans?

I think people outside of the UK often do not understand the role of the Queen. In simple terms, she doesn't run the country. The people vote and elect a government to do that.

Funny how the the Argies knock our system of constitutional monarchy when under the republican system Argentina drifted into dictatorship and it got as far as throwing people alive out of aircraft into the River Plate.

I know what system I'd rather stick with...

#155: Yes, he was a great leader in many ways (the Irish might disagree, though) and he was certainly a great soldier. We ended up with a better monarchy because of him. The problem was that when he was gone there was nobody to take his place and his ineffectual son ended up in power (a sort of “heretidary republic” like you see in a lot of tin-pot countries today - Syria springs to mind), and that was never going to last. So, Oliver Cromwell basically was the republic and without him, there was nothing. I agree with yoo on evrything else.

#154: “the most important factor of staying on Monarchy is to sustain their
oveseas interests and standarts”
Total nonsense. It's not the monarchy that decides to sustain those territories. Those territoires (and Commonwealth countries) decide that they want to be associated with the monarchy. If any of them wanted to sever that link, then they could.

“As you know that the Republic Culture - Discipline is more different than others, means that in 15 th Century the British were inept on this.”
What do you base that assumption on? Both systems require just as much discipline. Oh, and it was the 17th century, not the 15th century.

I see the typical practise of claiming a victory where none existed persists, the only person to have his butt kicked was Mr Argerich.

If Britain wishes to persist with its Monarchy, its none of your business.

157 they are in jail jeff robby
how many of your soldiers abusing human rights are in jail???
you have killed millions of innocent people and still doing it
your government is choosing “democratically” president in libya I see
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14320199

#160 malen:
So, are you suggesting that Gadaffi has a democratic mandate to lead Libya? The UK is just part of a coaltion supporting a rebellion agianst a despotic regime. They are not choosing the president. That will be done by the people of Libya, once they are given the opportunity.

“they are in jail jeff robby”
That's irrelevant. Your republican system did not stop you drifting into dictatorship. That's a simple fact.

Argentina never killed any innocent people? I don't think so. You also have blood on your hands...

“your government is choosing “democratically” president in libya I see”
Like Gaddafi was democratically elected...

no but the rebells arent and you are less but less indicated to go to the middle east and decide others destiny killing as you do
you sell them arms and there are proves you knew they were dictators desestabilize everything and then invade them stop selling arms!! double moral
whats important for our region a pacific now that we dont need militars potencial powers arround

#163 malen
It is the unenviable responsibility of the strong to act as the world's policeman occassionally.

“whats important for our region a pacific now that we dont need militars potencial powers arround”

Of course you don't want them around. If they weren't there, then your government would try another invasion of the Falklands every time the opinion polls weren't in their favour.
Unfortunately, they do have to be be there and they have every right to be there on their own sovereign territory.

“ ... Rockhopper undervalued and full of promise, says Goldman Sachs ...”

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/31301/rockhopper-undervalued-and-full-of-promise-says-goldman-sachs-31301.html

Hey ho :-)

yes is it one of grandfathers came from spain because there was a 40 years of dictatorship of franco and a civil war that killed many of his brothers
they alone got through it
we have had 7 years of dictatorships and we alone went back to democracy
you are only doing business with wars dont buy your crap crack and you kill to stop killing nice kids are you
we cant invade the malvinas dont you know that, thats another excuse you yourself say it its a fort for training center your militars your politicians princes and duckes bored
the more far away you are form here with your troops the better we already know it
and justice is very important lets say it democracy justice peace all together

“166 malen ”we cant invade the malvinas dont you know that...”

Yes, I do know that. The reason you can't invade them is because there is a strong garrison there now. If there were only 5o or so lightly-armed Royal Marines there like last time, then I'm sure you would be able to get the resources together for another try.

no because it was forbidden militar conscription less militars
because our country is in democracy militars are under the presidential and republican system
because we have less investment in arms
you dont save the world you divide it you make it him more insecure
every country has to decide for itself you are not better in human rights precisely

#166 malen: “we have had 7 years of dictatorships and we alone went back to democracy”

Actually it was the loss of the Falklands War that precipitated the collapse of your dictatorship. The dictatotorship would have carried on if you had won. Everyone would have been saying how fabulaous they were for “recovering” “Las Malvinas” from the evil imperialist foe.
So, you have the UK to thank for the rapid end to your dictatorship.

“...because we have less investment in arms...”
And yet you plan to increase your defence budget by 50% over the next few years. Doesn't sound too peaceful to me.
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/01/argentine-to-increase-budget-defence-50-recovering-losses-of-falklands-war

@162

“You also have blood on your hands...”

Mr Roberts, we fought a war against terrorism .... (1976-1980)

[] - Crackpot

my thought is that ;

the dictatorship is better than monarchy in sometimes !

technically,

the dictatorship is the singular form of monarchy !

the monarchy is the plural form of dictatorship !

135 Crackpot:

The monarch costs the UK 42.9 million per year. The crown estate makes 230 million per year. They run a profit, Think knows this(as it has been discussed many, many times on this website) but often likes to omit certain details to make his point.

Do Argentines actually believe that the British Monarchy have any real power? Comparing a monarchy with a dictatorship alludes that they believe the British Monarchy run Britain.

This Argentine poster exercise to discredit and criticise Britain is getting laughable. I know Argentines like to make things up to support their arguement, but this is getting out of hand! Especially when Argentines question Britain's democracy...considering how seriously flawed Argentina's democracy (corruption is king in the Pink House), they only discredit themselves.

#171 geo:
“the dictatorship is better than monarchy in sometimes”

Hi geo. That might be true in the case of an absolute monarchy. However, the the UK (along with all other monarchies in Europe) is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. So, most of the power is wielded by the democratically-elected government (the relatively undemocratic House of Lords also has an input, but their role is mainly to stop new laws getting rushed through parliament too quicky). Even though the monarchy does have some significant powers, they are seldom used.

156 Elaine B
I don't think it was down to any popular uprising of the English masses.

we dont need to thank uk for nothing
we have had other dictatorships in the past other than 76-83
and we end it alone morecrapcrackcrick
compare our militar equipment and you would see the difference
and perhaps as you dont know the region and didnt notice we are building new ways of defence not based in force there was a congress here in buenos aires for that with all the presidents check in the web
and you dont want to recoignize what is happennning in front of your eyes its your problem continue killing to show us how powerfull you are
and the rebel leader was killed in libya kaddaffi seems defending himself you in the middle defending the rebels that surelly are either not much better than kaddaffi and the people in the middle fleeing away with their country destroyed being killed more than 15,000 nice nice they are better now yeah and who sold this dictatorships arms?? who began this??

176 malen
We don't have to listen to a word of your self righteous witterings about human rights.
You and your government would cheerfully deprive Falkland Islanders of the most basic of human rights, and you have that wish enshrined in your constitution.
The fact that you don't have the means to invade again is not relevant. Your wish to cause us hardship and suffering is obvious nontheless, and people can still see that, however much you keep trying to change the subject to Libya.

i talk of whatever i want here monty the same as you do
if it bothers you dont answer
you are nobody to say what to say or not
there are people here talking about monarchy that has nothing to do with the subject
the ones that violate human rights now are you not us
you can go to the UN they are calling you if you have any problem
you are not suffering nothing tourism is in it best you can eat exquisite meals in malvinas hotel and you have become squid millonaires dont buy that either

#176 malen:
“...we are building new ways of defence...”

What or who do you need to defend yourselves from? I thought that everyone in South America thought you were great and agreed with absolutely everything you say.

It certainly can't be from the British, as they're just siitting thre on the Falkland Islands with a modest (but more than capable) defence force minding their own business.

for this: sustent common positions in multilateral foros
prens usine for defense of SA interests
geopolitical analisis and construction of a common unity in defense matters
search for regional solutions to regional problems
change conflict hipotesis to cooperation and confluence hipotesis
www.pais24.com/index.php?go=n&id=128157

I'm sorry, Malen, but are you actually telling me I'm a millionaire? And what would you know about it? That's right; nothing.

I didn't say you weren't allowed to say whatever you wanted. I just said it doesn't make you right. What I'm doing is calling you a hypocrite. You're very concerned about the welfare of Gadaffi, but would treat Falkland Islanders like dirt. Nice.

We do go to the UN, to that farce the C24. We say our piece, you say yours and we all go away again. Very helpful. I don't think there is any forum in the UN for dealing with the kind of disgraceful tactics your government uses on us, but there should be.

@94 Beef,

Thank you for your reply and advice. Do you need a client?

i dont answer to personal grievances (agravios personales)
i pass

?????
But this is personal. This is you and your government threatening to take away my home and way of life. Is there anything more personal than that? You 'pass' if you want to. You are lucky; you can do that because it doesn't personally affect you at all.

[] - 172 zethe

main shareholder of BP is her majesty Queen Elizabeth II

-----------------------

[] - 174 Crackpot

we can not interprate the UK has “” parliamentary democracy +
constitutional monarchy “” in reality !

UK has not “written constitution” Why ? becouse that , then , the
power can enter into the hands of Parliament directly , whereas
the House of Lord has tricky/elusive function between Monarchy and
Parliament..

UK has just “” Limited Democracy “” where two party dominant (in
reality each is same)

remember David Owen from 80/90 th years who had wanted to
shake the system ..what happened after that..he had done the Lord
in quickly....

if you say to me ,there are too many parties freely in the system !
then i 'll say to you these are all marginal,distractive tools !

don't forget there is Communist Party in US too !

#185 geo:
It's not a matter of interpretation. Most constitutional monarchies are parliamentary democracy. It doesn't have to invle a written constitution.
Not having a written constitution allows it to evolve as and when required, rather than having to make dramatic chnages whenever the constituion needs rewriting.

The UK is not a 2-party system. It is currently primarily a 3-party system plus a host of smaller parties (who have varying levels of influence depending of what part of the UK you are in - in some parts, these parties are dominant). Two of the main 3 are in power at the moment as part of a coalition, while the second largest party is currently in opposition.

An unwritten constitution is something of a misnomer, it does not mean that our constitution is not written on paper, rather than instead of it being on one single bill it is in various bills, documents, statutes, ect.

“main shareholder of BP is her majesty Queen Elizabeth II”

That's just not true, the largest BP shareholder is New Yorks Blackrock. The Queen does not even feature on the top 10 BP shareholders.

its your land ??? perhaps, may be you didnt notice yet that malvinas have been usurpated in 1833 by the british that doesnt gives them rights of sovereignity thats why it is in dispute with uk
and second argentinians treat you as dirt?? that must be the reason you have been living there during 178 years, surelly, mártir soul you are. how would you call the way uk treats afghans for ex??

[] - Crackpot

I replied your # 186 comment in my comment #185 !

188 malen

I couldn't care less what you think happened in 1833. How can I have 'noticed' something that may or may not have happened 178 years ago? It is my land; I have a Crown grant that says so.

Actually, we had a pretty good relationship with Argentina for most of the past 178 years. For most of that time, they just didn't care enough to make our lives a misery.

And I think, although it really isn't anything to do with this, that the UK treats the Taliban pretty much as they deserve, and a great deal better than they treat a good half of their own people. You might want to educate yourself about the plight of women under Taliban rule.

But if you're such a big fan of Gadaffi, I guess you're pretty keen on the Taliban as well.

is not what i think its what our country thinks since 1800s its claiming
your lifes are a problem of UK you are their colony
afghans treatment by uk is a violation of human rights the same or worst than kaddaffi. uk is making this peoples life a misery. 1.000.000killed.

Typical two faced,
Defend the bad guys when it suits them,

Then moan and complain like fxck when it happens to them,
All this , because they are jealous of the Falkland’s,
And the oil,
The greed is dripping from their mouths,
They try to deny it, , but the world knows different,
.

191 malen
Can I get this straight?
If you do something horrid to us, then it's the UK's problem?
And if the UK does something to someone else, that is also the UK's fault?
So everything is the UK's fault and you are not responsible for your own actions?

Glad we got that cleared up. I suspected as much.

[] - 187 zethe

I said BP not Belize Petroleum !

ask to Blackrock ( near the insolvency) !

didn't you ever hear word “” paravane“” ?

“I said BP”

BP, as in the company that was once called British Petroleum?

“the largest BP shareholder is New Yorks Blackrock. The Queen does not even feature on the top 10 BP shareholders.”

Still stands.

[] - 195 zethe

i replied your #195 comment at my comment #194 !

I know, i just quoted you in 194...

What you said is not correct.

i dont deny my country's troubles and mistakes you always do it
and my country judged militars of last dicatatorship many times
and we have made changes based on last militar dictatorship war of malvinas were 600 of our kids were killed to put more enphasis on peaceful claims
and sorry but discovered this theme from a new view by accident and just find it interesting to see what is happenning not only from the view of what central and powerful countries want to make us believe......there is a background and its important to know all sides all views to get your own conclusion
“Lies of Libyan war” counter punch. Thomas Mountain. Very interesting.

“600” of your “kids” were “killed” because in 1982 Facist Argentina invaded British sovereign territory. I see little difference between your attitude now and those Facist creeps in 1982.

its important to know all sides all views /////////

perhaps,,, but only after you except and fully understand the basic points that you make, are fully understandable,

1, argentina illigaly invaded the falklands
2, this peacefull little island, possed no threat what so ever ,to you
3, you illigaly help woman and children hostage
4, argentina and only argentina are directly responsable for the direct
deaths that accured because of your illigal invasion,
5, argentina and only argentina, must carry full responsability for what happend,
6, and last,
just because a country get fed up with talking, does not give that or any other country the right under any circumstanses to illigaly invade another peacefull couintry,,,,,,,,,,

now then, if you can except the truth, ,
now
its important to know all sides all views , period.

pirats go home we hate murderers, thieves, and child molesters like the brits, they all deserve to be executed and sent home in a box since they love war and killing so much, do to brits as they do to others is the second of GODS LAWS..

Neither Argentina nor England knows the reason/meaning of
1982 FI invasion attempt !!

i have to say that it is not enough to repel this kind of attempts
by merely military operations !

unfortunately, all secret services are unreliable who are incompetent,
stupid and have ordinary brains ....!

[201-I] a total disgrace to your own people, let alone a god that you presume to pray to, disgacefull
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
GEO, the reason is totaly irrelivent, it was illigal,

you guys can argue till you are all blue in the face,
but the FACT is, none of this would have happend, if Argentina did not invade an innocent unarmed peacefull little island,

geo: Do you have some proof that the queen is the largest shareholder in BP or are you willing to admit that you was wrong?

fancy ending a blog at 0107 am on a sundey,
ho well argentina lost again.

@ briton “only between [great britain, argentina, concerning the falkland islands]
no spannish or french or russian or roman, or any other
just great britain and argentina, concerning the falklands .
please ”. Treaties 1823 and 1825. Reconnaissance de la Independence Argentina by England.
You know what that means in international law?

I was just in the process of replying on the other thread when it was closed. Ah well, I'll put it here is instead.

#497 AlejandroArgerich: “When that's crushed,.....”

The arguments that refute your bizarre theories “get crushed” in your mind only. Not anyone elses.

#499 Malvinense 1833: “The ICJ argued against the self-determination in the case of Cameroon - Nigeria, 300.000 Nigerians occupied territory of Cameroon.”
Not sure what you're taliking about here. When the UK gave up the British Camerouns, the Northern (mainly Muslim) part voted in an official referendm to join the newly-formed state of Nigeria and the Southern part voted to join the Newly-formed state of Cameroun. Subsequently, some people in what was formerly the Southern part decided that they wanted independence. However, this opinion was not based on any official majority position and hence they lost the case. Furthermore, the whole case was viewed with suspicion, because the case was filed via Nigeria who at the time had a border dispute with Cameroun, and it would have been easier for then to win that dispute if Southern Cameroon was independent.

#500 AlejandroArgerich: “Not an apt comparison...”

It's actually a very appropriate comparison.
Western Sahara: An overseas territory administered by Spain, claimed by Morocco and Mauritania. Spain decides to abandon the territory, which then gets claimed by the 2 countries. Lo and behold, the ICJ says oh no you don't, because the population living there have the right to self-determination.

So, let's now look at the Falkland Islands: An overseas territory of the UK, claimed by Argentina. Let us hypothesize that the UK decides to abandon the territory. Argentina says, thanks very much, we'll have that. But wait, lo and behold, the ICJ says, oh no you don't, because the population living there has the right to self-determination.

The only difference would be 2 claimants in the case of the Western Sahara and 1 in the case of the Falkland islands.

The only other difference being that the UK wont abandon the falklanders.

Crackpot - AilingArg doesn't listen to reaon I'm afraid and he has little truck with 'evidence'. Comes of being a student I suppose although there's a thin line between tenacity and arrogant stupidity. So much of his legal case eg. Nootka and 1771, relies on Argentina then inheriting something under the Uti Possidetis Juris argument. So that's one set of controversial arguments reliant on another controversial argument. Two wrongs don't a right make!

He'll be telling me life should be fair next! Now if I've learnt anything it's that there is no natural law or fundamental rule that says life has to be fair ... and it isn't! There is one natural law about having the biggest teeth though. Ain't life a bitch.

Couple of articles that may be on interest -

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iUmYon3SeizLtg9da8F6-qpZwU0g?docId=6040d12236014e1bae7028196b01420d

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iUmYon3SeizLtg9da8F6-qpZwU0g?docId=6040d12236014e1bae7028196b01420d

We are in desperate need of a new story ... I thought in an election year there would be more. Maybe Cristina is afraid of being made to look a failure by our 'stupid' Prime Minister. Emphasising her lack of success cannot be good for getting elected??

(209) Hoyt

You say:
”…… if I've learnt anything it's that there is no natural law or fundamental rule that says life has to be fair ... and it isn't! There is one natural law about having the biggest teeth though. Ain't life a bitch.

I say:
Jupppppp….
That’s your personal position alright ...... and that’s surely why you took an early retirement in Thailand, using your ”bigger economic theet” for the “enjoyment” of the local boys and girls from Pattaya’s bars ……………
Remember our little discussion months ago where you defended that ”Meat Market”?
But face it……..
Thais are getting tired of your abusive kind.
Argentineans are getting tired of your abusive kind.
The whole world is getting tired of your abusive kind.
Get (ab)used to it.

Yawn ... Think, I've retired with the wife! Not the most exciting life I grant you but I find some little amusement in life.

An Argie talking about 'abuse' for example :-)

Yawn..... With the Missus???
How booooring....

As I said ... 5 km from the fleshpots of Pattaya and me with the wife ..... not fair!

Although if there is a God, it shows he has a sense of humour :-)

That's why you take the dogs out for those loooooong walks?

I wish ... for some reason they don't let me into bars ... or anywhere ;-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Ridgeback

lntelligent looking dog, Red.

Perfect size and bone structure for a dog.....
Beautifull coat (especially the red and blue ones)
Nice face and expression........ ..............................but:
It says that they need a determined master.....Are you up for the task?

You are right Think, I'm all soft and spongy inside, bit of a wimp really :-)

One evening a neighbour of mine spent some time telling me how he used to help train police dogs back in the UK. Now although I did try to warn him he assured me that he knew what he was doing, and there would be no problem.

He handled it quite well I thought .... and there wasn't too much blood. Just as well he's not a piano player :-)

Now - a snippet I came across for the seriously minded - http://www.innercitypress.com/un1spdc102008.html

Not that I recall Jorge Arguello ever being chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonialization ...knows how to use a gavel though apparently :-)

”One evening a neighbour of mine spent some time telling me how he used to help train police dogs back in the UK. Now although I did try to warn him he assured me that he knew what he was doing, and there would be no problem.
He handled it quite well I thought .... and there wasn't too much blood. Just as well he's not a piano player :-)”

Those Brits................................................................... They never learn ;-)

[] - 203

when you are doing an attempt legally or illegally you must have
a reason before ..so these two are very different things !

-----

[] - 204

Some disclosures would cause to Military Coup against Monarchy
even in UK !

#208 zethe: “The only other difference being that the UK wont abandon the falklanders.”
Absolutely. I'm not implying that they would. Just making a hyothetical argument. I think the UK are committed to the inhabitants of all the BOTs now, in spite of some poor handling in the past (pangs of guilt maybe). The cases of both the Falklands and Gibraltar have really galvanised the UK's that stance on self-determination. The belligerence of Spain and Argentina has backfired in both cases. If they'd taken the softly softly approach then both of those territories may well have been transferrred, at least in part. Who now, maybe even the Chagossians will be back in the BIOT at some point too (maybe not on Diego Garcia, but certainly on the other islands).

Redhoyt: Nice succint articles. I never understood why the term “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” was there in the first place (too many countries with a vested interest, I guess). Surely those are the cases where self-detrmination is even more important in order to stop a population ending up under the control of a third party that they have absolutely nothing in common with.

“Some disclosures would cause to Military Coup against Monarchy
even in UK !”

Oh, so just another nutty theory.. not real facts.

#220 geo: “Some disclosures would cause to Military Coup against Monarchy
even in UK !”

1) What disclosures are you taaiking about? Please enlighten us (I have th feeling no specific answer will be forthcoming).
2) The whole concept of a military coup doesn't really form part of the British psyche.
3) I'm not sure if an attempted coup against the monarchy would be too effective. The armed forces swear their allegiance the monarch and the power of the monarch is limited. You'd have to target the real seat of power - ie, parliament.

The right to self-determination has NO qualification. It applies as much to ex-slaves as it applies to ex-pirates. All attempts at qualification at the UN have failed. Argentina employs a technique whereby it waits for the vote, and then AFTER the vote makes a statement seeking to qualify the issue that has been voted upon! She fools no-one with the possible exception of her own people!

Mostly this takes place at the C-24 ..... but what are they worth ??

http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/

[] - 223 Crackpot

Shame feelings, exploited feeling at anywhere in the world,wage /debts
crisis.,human nature.... if all these combine at one point ..why not !

I bet on there are many many virtuous soldiers in UK army
who are angry on recent exhibitionist infamous,irresponsable
magazined wedding views...while the the army writhing at Irak
deserts,Afganistan mountains .....not ethical !

if i were a British Commander I would swoop into Palace's bedrooms by
heavy weapons...

#225 geo:
“Shame feelings, exploited feeling at anywhere in the world,wage /debts
crisis.,human nature.... if all these combine at one point ..why not !”

Maybe elsewhere in the world, but not in the UK - certainly not in the foreseeable future. Wages are high, unemployment is low - never going to happen under those conditions. Not that it would happen in the UK anyway - as I said, it's just not in their nature and never has been. Yes, debts are huge in the UK, but fortunately the UK can pay them. If you really want to see a county where the economy is about to implode, then you should look at Spain (where I currently live). 21% unemployment! No central control over the spending of the regions. Over 1 million newly-built empty houses on the market (and still they carry on building more). However,....in spite of their history (probably because of their history), a coup is extremely unlikely. A democratic change of government on the other hand - extremely likely.

“I bet on there are many many virtuous soldiers in UK army
who are angry on recent exhibitionist infamous,irresponsable
magazined wedding views...while the the army writhing at Irak
deserts,Afganistan mountains .....not ethical !”

I would bet that there are very few (if any) who have any significant issues with those things. Certainly not enough to start a coup d'etat.

“if i were a British Commander I would swoop into Palace's bedrooms by
heavy weapons...”

But you're not. British soldiers have more than enough integrity and loyalty. I'm sure I will get replies about supposed abuses by British troops on that point, but I'm talking about the UK forces as a whole, so any individuals who may or may not have perpetrated such things in the past.
And, as I said, it's just not part of the British mentality - history shows that.

[] - 226 Crackpot

I replied your #226 comment at my comment #225 !

i know you are the History fancier,

evocation :

A.Pinochet was the close man of S.Allende !......what happened ?
don't trust the history !..don't compare England and Chile
allll countries &humans are the same .!

i know the British people is more bolder than coward (1789) French !

ALLOW ME TO SWITCH GEARS FOR A MOMENT. I would have posted the following in the HMS Edinburgh comments but the editors have closed them.

AS MANY OF YOU HAVE ASKED OF ME, I AM HEREBY POSTING IRREFUTABLE PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE - COURTESY OF JUSTIN - THAT THE TERM “ISLANDS ADJACENT” IN NOOTKA WERE, IN THE VIEW OF CONTEMPORARY BRITAIN, DESCRIPTIVE OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

The document in question are session from the House of Commons, in which the Nootka Conventions are discussed. The link is:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RR1OAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

TO WIT:

pp. 66/67, the Rt. Hon. Mr. Dundas, in addressing other House members' complaints of the delay to which Nootka negotiations were subjected:

“...that the sentiments of that House, and of the country, formed the dispute into matter proper for two negotiations; the first, and preliminary negotiation, was for reparation to the British flag: that negotiation was not concluded until July.

The other was immediately began; and of the 4th of November the country was acquainted, that
everything proposed to Spain had been acquiesced in. These two treaties had been obtained in
Six months; THE NEGOTIATION OF FALKLAND'S ISLAND, though that negotiation was carried on in London, lasted nearly the same time. It was commenced in September and ended in February...”

TWO stages of NOOTKA negotiations, ONE OF WHICH DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH THE FALKLANDS.

SECOND CITATION:

The Rt. Hon. Mr. Fox, pp 75:

“..Mr. Fox said, he would consider the Convention as founded on two distinct matters; the reparation for the insult and injury done the Crown, and the adjustment of our claims in the Pacific Ocean and on the Coast of South America. He would consider the reparation first, and that, he contended,
was by no means so complete as THE REPARATION OBTAINED IN THE AFFAIR OF FALKLAND'S ISLAND”

BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS SAW FALKLAND ISLANDS FALL UNDER NOOTKA - PERIOD.

Good day.

Those British Bulldogs and Thai Ridgebacks have not a chance against this Argentinean Dogo.................

What a mean Moth** **cker :-)

goddamn straight.

#228 either clutching at straws or failing basic reading comperehension.

The text demonstrates that even in 1791, the British did not consider Nootka applied to the Falklands as there was a pre-existing agreement dating from 1771.

Desperate, truly, desperate.

Did they teach you that at Fort Benning?

@228: Alejo, thanks for the primary source. I read the December 14th 1790 debate on the Spanish Convention where Charles Fox argues that the Convention should not be passed because the negotiations did not secure as good as reparations terms as the reparation terms secured by negotiations in the “Affair of the Falklands” in 1771

Replying to these points, William Pitt (the Younger) points out he was not a Member of Parliament in 1771, declares Fox mistaken and rejects Fox's position. The main motion is carried by the House according to Pitt's argument

From what I read Charles Fox refers to two negotiations about Nootka: The first (April-July 1790) for “Reparations to the British Flag” and the second (July-November 1790) for “everything proposed to Spain had been acquiesced in”.

Alejo, you seem to have misquoted Charles Fox comments, insofar that Fox is addressing the speed of the Nootka negotiations and draws comparison with the length of negotiations required for the Falkland reparations between September 1770 to “February” 1771 (strictly January 22nd 1771) which “ lasted nearly the same time” . Fox ALSO points out that in the Falklands reparations “everything was left so as it was found”. Fox also complains the more successful Falkland negotiations “in which everything had been gained” (where the Port Egmond was reoccupied in on 13 September 1771) which cost £100 000 less than the then present Nootka negotiations (where Nootka was abandoned by both Spain and Britain)

Alejo, with respect to your rather strong accusations of “Criminality” of the present-day Falklanders to exploit their naturally resources, that right is granted to them under Article 73 as restated in resolution 1514(XV) and their use is lawful

You contend the Nootka treaty has been broken Falkland Islanders as individuals; well Nootka is a bilateral treaty between states. Article VI provides the means to settle disputes; no such reports were received

As per #229, you appear mistaken

HA! You wish. Fact of the matter is an English as a second language speaker/reader has greater reading comprehension than you do.

So much for your little theory that Nootka doesn't apply to the Falklands. Clearly, that's not the way that members of Commons saw Nootka in contemporary times.

To restate:

TWO members of the House of Commons, who BOTH identified TWO stages of NOOTKA negotiations, BOTH freely acknowledging the fact that a stage of Nootka negotiations DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH THE FALKLANDS - and going so far as to specify that NOOTKA'S FALKLANDS NEGOTIATIONS LASTED FROM SEPTEMBER TO FEBRUARY.

This is what I just love about you Justin - you cite texts that you don't read, then offer them as proof to back up your fantasies, and then are shocked - shocked, I say! - to learn that the texts you cite ACTUALLY DOCUMENT THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE TRUTH.

Of course by now I've watched you long enough to know that the next step in your argument is naturally to decay into the meaning of each particular word said by Dundas and Fox. Or, that the book constitutes a “paraphrasing” and minutes should not be taken literally. Or any of the countless idiotic arguments you use over and over again to disparage your own sources after they've beein disproved.

So, being that I shall no longer waste my time as you continue to run from asinine rhetorical hole to asinine rhetorical hole, like the little mouse that you are...

...and given that fall semester starts tomorrow...

...I leave it to the various readers and commentators to judge for themselves whether or not the Rt. Hon. Mr. Dundas and the Rt. Hon. Mr. Fox specifically referred in this Nootka-contemporary session of Commons, that Falklands were a significant part of Nootka negotiations; specifically, lasting from September to February.

And so, having crushed your baseless assumptions that “Britain never considered Nootka applied to the FI”, I bid this discussion group a satisfied adieu.

¡¡¡¡¡JAAAAAAJAJAJAJAA PIRATAS!!!!!

HE HAS GOT YOU COMPLETELY BY THE BALLS

SO, ¡¡¡¡¡COME ON, GIVE US ANOTHER ONE!!!!!

BUT BEFORE I LEAVE...

...NOW THAT A NOOTKA-CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENT FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS BELIEVED FALKLAND NEGOTIATIONS WERE INCLUDED IN THE NOOTKA CONVENTIONS....

...LET US RE-EXAMINE THE AGREEMENTS THE CROWN REACHED IN THESE CONVENTIONS:

”It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent,

(which INCLUDES NOOTKA per comments of the Rt. Hon. Mr. Dundas and the Rt. Hon. Mr. Fox)

that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain;

(remember the islands in 1790 WERE ”islands adjacent already occupied by Spain, per the 1771 treaty and Spanish presence at the time)

it being understood that the said respective subjects

(which includes British subjects)

shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.”

NO MENTION OF PERMANENT STRUCTURES.

NO MENTION OF EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES BEYOND FISHERY.

NO MENTION OF THE RIGHT TO FORM PERMANENT SETTLEMENTS UNDER THE BRITISH CROWN WHATSOEVER.

NO MENTION WHATSOEVER OF BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY.

CONCLUSIONS:

-NOOTKA IS CLEARLY A STATUS QUO DEFINITION FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES VICEROYALTY TERRITORY, TO BE INHERITED BY THE UNITED PROVINCES UNDER UTI.

-NOOTKA INCLUDED THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, PER HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION COMMENTS AT THE TIME AS CITED.

-NOOTKA ENSURED LIMITED RIGHTS TO BRITISH SUBJECTS.

-BRITISH ISLANDERS EXCEED THOSE RIGHTS AND CLAIM RIGHTS FAR BEYOND THEIR CROWN-NEGOTIATED RIGHTS, WHICH THEY USURP BY THREAT OF FORCE, TO EXPLOIT THEIR NEIGHBORS' NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THEIR COLLECTIVE BENEFIT.

THIS IS WHY YOU ARE THIEVES - THE ONLY CLAIM YOU HAVE IS THE WAY OF THE GUN, NOTHING MORE.

You've misread it, Domingo and Justin are 100% correct.

Sure, they are correct - if they're reading it in a language other than English.

@233: Sorry, Alejo you are still appear mistaken, apart from misunderstanding Fox's reference to the outcome of the 1771 Falklands reparations, because of the length of the 1790 Nootka negotiations and dates stated for them by Fox

The Spanish Convention is under debate December, 1790. Fox specifically refers to the negotiations of that year between July to November, 1790,. He compares them to the length of negotiations about the Falkland reparations with respect to the July 1770 attack and occupation by Spain of Port Egmond; these negotiations took place between September 177o & February 1771, i.e. “September to February”

As noted in #232, Fox makes his argument against the motion but Pitt makes his argument for the motion, counters Fox's argument and the House carries it the motion and Pitt wins

I'm sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood the debate

Sorry Alejandro, but no. It does not say what you think it says. You really do need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills

Dundas is comparing Nootka negotiations (which resulted in 3 treaties though he says 2 here) and negotiations over the Falklands negotiation.

First Nootka negotiations:

…. formed the dispute into matter proper for two negotiations. The first and preliminary negotiation was for reparation to the British flag that negotiation was not concluded until July The other was immediately began and on the 4th of November the country was acquainted that EVERY THING PROPOSED TO SPAIN HAD BEEN ACQUIESCED IN. THESE TWO TREATIES had been obtained in six months;

Then the Falklands.

the negotiation of Falkland's Island though THAT NEGOTIATION was carried on in London lasted nearly the same time It was commented in September and ended in February in that however every thing was left so as it was found and at an expence of about 00,000 pounds less than the present in which every thing had been gained.

1) Notice the contrast between the ‘these’ of ‘these two treaties’ and the ‘that’ of ‘that negotiation’

2) Notice he says the negotiations for the two treaties and the negotiations for the Falklands lasted nearly the same time.

3) Notice that the negotiations for the Falklands took place in London. Negotiations for Nootka took place in Madrid. The Convention was signed at the palace of San Lorenzo, hence the alternative name Convention of San Lorenzo.

4) Notice that for Nootka he says everything proposed to Spain had been acquiesced in whereas for the Falklands everything had been left so it was found. The Falklands negotiation he refers to is the 1771 one. No recognition of Spanish sovereignty in 1771: ‘everything had been left so it was found.’

5) Notice he contrasts the expenses of both negotiations: Falklands, 100,000 pounds less.

[] - AlejandroArgerich

amigo ...your switch gear doesn't run .

you arrive to no where by these dusty ( right or wrong) knowledges
from 18 th century.....we live in 21 th century ! you know..don't you ?

if we want ,we can research old documentaries ( right or wrong)
the posters must write here if they have their own arguments !

You've really stuck your foot in your own mouth. What makes it funny is the arrogance you displayed after posting the link.

No matter if posters on this thread or AR/Uk cannot agree; there is a dispute by Argentina of the British sovereignty; Argentina is free to make its claim in the UN ICJ. This could just be for an advisory ruling to test their case

Alejo, I would suggest to you it would be fairer if people against the British position would consider the current day Falkland Islanders as “presumed innocent until proven guilty” and thus refrain from politically-biased bigoted stereotyping of them as a collective ethnic minority in the region; the reality is they are individuals and are not responsible for today's situation - however they do have lawful rights under UN Article 73 and resolution 1514(XV) to exploit their natural resources

Under what laws you refer to the Falkland Islanders “criminality” in this respect I do not know; strictly only sovereignty and law exercised on the Falkland Islands is British and no British criminal law is broken by Islanders

Nootka is a bilateral treaty by nation states in international law; only the two nation states can breach it. Article VII of that agreement provides for the reporting of any breach of the terms; I would ask was a breach of the Nootka treaty regarding the British assertion of sovereignty in Falklands Islands in1833 raised by Spain to Britain

I also do not see how Nootka involves South Georgia nor the Sandwich Islands or British Antarctica, which is also disputed

With reference to resolution 31/49 it would appear Argentina first broke its terms to not act unilaterally by its hostile invasion of 1982 and also the incorporation of the Falkland Islands into its Constitution of 1994 as the major breaches

It is a complicated matter; for me it is best suited for some advisory opinions on aspects of Argentine claims and British counterclaims.
As I mention, I think both sides are sincere in their beliefs of the rightness of their views

Hopefully the dispute will eventually be resolved in a respectful, friendly and fair way for all

@240 - Geo, el derecho a las Malvinas es cumulativo. Siempre existio para la Argentina, y estos tipos dicen que es un invento reciente. No les des aliento que les conviene. Un contrato es un contrato, y si lo rompieron en el año de pedo sigue siendo una palabra rota de ellos - o no?

@232 Domingo / Zethee - there's no arrogance where one is correct.

I'm sorry but I can't see any way in which your statement that I misinterpreted the primary text corresponds to what the text actually says in any way.

A more detailed reading will show that Fox first maked a difference between two distinct parts of the Nootka Conventions negotiation, to wit:

“Mr. Fox said, he would consider the Convention as founded on two distinct matters; the reparation for the insult and injury done the Crown, and the adjustment of our claims in the Pacific Ocean and on the Coast of South America.”

Mr. Fox then draws comparison of the effectiveness of the negotiations' RESULT between the first aspect of the negotiation and the second, specifying the “affair of the Falklands” as a distinct aspect relevant to the Nootka negotiation and one in which Britain gained a more favorable outcome than the fitst aspect of Nootka negotiation he previously mentioned.

“He would consider the reparation first, and that, he contended, was by no means so complete as the reparation obtained in the affair of Falkland's Island; the latter he insisted was more adequate than we had obtained in the present instance.”

He then refers, as you say, to the 1771 affair - and yet adds the statement:

“...the reparation obtained in 1771 was MORE ADEQUATE THAN THE PRESENT”

The present WHAT?

The present reparation in regards to Falklands.

The NOOTKA reparation - clearly indicating that insofar as Britain saw the Nootka Conventions, a reparation HAD been “presently” reached that included the Falklands, which would be the only reason such a comparison was apt, and the only logical purpose to bring up 1771.

to be continued

¡¡dale Ale, aca va el centro!!

@232 Domingo, continued:

Furthermore you are confusing Fox's statements with Mr. Dundas' statement. It was Dundas, not fox, who mentioned the September-February timeframe, whtout mentioning a year.

Domingo: How you could possibly extrapolate that by February he meant “January 22nd”??

WHO SAYS FEBRUARY AND MEANS JANUARY 22??

Read closely what Dundas said.

Mr. Dundas is CLEARLY alluding to NOOTKA negotiations, more specifically, addressing other's concern for delay in those negotiations, by starting his sentence with:

“Gentelemen would be little prone to complain of such delay, if they would consider the time required for one negotiation, and still less so, when it was remembered, that the sentiments of that house, and of the country, formed the dispute into a matter propper for two negotiations;”

WHICH dispute? The NOOTKA dispute. Do you deny this was his meaning?

The then goes further:

“the first, and preliminary negotiation, was for reparation to the British flag: that negotiation was not concluded until July.”

STILL TALKING ABOUT NOOTKA, so it can't be 1770 he's referring to.

AND, he continues to describe the 2nd Nootka negotiation:

“The other was immediately began; and of the 4th of November the country was acquainted, that everything proposed to Spain had been acquiesced in.

These two treaties had been obtained in six months; THE NEGOTIATION OF FALKLAND'S ISLAND, though that negotiation was carried on in London, lasted nearly the same time. It was commenced in September and ended in February”

REMEMBER HIS INTRODUCTION, “such delay”. Which delay?

NOOTKA's delay. The Nootka phase took place in London.

He then ends with:

“everything was left so as it was found”

which acts to CONFIRM the terms of 1771 in which text SPAIN holds the ONLY sovereignty to the islands, while British Subjects have only limited rights.

Sorry - but there is simply no rational manner of denying that the British view of Nootka included the Falkland Islands.

Alex, you're back!
Thought l had lost you when the article closed.
You're a laugh a minute, comrade. Never seen so much mis-placed passion before. Actually l think that you are an Agent Provocateur.
Every thing you say is proved wrong by the “boys” yet you still rabbit on. Even the Argentines seem startled by your out-pourings of rubbish.
Well, good evening to you all. l must check on my shares.
More please, Alex

Can I just clarify something? Is AA basing his argument on something a member of the opposition said in a commons debate over 200 years ago, a debate that he didn't even win?

If this is the best he can come up with, we really don't have much to worry about, do we?

243 AlejandroArgerich

I don't want to appear rude, but don't you think you've flogged this one to death? Nobody is going to agree with you; even your own side must be bored by now.

Sure thing Isolde, got any more misinterpreted sources on which you base your fantastic conclusions?

Please share - I'd be happy to rip them all to shreds in my spare time, since the only thing the “boys” seem to be able to prove is how incorrect they are in both their conclusions and their reading comprehension of the English language.

Now I'm going to sit back and watch as they make pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse for why Mr. Fox and Mr. Dundas didn't actually mean what they said.

The first one so far?: “February means January”.

Watch out lads, don't scratch your head so hard you make yourselves bleed.

Oh, this is going to be fun!

@243: The present WHAT?

Alejo, the way I understand it it means the present reparations under Article II of the Nootka Sounds Treaty

The logic purpose to bring up 1771, was to state the reparations of 1771 obtained better terms regarding the Falkland Islands for the British crown than those of the then contemporary government of 1790 for Nootka Sound; the speakers against the motion are members of the opposition party. However the opposition party was the governing party in 1771, thus they make a party political point that their party performed better in negotiations than the present party

¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS DE MIERDA!!!

248 AlejandroArgerich ...'I'd be happy to rip them all to shreds in my spare time.'

I admire their fortitude. Most people couldn't give a stuff whether it was Fox or Dundas, and you wouldn't either if you had a life.

By the way, I can see why you're struggling with that archaic English. It can be a bit obtuse sometimes, but well done for trying.

@ Monty, you think I'm not aware of the fact that you're not going to agree?

I did it SPECIFICALLY with that in mind, you see.

Because you so vehemently deny that your exploratory actions and your very presence is CRIMINAL, and you go through all these mental gymnastics to justify what you call your “right”, which in truth is only obtained by use of force:

JUST LIKE A THIEF DOES.

For that reason I choose to unravel all the knots you use to suspend yourself with, especially the “Nootka doesn't apply” knot, and lay the truth bare for all to see...

...because I KNOW that, even when faced with an undeniable fact, you will deny it, even if it makes you look absolutely ridiculous.

Indeed, as ridiculous as some pikey chav stealing some bloke's watch thinking “you're on me spot, give us the watch, it belongs to us!”.

The point of this whole exercise, for me at least, was to verify for myself that there is no low islanders won't stoop to, no proof they won't ignore, and no level of rationality they're willing to engage in, if it doesn't coincide with their pre-determined and COMPLETELY BASELESS justification for that act of THEFT that you like to call “British Sovereignty”, and all the criminal acts that follow, from which islanders collectively benefit.

You simply are unable to reason, and THAT is the only factor in stating that “there is nothing to negotiate” - because you CAN'T reason, and therefore you DON'T KNOW HOW to negotiate.

The ONLY place in which you're comfortable - the ONLY one that secures your criminal livelihoods - is behind the barrel of a borrowed gun. And all economic signs point to the fact that this gun won't be there forever.

The sooner you come to terms with this truth, the better it will go for you.

BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN.

ARGENTINE RECUPERATION IS INEVITABLE.

@Alejo: I see the debate of the Spanish Convention also took place the previous day; December 13th 1790. There Mr Grey begins by complaining that then contemporary government had failed to produce the Convention before Parliament as they had done for the Falklands Convention (page 32) for a vote of approbation and that this failure breached Parliament's “right of enquiry” to the “executive power”. This is why 1771 is part of the debate

It seems to me

As to the dates, whilst Dundas (thank you) refers to as “February”, the Falklands treaty was concluded on January 22nd 771, i.e. the date has been approximated to the date it was raised in debate in Parliament the following February

Similarly, November 4th is the date Parliament were informed of the Nootka Sounds Convention, which were actually concluded on 28th October, 1790 I believe

@235 Domingo - it seems to me that, given the fact that Dundas cites no years, it's a bit of a leap to assume Dundas was referring to 1771.

I believe it's also a leap to say he 'approximated' one to the other.

Lastly, if he did “approximate”, why not approximate to the actual month in question, January, instead of to the next one? This isn't mathematics, where a percentage past a halfway decimal gets round up to the next integer. In English, an event that happens in January is normally approximated to “January” even if it falls in the latter half of the month.

The fact that the government had failed to produce the Convention before Parliament is exactly why I say that Nootka was a Crown-negotiated agreement that set very specific rights for British citizens and “no other rights”...

...“other rights” they now claim, as if Nootka had never applied, as if 1771 had never applied. Indeed, this is the official British position on the matter, 'acquisitive prescription', which essentially amounts to nothing more than saying “the territory is ours and we hold it by force”.

Then it's the “Argies” that are called dehumanizing savages who won't respect the law. The trick of criminals accusing their victims of the very crime they are commiting is a very old one, one that won't work on modern-day Argentines.

So is playing the pity card, saying that we are hateful of modern-day islanders based on the events and documents of long ago...

...as if their current excesses to their Crown-established rights weren't taking place....

...as if they didn't justify their criminal behavior with misinterpretations of those texts from long ago...

...as if those British men from long ago didn't, after nearly 100 years of consideration, come to the obvious conclusion that Britain's treatment of Argentina was 'high-handed' and its claims of Falklands sovereignty would cause them rightly to be labeled “bandits”.

Hence the reason for having to change the basis of their sovereignty.

252 AlejandroArgerich

You've got a bloody cheek, with your 'you CAN'T reason, and therefore you DON'T KNOW HOW to negotiate.'. People have been responding point by point to your arguments for days now and have you budged one inch from your original position? No.

You don't know how to reason; you just know how to shout at people. Oh and threaten them, you're quite good at that too.

I'm not arguing with you because I don't actually care about any of your points. None of them address the practical humanitarian problem of how you treat fairly a population that has been settled here for 8 generations and has it's own government, culture and economy. Compared to that, whatever Fox said to Pitt in 1781 is complete and utter nonsense.

The other reason I don't argue with you is that you show an attitude towards Falkland Islanders that is bigoted and post- colonial in it's snide references to 'living in tents'. You can stop calling me a thief as well.

In fact just learn a little humility. We are here to stay. If you want something you'll have to learn to ask nicely for it. And take a long hard look at yourselves; if we have to hide behind guns, it's because you have forced us to it. What kind of people do you think you are?

“People have been responding point by point to your arguments for days now”

Yes - with fabrications, assumptions, outright lies like the one I've just debunked with this Commons primary text, and not one shred of reason or logic.

“You don't know how to reason; you just know how to shout at people. Oh and threaten them, you're quite good at that too.”

What's the matter - surprised that an Argentine could give you a taste of your own medicine?

“I'm not arguing with you because I don't actually care about any of your points.”

Of course not, why should you care, since you can't refute them? Typical kelper reaction, when faced with evidence of being in the wrong - ignore!

“None of them address the practical humanitarian problem of how you treat fairly a population that has been settled here for 8 generations and has it's own government, culture and economy.”

ONLY ONE HAS ASKED. And I gave a brief response in that, should you be willing to negotiate, your integration would NOT be forced, but welcome, and you would be allowed to maintain your culture, your form of government, your language, your economy, and your customs, as a free associated state of Argentina.

“The other reason I don't argue with you is that you show an attitude towards Falkland Islanders that is bigoted and post- colonial in it's snide references to 'living in tents'. You can stop calling me a thief as well.”

I will stop calling you a thief when you stop taking what by crown-establish right is not yours, which you continue to take without permission while you hide behind the barrel of a gun. If you wish to be treated like a civilized person then ACT LIKE ONE. I my hatred is not towards you as a person; rather, towards the despicable act which you present as etching an honorable living - and against the justifications that you fabricate for it.

In the end we are all human beings and imperfect, yet your inherent air or superiority and intransigence invites this sort of response.

256 AlejandroArgerich
Well, it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree, and talk about something else, doesn't it. I can live with 'superior and intransigent'.

Alex Supertroll, l don't care if you think its insulting, just too bad.
You are a lunatic. You've been wired up wrongly.
Perhaps you were dropped on your head when you were a baby?
EVERYTHING you've said is false. lts so patently false that even you must be aware of it. Ergo you are a troll or an A.Provocateur.
Not worth argueing with you anymore.

You see - that's the problem, and that's what it all comes down to.

Don't expect me to shed a tear for you poor, poor victims of “Argie” bigotry when your bottom line is “I can live with 'superior and intransigent'.”

You're only a superior and intransigent thief. That is all.

Please do not feed the troll.

Isolde, you are lunatic. He give you EVIDENCE, and you ignore, why it and you then say 'lunatic'??? please.

you ask source, so then when he give source your response? LUNATIC! call him names, ignore FACTS.

Alejandro is right, you no reason, you say no negotiate, you say 'british superior', and no more than that.

¡¡¡¡THEVES, YOU ALL!!!!

Agreed, Alejo. The mention of January 22nd is mine, simply to illustrate its closeness to the date the January 22nd treaty was reported in Parliament.

The dates Dundas refers to fit the “Affair of the Falklands” rather than Nootka Sounds. That is what seems clear to me. I know you disagree, but I am not convinced by your argument, as I understand Dundas is defends the length of the Nootka Sounds convention is reasonable and sany gains more than the “Affair of the Falklands” (whist restores oarties to their pre-July 1770 positions )whilst Fox complains the 1790 Spanish Convention is too vague and would lead to confusion and potential loss of whaling rights with Spain - Pitt says Fox is mistaken

As far as I know the Falkland Islands affair was negotiated in London and the Nootka Sound Convention was negotiated in San Lorenzo, not London. This is why I think your interpretation of the British Parliament debate is mistaken

As you say, people are just human. No harm is done by debating. I still think the Falkland Islanders have rights according to UN Article 73 and resolution 1514(XV) and are accordingly free to exercise their rights; given Spain did not raise a report about the British assertion of Sovereignty according to Article VII, there would appear to be no breach of Nootka according to the signatories

Remember, no-one is the judge, jury and executioner; rather nothing has been proved in a court of law

Therefore I consider it wrong to persecute an ethnic minority for their political views and democratic choices; Falklanders are individuals and you would need evidence for each individual to pass judgement; and each individual would be entitled to their own defense

People in glass houses should not throw stones and Judge not, lest you be judged yourself seem to apply here to all parties I think

The UN ICJ is the right place to bring the dispute; until then people should agree to disagree in good grace

Peace, friendship and happiness for all

AA @232 Domingo, continued:

Furthermore you are confusing Fox's statements with Mr. Dundas' statement. It was Dundas, not fox, who mentioned the September-February timeframe, whtout mentioning a year.

DB Domingo did, but I didn’t.

AA Read closely what Dundas said.

Mr. Dundas is CLEARLY alluding to NOOTKA negotiations, more specifically, addressing other's concern for delay in those negotiations, by starting his sentence with:

DB Agreed

AA“Gentelemen would be little prone to complain of such delay, if they would consider the time required for one negotiation, and still less so, when it was remembered, that the sentiments of that house, and of the country, formed the dispute into a matter propper for two negotiations;”

WHICH dispute? The NOOTKA dispute. Do you deny this was his meaning?

DB No, I don’t deny this meaning

AAThe then goes further:

“the first, and preliminary negotiation, was for reparation to the British flag: that negotiation was not concluded until July.”

STILL TALKING ABOUT NOOTKA, so it can't be 1770 he's referring to.

DB agreed

AA AND, he continues to describe the 2nd Nootka negotiation:

“The other was immediately began; and of the 4th of November the country was acquainted, that everything proposed to Spain had been acquiesced in.

These two treaties had been obtained in six months; THE NEGOTIATION OF FALKLAND'S ISLAND, though that negotiation was carried on in London, lasted nearly the same time. It was commenced in September and ended in February”

DB FFS Alejandro! When he mentions the Falklands, he is referring to the negotiations of 1770-1771! See my post at 239. ‘These two treaties’ and ‘that negotiation’ do not refer to the same thing

AA REMEMBER HIS INTRODUCTION, “such delay”. Which delay?

NOOTKA's delay. The Nootka phase took place in London.

DB There was no Nootka negotiation in London. The opposition was complaining about the delay of the Nootka negotiation which took place in Madrid. Dundas deals with the reasons for the procrastination on page 68. The London negotiation was that of 1771

AA He then ends with:

“everything was left so as it was found”

which acts to CONFIRM the terms of 1771 in which text SPAIN holds the ONLY sovereignty to the islands, while British Subjects have only limited rights.

DB No, it means that that it left the situation the same as it was before the events of 1770, with no settlement in favour of either party. Pitt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer also says this on page 79: ‘but reserved the claim of right unsettled’

AA Sorry - but there is simply no rational manner of denying that the British view of Nootka included the Falkland Islands.

DB I’ve have shown you that it doesn't:

AA He would consider the reparation first and that he contended was by no means so complete as the reparation obtained in the affair of Falkland's Island.

DB The ‘affair of Falkland’s Islands’ means the events of 1770 that nearly led to war between GB and Spain and resulted in the 1771 treaty. It was called such at the time.

Fox, who is opposition, continues:

the latter (ie the 1771 Falklands) he insisted was more adequate than we had obtained in the present instance (ie Nootka). He censured Mr Dundas
(who is government) as not having sufficiently attended to that business . The learned Gentleman, (ie Dundas) he (ie Fox)said, by not first coming into that House sooner than he had done had escaped supporting the Ministry who were in office when the affair of Falkland's Island (ie 1770-1771)happened by a year and a half (ie Dundas became an MP a year and a half after 1771). After insisting upon it that the reparation obtained in 1 77 1 was more adequate than the present.

(Quite clear he means 1771 when he says 'the latter' above because here he still insists upon it)

I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly and also believe ICJ is the proper forum to bring this case, when the right conditions in Argentina are present I am sure this will happen.

Nevertheless I don't agree that an ethnic minority should be allowed to ignore laws, refuse to negotiate a settlement, continue an attitude of unfounded intransigence, and later claim they are being “persecuted”.

Criminal behavior is criminal behavior! There is no more “persecution” of the criminal than what is merited by his or her actions, by which I mean to say that in civilized society, those individuals who choose to engage in criminal behavior are ALLOWED to be persecuted and be made to account.

Furthermore - and most importantly - the accusation of this “persecution of an ethnic minority for their political views” falls flat in the face all legitimate persecution of a criminal ends when the criminal act ceases to exist, and the accused present themselves before the law.

This is something islanders consistently refuse to do, and for that reason, we are not dealing with simple “political viewpoints”, but rather the willful ignorance and circumvention of pertinent and applicable laws and treaties, so as to continue an endeavor of exploitation of resources that do not belong to them.

These are acts which clearly exceed the limitations upon their rights placed not by Argentina or Spain, but by the sovereign to whom they claim allegiance.

This also is what makes the case unique, in that the islanders, despite their rights under Article 73 and Resolution 1514 (XV), having full international backing to seek independence from Argentina, do not claim it.

They do not, because the UN does not clarify which nation holds valid claim, and so, which they would seek independence from.

Rather, they want to skip that step, and go right to association with Britain, in violation of the rights and conditions by which their British ancestors came to be on those islands in the first place.

there has never been an agreement between great britain and Argentina, over the falklands,
theirfore there is nothing to talk about,
by the time argentina existed, the british had been in the falklands for over 50 years,
no agreement=no deal
you cannot, did not , inherite nothing from spain exept what you fought for,
indipendence, nothing more, nothing less,
all treaties are today nun and void, and cannot be inforced,
that is the view of the people of today,
the falkland people, have a right to decide who they wish to associate with,
today this is great britain,
they wish to be british and not argentinian,
and unless you can produce a bit of paper that states that the falkland islands are part of argentina, and was given to you, by spain,,by name,
then the island are british, and will remain british,
end of story,
unless you have another book ??

265 AlejandroArgerich
''There is no more “persecution” of the criminal than what is merited by his or her actions,''

AA the vigilante. That's a new one. Nice. I understand that in most 'civilized societies' to be a 'criminal' you have to be convicted in a court of law.
But not in your little world. Your saying it seems to be enough to make it true.

''those individuals who choose to engage in criminal behavior are ALLOWED to be persecuted and be made to account.''

I think the word you're looking for is 'prosecuted'. Otherwise you're a deluded fantasist and you should be locked up.

“you cannot, did not , inherite nothing from spain exept what you fought for,
indipendence, nothing more, nothing less,”

Independence of what? Of what used to be the VICEROYALTY, which included the islands. ALL VICEROYALTY TERRITORIES - NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

“there has never been an agreement between great britain and Argentina, over the falklands” and “no agreement=no deal”

Listen to what you are saying! Why would Britain need to make a treaty with Argentina if it gave up the islands before Argentina existed?

Ridiculous!

How can Britain make an agreement over something that it gave up its claim to 25 years before Argentina came into being?

“all treaties are today nun and void, and cannot be inforced,
that is the view of the people of today,”

A treaty is a treaty. It can only become null by another treaty, and as you said above, there is no treaty with Argentina. Therefore the old treaties are still very much in force. The “view of the people” doesn't enter into it because the people you refer to are SUBJECTS, not citizens.

What matters is what the CROWN agreed to, and that is specified in the treaties of 1771 and 1790.

“the falkland people, have a right to decide who they wish to associate with”

I AGREE! But there is a LEGAL PROCEDURE for that association. To associate with Britain they must first DIS-ASSOCIATE with Argentina, just like for Puerto Rico to associate with, say Cuba, they must first dis-associate with the USA.

“unless you have another book ??”

what's the point if you're not willing to read it?

no tienen verguenza

not unless you can prove that great britain, said on a piece of paper,[we give the falkland islands to spain]
if you can produce this document, then you have a case,
other wise no deal.

treaties go out of date/and are concidered nun and viod for many reasons,
mainly if the loser.? loses,
in this case i have not seen a treatie that states the british goverment gave the falklands to spain,
if a place is not named, then one can only presume what he said, but not prove it,
at the end of the day
and in this day and age, only the people concerned can choose,
in this sace
the islanders have chosen to be british,,
but put it another way,
if the islanders voted tomorrow to be ruled by and wish to be associated with [CHINA]
we would both be xxct would we not, and there would be nothing we could do,,,
alas she has chosen to be british, and that is there future,
untill they change there minds,

Alejo, the ethnic minority of the Falkland Islanders ignores no criminal laws. The Islanders have not been found guilty of breaking any laws, therefore they are not criminals. No criminal charges have been brought against the Falkland Islanders

Furthermore No signatory of Nootka reported a breach of Nootka due to British actions of 1833 under Article VII of the Nootka Sound Treaty; therefore neither the British state nor British Falkland inhabitants are guilty of any “crime” with respect to the Nootka treaty. Indeed, they would argue subsequent to their reassertion of British sovereignty in 1833 that Argentina gave up their claim to the Falkland Islands because Argentina's Congress ratified the 1850 Convention - their counterclaim being that it is Argentina who act wrongly; there being two sides to every story

Also prescription is not without precedence; strictly speaking the occupation & annexation of Patagonia could be construed as a breach of the indigenous Amerindian rights to their ancestral lands; the annexation of the Chaco from Paraquay could be seen as contrary to Uti Possidetis juris or de jure as agreed at the 1848 Lima Conference, etc.

Alejo, you speak in terms of of black & white, as if a court of law had ruled, it has not. Until then the issues remain in dispute & undecided

The Islanders are not “allowed to be persecuted” according to Article 73 of the UN Charter and resolution 1514(XV); also perhaps most seriously the political persecution of the Falkland Islanders because they are ethnic minority is prohibited by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Breach of this international law is a crime

The UN cannot decide Argentina's claim, unless Argentina & the UK submit to the authority of the UN ICJ & Argentina submits their claim to the ICJ; that is why the UN GA invites the AR & UK to resolve AR's dispute

A wise man once said “Love thy enemy”. I think it means forgive the past for the sake of one another's future. Peace man ;)

Morning all ... nice debate there. Sorry Ailing, I agree with Dab and Domingo. They make a formidable team considering that they are at least notionally on opposite sides of the dispute.

As for the islander's rights under the UN Charter. The Charter provides an 'unqualified' right to self determination to the peoples of non-self governing territories.

My little snippet from the UN above, shows that Argentina is still trying to introduce such a qualification via the back door.

www.innercitypress.com/un1spdc102008.html

The reason that the C-24 complained that the British Rep should have raised his objection at an earlier stage of the proceedings is down to the fact that the UK has disengaged from the C-24. A seat is always set out for the UK but the Permanent Representative will not sit in it. He still goes apparently but finds his own seat at the back and does not contribute to the recorded proceedings.

Funny old thing - politics :-)

Rainy day here, hope yours are better! Mind you it's still 28C :-)

Red, my name may Domingo - it's a good name - but I have no affiliation with Argentina. I'd expect my views expressed here to confirm that by now. Must I call certain posters a “boludo” in jest again? ;-D

I agree with the Falkland Islanders and British position from what I understand about the issue.

If I saw evidence to the contrary I could change my mind, as I am sure the British government, people and Falkland Islanders could. Similarly I am sure if the evidence agreed, so could the Argentine government and people change opinion

This is why I hope for an amicable settlement which is just, fair and good for all, one day, perhaps soon but probably later

@ 267 Monty said

“I think the word you're looking for is 'prosecuted'. Otherwise you're a deluded fantasist and you should be locked up.”

True - except that I was responding to Domingo's #262 in which HE, not I, used the word “persecuted”, and a word I don't agree with as accurate for the situation. Once again, you respond without reading or knowing what you are talking about.

@ Dab - I missed your comments before, so I'm responding now:

DB: “FFS Alejandro! When he mentions the Falklands, he is referring to the negotiations of 1770-1771! See my post at 239. ‘These two treaties’ and ‘that negotiation’ do not refer to the same thing.”

AA: Yes but he doesn't mention “these two treaties”, now does he? And even if he were referring to 1771 and not 1790, are you aware of the fact that the only Claim of Sovereignty in the 1771 treaty is Spain's?

Are you aware of the fact that the 1771 treaty afforded limited rights to British
subjects, just like Nootka does? So even if your interpretation were true, it still wouldn't make a difference.

DB: “No, it means that that it left the situation the same as it was before the events of 1770”

AA: You mean before the 1771 treaty? When the current subject is Nootka and Fox says “everything was left so as it was found”, that obviously means when the subject was picked up for Nootka negotiations it was found as it had been left off in 1771!

Why do you presume he was referring to a pre-1771-treaty state?

DB: “Pitt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer also says this on page 79: ‘but reserved the claim of right unsettled’”

AA: I would certainly agree with your interpretation of Pitt; but point out that the actual text of the 1771 treaty makes no such reservation for Britain - that is an indisputable fact.

DB: “The ‘affair of Falkland’s Islands’ means the events of 1770 that nearly led to war between GB and Spain and resulted in the 1771 treaty.”

AA: A treaty which gives sole sovereignty to Spain.

Upcoming: other sessions/citations

274 AlejandroArgerich
You're the one who didn't read Domingo's post properly.
He said:
''Therefore I consider it wrong to persecute an ethnic minority for their political views and democratic choices''
And you responded:
''There is no more “persecution” of the criminal than what is merited by his or her actions,''

That suggests to me that you have already decided that we are criminals, and that our criminality justifies our persecution.
And you haven't given me an example of any criminal activity at all, apart from having and exercising a political will to run our own affairs, which is only criminal in your mind.

Therefore we are being persecuted for our political beliefs and ethnicity.

Nobody, not even criminals, deserve persecution.

I suggest you stop telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. You might think we are all under- educated idiots, but that assumption says more about you than it does about us.

PRUSSIAN TREATY

pp.681

Documenting the words of Lord Fitzwilliam:

“His Lordship moved that his Majesty's Message to the House should be read; it was read accordingly.”

After this followed a discussion and Q & A with members of the House of Lords regarding the reasons for Britain going to war with Russia (tell me again how the Light Brigade fared in their charge? Another brilliant move no doubt.)

Fitzwilliam then made a comparison which sheds much light on the question at hand:

Did Britain ever renounce its right to the Falkland Islands?

I will let the text speak for itself:

“Last year, his Lordship said, they had thrown away four millions Sterling, to encourage the industry, the activity, and the spirit of enterprize of their merchants.”...

(referring to Nootka)

...“And now they had virtually abandoned those regions on account of which this expence had been incurred by yielding to Spain in this particular manner, that the subjects of Britain were not to come within certain districs; they had therefore abandoned the right of settling in those distant parts.”

(and now the juicy bit)

...“IN 1770, THIS COUNTRY HAD VINDICATED ITS RIGHT TO THE FALKLAND ISLANDS; IT HAD AFTERWARDS ABANDONED IT, BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND TO BE OF NO ADVANTAGE”...

What's that??

“ABANDONED IT”.

Maybe, for once in your lives, you might admit that when an Argentine tells you that Britain gave
up its rights to the territory under your feet, he's not just talking out the side of his ass.

Maybe, just once, you might admit that when you exploit the continent's minerals - minerals which
Britain long ago gave up any right to - you are essentially stealing from your neighbor.

Maybe, when he tells you that Britain gave up her sovereignty, you could at least admit that as
far as the historical texts are concerned, and in view of the Foreign Office's documents between
1910 and 1936, that maybe...

...just maybe...

...that “Ailing Argie” has a point.

Or, you could continue to ignore facts.

SLAM DUNK, ITS AWSOME BABY!!!

Thank you for enlightening me Domingo .. I thought that you had been 'validated' by Think :-)

Ailing, the 1771 agreement imposes no conditions or limitation on Britain! Another misinterpretation !

1771 - ” ... Rochford writes to the Admiralty on March 15th, “ ….Your lordships will direct Captain Stott to behave with the greatest prudence and civility towards the Spanish commander and the subjects of his Catholic Majesty, carefully avoiding any thing that might give occasion to disputes or animosity, and strictly restraining the crews of the ships under his command in this respect; but if, at or after the restitution to be made, the Spanish commander should make any protest against his Majesty’s right to Port Egmont, or Falkland’s Islands, it is his Majesty’s pleasure that the commander of his ships should answer the same by a counter-protest, in proper terms, of his Majesty’s right to the whole of the said islands, and against the right of his Catholic Majesty to any part of the same ”.

We were, after all, the victors in that diplomatic spat. Not that it was a great victory, many thought we should have gained more than merely putting everything back as it had been. The Spanish crown felt the need to emphasise its claim because it was the loser. Britain, as the winner, did not!

@ 270 Briton, to respond to your last comments:

“if you can produce this document, then you have a case,”

See my last post, and the text of the 1771 treaty.

“treaties go out of date/and are concidered nun and viod for many reasons”

No, treaties do not go out of date, unless there is a specific sunset date
stated on the treaty. They are considered null and void, not for many reasons,
but only for 2: a sunset date, or when superseded by another treaty.

“in this case i have not seen a treatie that states the british goverment gave
the falklands to spain”

1771, look it up.

“if a place is not named, then one can only presume what he said, but not prove it, at the end of the day”

Falklands ARE specifically named.

“and in this day and age, only the people concerned can choose,”

The fact that it's the 21st century does not invalidate laws or treaties.

“if the islanders voted tomorrow to be ruled by and wish to be associated with [CHINA] we would both be xxct would we not, and there would be nothing we could do”

No, the procedure is the same: they would first have to dis-associate from country #1 in order to associate to country #1. You can't just “skip” that step mate. The law is the law, and a right to self-determination is not a right to ignore the law.

@275 Monty, you objected to my use of the word “persecute”, did you not???

To which I then clarified that it was not I who used the word, but Domingo, and was responding to his statement. And I also said I don't agree with the use of the word in that instance. What more do you want?

@ Domingo you keep saying “ethnic minority” but last I checked they are British subjects - you call that a minority? Then what is the majority Falklands demographic?

Of course, if the islands are part of Argentina, they are indeed an “ethnic minority”, in which case I would agree.

Does a signatory have to report a breech in order for a breech to have occurred?

What about British actions in Uruguay during 1840s?No cuentan?

276 AlejandroArgerich

Now you're quoting a 200year old speech from the House of Lords FFS??

Don't you have party politics where you come from? No, I suppose not.

Anyway, the way it works is this; the party in power propose to do something. The opposition find reasons to be against it and present arguments.
Now this is the bit you're finding hard; the arguments put forward are not laws, and they may not even be policy. Most of it doesn't mean anything at all. Sir Denys Finch- Hatton representing Chesney Wold can get up and say anything he likes, and then he sits down and everyone forgets.
Except that it's all there in Hansard for some idiot like you to drag up 200 years later.

I think I'll put my faith in what David Cameron said last month, thanks.

I'm off to bed. All this theft and piracy sure takes it out of me.

DB: “FFS Alejandro! When he mentions the Falklands, he is referring to the negotiations of 1770-1771! See my post at 239. ‘These two treaties’ and ‘that negotiation’ do not refer to the same thing.”

AA: Yes but he doesn't mention “these two treaties”, now does he?

Yes he does mention ‘these two treaties’ where he says ‘these two treaties had been obtained in six months’

First he talks about one treaty:

‘…formed the dispute into matter proper for two negotiations the first and preliminary negotiation was for reparation to the British flag: that
negotiation was not concluded until July. ‘

Here he is referring to the Declaration and Counter Declaration which were signed on the 24th of July

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=267207

page 664

then he talks about the second Nootka treay:

‘The other was immediately began and on the 4th of November the country was acquainted that every thing proposed to Spain had been acquiesced in.’

This treaty was signed on 28 th October 1790

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=267207

hence parliament was informed of it on the 4th of November 1790

then he says how long negotiations for the 2 treaties took:

‘These two treaties had been obtained in six months’

And then he contrasts the situation of the above 2 treaties with the Falklands of 1771. Which is why he says 'negotiations lasted nearly the same time: September to February' in the case of the Falklands. The Nootka negotiations for the 2 treaties were from May to October – the negotiator, Alleyne Fitzherbert, was appointed Minister Plenipotenciary to Madrid on the 5 of May 1790

‘And even if he were referring to 1771 and not 1790, are you aware of the fact that the only Claim of Sovereignty in the 1771 treaty is Spain's?’

No, Spain had wanted the treaty to specifically say it reserved Spain’s rights. At Britain’s insistence this was removed and replaced with neutral wording.

Nice shot Ailing, I'll give you that. Not strong, but well aimed. I'll leave it to Domingo and Dab to play theirs whilst pointing out that you still have a problem or two.

Monty's point is a good one, by the way. Accusations of failure fly often in Parliament whether its true or otherwise, doesn't that happen in your system?

BUT, let us for the sake of argument (and I'm not making any concession) at this point say that Spain had sole sovereignty after 1790.

You would still have to show that Argentina inherited Spain's rights after 1816 and, as has been dealt with before, we believe that Uti Possidetis Juris did not pass anything on to Argentina. Your claim that it is not a modern adaption of an old concept doesn't assist you. Argentina would have to show that they gained something and as Domingo pointed out somewhere, using UPJ when it suits and ignoringing it when it doesn't isn't likely to sit well well with a court. 'Clean hands' and all that!

If we ignore UPJ then you need to show that Spain had abandoned/lost sovereignty after it left the islands and that Argentina stepped into the breach and effected sovereignty over the islands in the 1820's.

If you manage that, then you may have shown that Britain's actions in 1833 were an 'invasion'. If you can't then Britain has the same argument and can show 178 years of de facto ownership and control to prove it.

Which leads nicely to both aquisitive prescription and the UN Charter.

You may have improved your territorial integrity claim, but having lost it in 1833 that may not be enough to beat down the AP argument.

Regardless of the argument over AP however, the Charter still takes precedent and specifically grants rights of self determination to the peoples of all non-self governing territories. All roads lead to the Charter, and from there to the ICJ.

Still a lot going on in this 'game' Ailing but it looks like sleep is winning it for the time being .... look forward to what comes next.

@ 280 - You'll notice the “Lord” before the name “Fitzwilliam”.

Not a member of the House of Commons. LORD. As in “appointed, not elected”. But please, go on, assume I know nothing about the Parliamentary system.

“Except that it's all there in Hansard for some idiot like you to drag up 200 years later.”

Well, you've put the issue to bed then, haven't you? F*ck Fitzwilliam and the horse he rode in on!

As usual, when facts about Falklands sovereignty contradict your baseless beliefs that “Britain never abandoned it”, the standard response is to simply ignore the facts, or the view to the contrary that they had.

@RedRuffian -

Am I to believe the Earl of Rochford in 1771 over the word of Fitzwilliam, a man whose reputation for fairness and justice remain intact even to this day?

Am I to take the word of the man who issued dispatches to the Admiralty instead of the word of the man tasked with relaying the King's own messages to the House?

Am I to take the word of Rochford who acted in the fog of the moment, over the word of Fitzwilliam who made a statement to the House of Commons, post Nootka, and with full 20/20 hindsight?

My quote is after 1790 and from a man of impeccable reputation - indeed, were there any like him in modern British politics, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Indeed, you'll have to do better than that to quote Rochford in order to invalidate its authority on the subject.

#279 AlejandroArgerich: “The “view of the people” doesn't enter into it because the people you refer to are SUBJECTS, not citizens”

Last time I heard, the Falkand Islanders had full British Citizenship. The term British Subject became redundant in 1983.

Alexander: una sóla palabra pa-li-za :-))
British official documents presented at the UN recognize Argentine sovereignty claim in 1820

Ailing -

“ ... Am I to believe the Earl of Rochford in 1771 over the word of Fitzwilliam, a man whose reputation for fairness and justice remain intact even to this day? ..”

Yes !

“ ... Am I to take the word of the man who issued dispatches to the Admiralty instead of the word of the man tasked with relaying the King's own messages to the House?...”

Yes!

“ ... Am I to take the word of Rochford who acted in the fog of the moment, over the word of Fitzwilliam who made a statement to the House of Commons, post Nootka, and with full 20/20 hindsight? ...”

Yes! The fog is immediate and real!

“ ... My quote is after 1790 and from a man of impeccable reputation - indeed, were there any like him in modern British politics, we wouldn't be having this conversation. ...”

He was a politician ... they're all cut from the same cloth:-)

“ ... Indeed, you'll have to do better than that to quote Rochford in order to invalidate its authority on the subject....”

No I won't, Rochford was there ...... BIG difference. A politicians later opinion does not assert the official viewpoint .. for that you'd need it stated in an official government document, not a recording of debates in the legislature. Got anything from the executive branch? No!

As I said, it was a nice shot but seems to have missed :-)

Marvin33 - your evidence please !

pardon, correction, Central Office of Information, London
”1820. The government of Buenos Aires, which was officially declared independent from Spain in 1816, sent a ship to the Falkland Islands to proclaim sovereignty

That's not evidence Marvin33 ... what is the source document? Where can it be found? Who was the author and in what capacity were they writing?

Without this it's just fiction ... besides, this is just about Jewett and his part is easily dismissed.

Friends P & P also provide evidence.
The Times, London.
The falklands islands and dependencies number 152/83, classification 7(S) September 1983, London
No matter how or when, the news was known.
Obviously, England it not protested that had given to the islands in 1771, 1774, 1790 and, and ........

Marvin33 - you are talking about Jewett. Easily dismissed -

1820 “ ... There is no evidence that Jewett was acting under orders from Buenos Aires. Indeed Weddell believed that Jewett's sole purpose was to gain salvage rights over a damaged and abandoned French ship.No attempt was made to impose conditions on the ships at anchor in the islands....”

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/ Page 10

Jewett was not acting on behalf of BA when he made his claim and Argentina has never been able to prove otherwise. Also he left no settlement so his claim alone was insufficient to gain any sovereignty! See Islas de Palmas 1928.

Don't really understand your last sentence, but as Britain did not recognise Argentina's existence until 1825, we could not protest .... you didn't exist.

1771 we won, not sure what you are trying to say?

1774 we announced an intention withdraw the garrison, not sovereignty ... actually left 1776.

1790 is Nootka ... that's been sorted. Not applicable.

“for that you'd need it stated in an official government document”

Oh, I see - so when I cite an official FO document, it's not valid.
When I cite a Commons session, that's not valid either.

OR, it could just be that you're arbitrarily picking and choosing what's “valid” and what isn't based on whether or not it supports your pre-determined conclusions.

“Jewett was not acting on behalf of BA when he made his claim and Argentina”

Oh sure...he didn't hold the rank of Colonel...he wasn't a commissioned officer....he didn't command an Argentine ship of the line...

More lies will not make your views correct, you know.

“1771 we won”

Let's just see what “you won”, shall we? 1771 Treaty says: ” that the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty (that means Spain, btw) to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty“

Whose sovereignty? SPANISH sovereignty.

QUITE A VICTORY INDEED!!

Oh wait I forgot the British claim was so strong it “didn't even need to be mentioned”. It exists despite its own inexistence!

IT'S A METAPHYSICAL CLAIM!!!! IT'S SUPERNATURAL!!!

“1774 we announced an intention withdraw the garrison, not sovereignty”

Why would you need to, since you had already given that up in '71? Plus, you did ratify it in Nootka.

“1790 is Nootka ... that's been sorted.”

In your dreams it has! Your interpretation - a flawed one, at that.

“Rochford was there”

No he wasn't, he was sitting pretty in his estate handing orders out to the Admiralty while George III was in the throes of madness.

“we believe that Uti Possidetis Juris did not pass anything on to Argentina.”

A terrible blunder on your part indeed!

@ 284 “Last time I heard, the Falkand Islanders had full British Citizenship”

Means jack squat when the monarch can still issue a decree in council. The mere illusion of democracy is not democracy.

“ Oh, I see - so when I cite an official FO document, it's not valid.
When I cite a Commons session, that's not valid either..”

Correct. Opinions of officials or members of the Lords or Commons do not necessarily reflect official government policy. I bet your government takes the same approach - it is a sensible one.

“ .. Oh sure...he didn't hold the rank of Colonel...he wasn't a commissioned officer....he didn't command an Argentine ship of the line...”

Correct, he was employed by Patrick Lynch and went out in Lynch's ship the Heroina as an officially sanctioned privateer! No evidence that he had any other task, indeed Jewett sailed in January and didn't get to the islands until October (adjacent?). Argentina has been trying to find some evidence of Jewett's officialdom since 1833. Nothing yet but we wait in hope :-)

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/ Page 9

1771 - Yup. We won. Spain threw us off, Spain backed down, Britain went back! And you figure that's a win for Spain? Wow, you must have fun at football matches :-))

1774 - yup, we announced we were withdrawing, 1776 we withdrew leaving the marks and signs necessary to show our continued claim. Strangely enough, when Spain later evacuated the place, it also left the same marks and signs.

I submit that it is your interpretation of Nootka that is flawed. Not that it matters a damn either way :-)

Rochford was in England, where the negotiations were being handled ... with the Spanish - idiota!

UPJ - you have still not proven how it would apply! Saying that its old doesn't do it.

As for blunders, I shall put yours down to youth.

Also as I've said before, the only game in town is the Charter. That's where you need to devote your vast imagination, Argentina needs your powers of fantasy interpretation .... if you don't make a lawyer, I can see that there's a bright future for you as a diplomat lol

@261Alex, oops l mean m.argentinas his other identity,
l never said the British are superior. That's just your paranoia oozing through. But feel free to think that if it makes you feel better.
And you can cut out the pretend pidgeon-English as well.
However you are right in one of your statements,-“There is nothing to negotiate”.-You've got that right.
“Thieves you all” to you too, Alex.
lf you want to rant on beyond your alloted 2000 words, then do what Dab does & have the same nom-de-plume with a wee + at the end of it.
You're fooling no-one, l still maintain that you're either a troll or employed by MI6.
Most of the Argentines have also gone quiet if you notice.
But you do have the Devil driving you & you are good for a laugh.

#233

You clearly fail basic comprehension as the text of the debate is dealing with a situation diametically opposite to what you claim. The focus of the debate is a comparsion of the Nootka and Falkland treaties; both considered to be extant. Clearly Nootka is separate and distinct from the Falklands Treaty; ie it does not apply to the Falklands. This is and always has been the British position.

Personal attacks on the original poster merely demonstrate the weakness of your assertion.

As to Page 681, kudos, you found a British politician saying they'd abandoned the Falklands. Well done. And?

The opinion of one individual does not represent a Government's opinion. Do the facts back up the claim? Clearly not seeing as there are documents in your own national archive that demonstrate a continuous British presence in the islands, not only that but when Jewett limped into harbour in 1820 who did he find there? The British thats who.

In 1927, the Argentine Foreign Minister stated the British case for sovereignty was “exceedingly strong”

To summarise:

You claim under Nootka Britain abandoned the Falklands. This is false as has been comprehensively demonstrated:

A) Treaty was never applied by either signatory to the Falklands. FACT
B) Britain did not ever acknowledge it applied. FACT
C) The secret agreement in the treaty frees Britain of any obligation the moment Argentina interfered. FACT
D) There exists a precadent in the ICJ that the term adjacent does not apply to islands only 100 miles off the coast. FACT

Aside from anything I provided you with an independent legal opinion testing Argentina's claim and it came back negative.

You claim UPJ:

A) Neither Britain nor Argentina attended the Conference of Lima which defined UPJ, Britain is not beholden to a treaty it did not sign. FACT
B) The critical date for UPJ is 1810, in 1810 the islands were administered from Montevideo. UPJ would visit any claim upon Uruguay. FACT

Shout and scream all you like.

[] - Alejandro Argerich

you are well enough !

BUT...

we shouln't attached to very old some /limited formed treaties...

Argentina & UK had some 3 times verbal (informal /off record)
treaties since 1855 up to 1982 !

UK did panic attack after 1982 ,one of these results is converting
all Falklanders to the full British Citizenship....and others !

WE SHOULD SEE THAT (UK )HAD SOME RELATIONS WITH
ARGENTINA BEYOND FALKLAND ISLANDS .!!.

I mean that the Falkland Problem / debates / comments ..etc
has been using as the distraction tools !

the only people that have been persecuted for their political views and democratic choices i know at this moment are Birminghan James Peck Alejandro Betts all those people says of you that
and all the argentines that cant go to live to the isles

No one is persecuting James Peck or Alexander Betts. There is nothing to stop any Argentine going to the Falklands, all you need is a passport.

Anyone can go and live in the isles. They just have to apply for a job, be appointed and get a work permit.

How amusing. Alejandro still thinks Nootka somehow assists the Argentina claim. Argentina was not party to that agreement, so can't benefit from it. Pretty straightforward, one would have thought.

I thought he'd left ages ago to be with his Icelandic gay lover. What will his little cheerleader do when he does finally depart?
All this history is very interesting.
However lets look at what we have today - a vibrant community of Falkland Islanders living quite happily on the Falkland Islands. They are adamant they want to remain British. Self determination rules and if that's what they want that's how things are going to stay. Argentina will huff and puff and continue to make life difficult in an attempt to force the British to withdraw but if they think they will succeed I'm afraid 1982 taught them nothing.

@296 Aye, it's terrible persecution not getting enough votes to be elected, quite shocking.

@ 290 Evidence, The Times, London, El Redactor General de Cádiz, Spain
The Salem Gazzette E.E.U.U.
“1774 we announced an intention withdraw the garrison, not sovereignty ... actually left 1776.”
hahaha plaque by S.W. Clayton A.D. 1774
1774, Red, no 1776 come on Red.

(293) Isolde

You say:
Most of the Argentines have also gone quiet if you notice.

I say:
We are keeping quite alright...................
Quite in awe, ....................reading how an intelligent Argentinean deconstructs a lot of your supposed “waterthight” case.

You seem to forget that the British withdrew and were practicing the Spanish sovereignty until 1811 without any British claim.
The fulfillment of the commitment of his Catholic Majesty was satisfaction by the OFFENSE against the crown of Great Britain.
Offense not sovereignty. From 1765 to 1774, the British never had the sole possession of the islands.

303 Think
''We are keeping quite alright...................
Quite in awe, ....................reading how an intelligent Argentinean deconstructs a lot of your supposed “waterthight” case.''

I think awe is mostly what I feel, in the sense that I've never read anything like it before. And you have to admire his work ethic. If he channelled all that energy into something constructive, Argentina really wouldn't have any more problems.

Feeling very humble, and not quite up to the task of trawling through Hansard to find out what counter arguments Sir Humphrey Appleby used to destroy Sir Arrogant Numbskull in 1793. Utmost respect.

(305) Monty96

Ohhhhhhh ............ Sir Humphrey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon)

One of my favorites……..................................................,

Mr. Redhoyt reminds me constantly of him :-)

You, on the other hand would fit nicely into Dorothy Wainwright’s character…………..

306 Think
I can live with that. Just don't call me 'Dear Lady'.

@292 “Opinions of officials or members of the Lords or Commons do not necessarily reflect official government policy.”

Yes, but treaties do reflect official policy, and since you deny the validity of all three, my challenge that your positions are arbitrary seem validated.

“Argentina has been trying to find some evidence of Jewett's officialdom since 1833.”

You make the mistake of thinking just because he once was a privateer he was always a privateer. No officialdom? Only in your world. I've cited in the previous discussion page both the order, its date, and who signed it. He WAS a commissioned officer, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the sand and deny it.

“Spain backed down”

How did Spain back down? They had a treaty in hand that said you only had limited rights with no mention of British sovereignty, only Spain's sovereignty was mentioned.

“And you figure that's a win for Spain? Wow, you must have fun at football matches.”

Yes - you see, I count goals for the team that scores it, not the team that gets scored on, as you apparently do. But then again that might help you swallow the events of 1986, so I suppose I can't blame you. One, two, three, four, five guys bypassed as if they weren't there - must have been hard to watch!

“Strangely enough, when Spain later evacuated the place, it also left the same marks and signs.”

Yes, but THEIR marks and signs were backed by treaty, whereas YOUR marks and signs were backed by bollocks.

“UPJ - you have still not proven how it would apply! Saying that its old doesn't do it.”

Just as ignoring the existence of a legal principle that has existed since time immemorial doesn't erase it from history or make it any less valid.

“the only game in town is the Charter.”

Sorry, but the Charter doesn't resolve territorial disputes.

Glad you can see the future but I tell you, by your own hubris you will be made low; by your own stubbornness you shall acquiesce.

-“UPJ - you have still not proven how it would apply! Saying that its old doesn't do it.”

Just as ignoring the existence of a legal principle that has existed since time immemorial doesn't erase it from history or make it any less valid.

Ignoring the evidence that there was no uti possidetis juris before the 1847 Congress does not magically backdate it to before that Congress.

1 Evidence of the distinction between uti possidetis de facto and uti possidetis juris

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~phensel/garnet-phensel/Research/io05.pdf

page 3 of pdf see note 1

2 More evidence that uti possidetis juris emerged AFTER SA independence, not before:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~phensel/garnet-phensel/Research/io05.pdf

page 16

Chapter II

Fundamental Concepts

1. The Content and Function of the Uti Possidetis Principle

From the same Oxford journal website you posted in message 294 of the HMS Edinburgh thread:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~phensel/garnet-phensel/Research/io05.pdf

page 15 of pdf

B. The Principle of Uti Possidetis

Google books has 71,000 publications that have the term 'uti possidetis', 4560 published before 1816. Not a single one published before 1816 uses the term 'uti possidetis juris'. In fact, by year, the first publication Google has with the term 'uti possidetis juris' was published in 1868.

4560 books is only a small sample, but you'd expect several to have the term 'uti possidetis juris' if it was established before 1816.

If uti possidetis has not changed, why the need to start calling it 'uti possidetis juris'? Why the need to use another term 'uti possidetis de facto' if not to distinguish two different concepts?

Some people seem impressed by quantity rather than quality. Constantly chanting the same thing in the face of overwhelming rebuttal is not winning the argument. Seems to be the standard Argentine approach though.

“my challenge that your positions are arbitrary seem validated.”

I fail to see how but I'll bite as I'm bored, how? Just 'cos you say so, don't make it so.

Our position is clear and backed up by historical records, precadent and legal opinion, you pick on odd phrase by individuals and claim it is the same. I'll steer clear of Argentine courts as the burden of proof seems unduly low.

In 1771, Spain did back down, it bottled basically when the French wouldn't back the Spanish threats of war and the British stood up to them.

Funny isn't it, British marks of possession don't mean anything but the equivalent Spanish marks (identical in fact) do. You're a two faced hypocrite aren't you.

And again just because you claim UPJ is part of Roman law doesn't make it so. IT is not, you've had plenty of documentary evidence to suggest you're wrong, so you're either too stupid and failed basic reading comprehension or a religious zealot.

And the UN Charter is the basis of resolving territorial disputes, in any case involving self-determination as a principle the ICJ has always sided with self-determination.

As usual DAB has provided you with more than enough evidence to show you're wrong about UPJ. I presume you'll start shouting again, so your acolytes can claim victory.

I doubt that I'm the only getting bored with you, no doubt you'll claim to have won when we're too bored with you to bother replying.

One day, perhaps not in this century or the next, the Falkland/Malvinas issue will come to an end one way or other. That's why, instead of uselessly arguing and using expletives here against each other, I'd suggest all participants to have very clear that none of their ideas will be ever taken into account, with particular stress on those that suggest that the islands' inhabitants - implanted or whatever - could be excluded of any negotiations. They've been there for many generations and their homes are in those islands. No one, not even the UK authorities, has a right to tell them what to do. We can chat and discuss between us, friendly or not - I see a couple of FI people here - but in my humble view the residents' wishes ought to be privileged.

Spain this Spain that. Who cares about Spain Alejandro. Spains titles and rights do not help Argentina's Falklands claim one iota..

Alexander Argerich, Paliza: Yes, but THEIR marks and signs were backed by treaty, whereas YOUR marks and signs were backed by bollocks.
I say: Yes, but THEIR marks and signs were backed by treaty.... and effective occupation for 60 years without protest british.

The sooner you come to terms with this truth, the better it will go for you.

BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN.

ARGENTINE RECUPERATION IS INEVITABLE.
Excellenta,Alejandro!!
Thanks for putting so clearly,the case of Malvinas.
The squatters,are doomed.

Spain this Spain that. Who cares about Spain Alejandro. Spains titles and rights do not help Argentina's Falklands claim one iota..
robert pinocchio: You should get a new brain!1
Since the one used by you,IS NOT WORKING!!!
I think the display of knowledge,shown by Alejandro Argerich and also Jon(the iceman),are outstanding.
Of course the brits are gonners!!!
Justice,in the end always prevail......
Un abrazo Alejandro!!
Thanks for the clarity in history and International LAw!!

I wonder if british and argentine MPs watch this forum.
it seems to be spreading awide,
perhaps if camaron is doing a thatcher,
then i guess its up to the argies again, mmm

I wonder why we can discuss this form and the UK no.

“ ... Quite in awe, ....................reading how an intelligent Argentinean deconstructs a lot of your supposed “waterthight” case...”

Don't be daft Think, the lad's all wind and water ! And is that some kind of 'thigh' fixation? :-)

“ ... The British return to Port Egmont on September 13th. Captain Stott subsequently reports the handover to the Admiralty, adding “ … The next day Don Francisco, with all the troops and subjects of the King of Spain, departed in a schooner which they had with them. I have only to add, that this transaction was effected with the greatest appearance of good faith, without the least claim or reserve being made by the Spanish officer in behalf of his Court. ”...'

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/

” Glad you can see the future but I tell you, by your own hubris you will be made low; by your own stubbornness you shall acquiesce...“

Ailing - coudn't have put it better myself.

But thank you ... whilst researching Earl Rochford I came across this -

” ... Earl Rochford was Ambassador to Spain 1763 - 1766 and Ambassador to France 1766 - 1768. He aquired a reputation for being anti-Bourbon and is reputed to have used his consuls as spies. Whilst in Paris the French Foreign Minister, Étienne-François, comte de Stainville, duc de Choiseul, attempted to get Rochford's approval for a scheme whereby Britain’s claim to the Manila Ransom was exchanged for Spain's relinquishment of the Falkland Islands but the misreporting of Lord Hertford, and the inexperience of the secretary of state, Lord Shelburne, wrecked this transaction....”

That was around 1767 when Spain had just arrived in the islands. Add that to the suggestion of a debt/islands swap over the Barings Bank and it would seem that Spain/Argentina are more committed to bartering the islands to clear their debts !

Malvinero. All sovereignty starts with the point of a gun. Including yours. Most of Argentina was taken at the point of a gun from it's native owners...

@305Monty & 303Think,
Coming in a bit late, oh well had things to do yesterday,
Awe is what l've been feeling also. Plus “what a waste of energy”.
l agree with Monty, if Gabriel put some of that energy to use in Argentina, you'd fix most of your problems.
However he is still very wrong re the Falklands & l think he knows that too.
That's why “the boys” are quite easily able to discredit his wild accusations. l wouldn't pin your hopes on him Cher Think, he'll fade away like that stupid anti-British lcelander.
Now if we get ANOTHER one like him when he's gone, well then l'll start to wonder.
Anyway he was very right in a lot of things, for example: We don't care what you think & there is NOTHING to negotiate.
Had a good weekend, hope you did too.

Malvinero. All sovereignty starts with the point of a gun. Including yours. Most of Argentina was taken at the point of a gun from it's native owners...
roberts: I am never can get upset at you,because I still think you are honest.
However,in international law(which was not inventesd by uk),always,in order to have validity,a takeover by force,REQUIERES A TREATY.
Argentina,never signed a TREATY with uk,Not in 1833,nor in 1982!!
Meanwhile,uk,has avoided the topic,despite,the strong protests,as recorded....
You do not have the proper tittles,this is it!!!
That is the reason you need the garrison.....uk HAS NO RIGTH ON MALVINAS!!!!

@320 Malviner1,
And neither do you. Argentina has NO RIGHTS on the Falklands.
Thats why we need the garrison--to keep you out.

a takeover by force,REQUIERES A TREATY.

So Argentina has no validity to Argentina then Malvinarse? Thats effectively what your saying since that land was taken by force without a treaty....oops well done dumb dumb!

PPS according to your logic didn't your invasion in 1982 and hostile takeover by force also invalidate your claim?!?.....As you said so yourself a takeover by force requires a treaty, no of which was forth coming in 1982 from you :)

@Malvinero

“always,in order to have validity,a takeover by force,REQUIERES A TREATY”

So which treaties did Buenos Aires sign with the Mapuche, the Teheulche, the Ona, the Selkn'am, the Toba, the Guarani etc, etc, etc, etc, etc???

320 Malvinero1
”However,in international law(which was not inventesd by uk),always,in order to have validity,a takeover by force,REQUIERES A TREATY.
Argentina,never signed a TREATY with uk,Not in 1833,nor in 1982!!”

Argentina did sign a treaty with Great Britain and ratified it. It was the 1850 Convention of Settlement which settled ALL difference between the two nations.

SiesterWhoIsNowMarvin, you are almost exactly wrong! Uti Possidetis De Facto translates as “to the victor the spoils”, or at least it does where the territory taken is not then dealt with in a subsequent peace treaty.

So, no Treaty to the contrary, the winner gets to keep what they've got.

Now according to Ailing, that's Roman so it must be true :-)

So which treaties did Buenos Aires sign with the Mapuche, the Teheulche, the Ona, the Selkn'am, the Toba, the Guarani etc, etc, etc, etc, etc???
roberts:First,the topic here is Malvinas.
Second,where are they protesting?
Do you see a UN ruling?
Show me,the natives,are formarly,making a complain,and in a court of law?
Remenber,Argentina,invited 6 times the uk to settle the matters.
The response,in 1834,as is now,did not change:
“We do not doubt about uk sovereignity”
It is obvious,the weakness of the uk case.
SiesterWhoIsNowMarvin, you are almost exactly wrong! Uti Possidetis De Facto translates as “to the victor the spoils”, or at least it does where the territoryArgentina did sign a treaty with Great Britain and ratified it. It was the 1850 Convention of Settlement which settled ALL difference between the two nations. taken is not then dealt with in a subsequent peace treaty
All these had been brilliantly rebutted,by another Argentinian,Dr Shadow,to david,who disappeared from the scene....
”by law Argentina relinquished.......(this is what Freedman, together with the 2 clowns,salt&pepper,wanted everybody to believe),Again,NO MENTION ABOUT MALVINAS,in the 1850 treaty..

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/falkland-islands/TR0KI67QOU0O96MB3/p4
Good Day

326 Malvinero1
“Again,NO MENTION ABOUT MALVINAS,in the 1850 treaty..”

Nor does it have to. The treaty specifically states it settles ALL differences. “ALL” as in all difference/disputes. Argentina did not stipulate ALL difference excluding it's claim to the Falklands.

No Argentina wilingly entered into agreement whereby ALL difference between Argentina and Britian were resolved.

So in 1850 Argentina did not see Britains sovereignty of the Falkland Islands as a difference, it did not dispute it. Again it willingly signed a treay which settled ALL differences.

#326 Malvinero1: “Again,NO MENTION ABOUT MALVINAS,in the 1850 treaty..”

“Under this Convention PERFECT friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.”

PERFECT means exactly what it says - no differences whatsoever existed between the two countries once the Convention was signed. It also implies that before the Convention there were no acknowledged differences between the two countries other than those specifically mentioned in the Convention itself.

“ ... Remenber, Argentina,invited 6 times the uk to settle the matters....”

Prove it!

If a peace Treaty doesn't mention a territory then it stays with whoever has it! Uti Possidetis De Facto!

SiEsterCumMarvin - you still haven't learnt anything.

You want the response from 1834? It's here, in full -

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1834-1888/

SPANISH DECLARATION
LE PRINCE DE MASSERAN DéClARE EN MêME TEMS, AU NOM DU ROI son Maitre, que l’engagement de sa dite Majesté Catholique, de restituer à sa Majesté Britannique la possession du port et fort dit Egmont, ne peut ni ne doit nullement affecter la question du droit antérieur de souveraineté des Iles Maloüines, autrement dites Falkland.

Spain makes a reservation of its sovereignty.

BRITISH COUNTER DECLARATION.
sa dite Majesté Britannique, afin de faire voir les mêmes dispositions amicales de sa part, m’a autorisé à déclarer, qu’elle regardera la dite déclaration du Prince de Masserano, avec l’accomplissement entier du dit engagement de la part de sa Majesté Catholique, comme une SATISFACTION de l’ INJURE faite à la Couronne de la Grande Bretagne.

England agree to restitution as a satisfaction for the injury done to the crown of Great Britain

May continue to lie does not matter.
Only liars themselves.

Malvinero

You made this assertion:
“always,in order to have validity,a takeover by force,REQUIERES A TREATY”

So if takeover by force requires a treaty and Buenos Aires took loads of territory by force in the 1870s from its native owners. Where are the treaties to make that takeover valid?

@276. “In 1770, this country had vindicated its claim to the Falkland Islands; it had afterwards abandoned it , because it was found to be no advantage...”

Alejo, Lord Fitzwilliam is referring to the 1770 “Affair of the Falkland Islands” and the 1774 decision to reduce the number of overseas garrisons to save money as a policy of economy and by “abandon” refers to the British withdrawal of May 1776, where they left a British flag flying and a plaque declaring the British sovereignty claim

Fitzwilliam is criticising that policy of economy, noting a war against Russia would be costly, rather he argues investment in British settlement in the Falkland Islands, South America and North West America would be better choice if war was to be chosen and costs incurred rather than an alliance with Prussia against Russia

wouldent it be nice to see the headlines in all the papers,
[argentina today they have given up all and future claims to the falkland islands]
what a day that would be, and she then takes her rightfull place in the worlds comunity,
proud and respected, so easy so simple, just a few words,
go on, you know it makes sense,???

Comment removed by the editor.

@ 331 Smoke screen again. Clearly, there is talk among states.
The Clayton plate is of 1774.
Domingo, you are an intelligent man, how England can support your claim with a plaque and downplay years of exercise of sovereignty of Spain and then Argentina?

#330 - SiEsterCumMarvin - if you read, you'll see that Palmerston deals with that. Spain had lost so it felt the need to add in its claim. We won so we didn't and could ignore Spain's reservation.

Read it !

“ ... the reservation referred to cannot be deemed to possess any substantial weight, inasmuch as no notice whatever is taken of it in the British counter-declaration, which was exchanged against it; ...”

Authentic stuff ... GOOD circumstantial evidence!

Marvin33 -

“ ... 3dly. That the withdrawal of his Majesty’s forces from the Falkland Islands, in 1774, could not invalidate the just rights of Great Britain, because that withdrawal took place only in pursuance of the system of retrenchment adopted at that time by his Majesty’s Government.

4thly. That the marks and signals of possession and of property, left upon the islands, the British flag still flying, and all the other formalities observed upon the occasion of the departure of the governor, were calculated not only to assert the rights of ownership, but to indicate the intention of resuming the occupation of the territory at some future period....”

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1834-1888/

1) Argentina is NOT Spain
2) Argentina inherited nothing from Spain
3) Argentina did not exercise sovereignty over the Falkland Islands

Nothing to downplay!

Spain conquered South America with permission from Pope and it is from Pope that all rights to Las Malvinas rest with Argentina.

It does not matter how long you live on islands, our right is above yours because we do not see you as human beings but as occupation of Argentine land, farms, airports, roads, hospitals and military bases. These belong to us and we will send our war vets to occupy them soon, like Mugabe did to your colonials in Zambia.

Soon your colonials will be removed from Latin America too. We do not want you British on our land. I hate you all.

I do not care what international law says. It is wrong. I do not care what EU says. It is wrong. I do not care what UN says! It is wrong. I do not care what US says. It is run by a British subject born in Kenya, whose father worked for British and whose mother is related to Queen! He is a puppet of colonial pigs. America is puppet of British colonial regime. USA should be given back to Indians. Las Malvinas should be given back to Argentina, it does not matter that we never had it. It is close to our hearts, we love it, we hate the people, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION.

Soon Argentina will have nuclear submarine and will irradiate all who live there!!!

Who gives a damn about an ancient Pope granting land he didn't own to Spain, who hadn't discovered much of it in the first place. FlipFlop, you are MAD!

You on Argentina's negotiating team?

:-)

If Argentina ever manages to get a nuclear engine into that sub, she'll irradiate everyone !

Now go and take your tablets, idiot child.

Who gives a damn about an ancient Pope granting land he didn't own to Spain, who hadn't discovered much of it in the first place. FlipFlop, you are MAD
Another brilliant statement by lady bug!!
Wether you liked or not,it was the law at the time.
Spain and Portugal(Spain first(discovered America!
So the only 2 countries,were involved.brits,were barbarians.
Of course,if the king of uk,would have granted those to uk,you will jump for eternity!!
Is not that true,ladybug?
Simply because,it does not help,to steal more freely,that is the reason YOU DONT LIKE IT!!!
However,empires comes and go.Spain was for over 300 years in America,and the United provinces,uk is around only 179 years in Malvinas....
The ODDS,are OVERHELMING ON ARGENTINA SIDE!!
NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT!!
How long do you think uk can stick in SA?
You want to bet????
I bet for NOT many more years!!

@335: Malvinense 1833. Yes, 1774

How? I suppose the “1833 British position” derives from its previous surveys and then settlement of Port Egmont, subsequent “Affair of the Falkland Islands” with the concessions it believes it won together with its belief in its 1774 “proper marks and signals” as Woodbine Parish states in the formal British protest against the Lavalle's regime in Buenos Aires in November 1829

I actually agree with Alejo that the main British claim was through prescription from 1833 to 1982; I also think the basis of the Argentine claim is weak insofar as the Uti inheritance argument is only sound when all parties agree & they did not; otherwise the Chaco should be returned to Paraquay if this Uti principle is superior to others; clearly it is not & is set aside after conquest or prescription. A similar principle applies to the acquisition of Patagonia by Argentina

Since there was a diplomatic dispute and that Argentine attempts to establish sovereignty had been ineffectual and since the secret article of Nootka was nominally in effect for Britain, I can see why Britain decided it could exercise sovereignty and maintain effective sovereignty for 149 years.

The fact of the matter is that Britain was the first Country to establish convincing sovereignty over all the Islands of the Falklands; it seems to me all European immigrants were acquiring land in South America at the time by whatever means they could, and that Britain's possessions in the South Atlantic was established by the same rights as South American states, i.e. establish effective de facto sovereignty. The 1850 Convention does not dispute British de facto sovereignty by treaty

After 1982 I think the British position has changed; insofar as I think the British feel that after the failed Argentine conquest, the British reoccupation newly vindicates their rights - Argentina abandoned international law in favor of conquest and lost; also the UK's UN treaty obligations to the people

339 Malvinero1
“Who gives a damn about an ancient Pope granting land he didn't own to Spain, who hadn't discovered much of it in the first place. FlipFlop, you are MAD
Another brilliant statement by lady bug!!
Wether you liked or not,it was the law at the time.”

No it wasn't. The pope had no authority over states. All the Pope could do was threaten excommunication if you didn't do what you wanted him to do. You know BLACKMAIL!

Enlgand never accepted the authority of the papal Bull, nor did France.

As a protestant nation do you really think Britain gives a damn about what some long dead corrupt Pope said anyway? As a protestant nation the Pope is nothing to Britain.

You can't give away that which you do not own, and the Pope didn't own any of the lands in question.

Seriously if that is you only remaining argument then the Argentine case has gone from weak to none existent.

Malvinero, are you just going to avoid answering my question? How does the Conquista del Desierto and the Conquista del Chaco become valid if there are no treaties with the natives who's land was stolen? Is that perhaps because there are no treaties and so your assertion that “to have validity,a takeover by force,REQUIERES A TREATY” is just a load of nonsense?

Oh and Filippo, please explain Argentina's claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Because your Pope gave those islands to Portugal and not Spain...

#337 Filippo:
You are so obviously hustling for an argument with looney comments like that and your occasional false broken English.

It's totally unneccesary. I would rather respond to genuine disillusioned posters.

(oh, and I like the deliberate mistakes - Mugabe in Zambia!)

@326Malvinero1,
No of course the surviving native people are not making any protests in any court of law, because...............your ancestors killed most of them. l can well imagine the“justice”they would get in present day Argentina.
Oh, silly me, of course it wasn't your ancestors that killed the natives.
You said that you were born in ltaly. So, not even a first generation Argentine & you have the audacity to say that 8th generation Falklanders have no right to their land. Your cheek is breath-taking
You are just a big a poltroon & a scoundrel as that Andean squatter, Think.

I missed that. Mugabe in Zambia... Hilarious!

It just goes to show how important it is for some people to get the facts correct...

@336 Red, “ ... 3dly. That the withdrawal of his Majesty’s forces from the Falkland Islands, in 1774, could not invalidate the just rights of Great Britain, because that withdrawal took place only in pursuance of the system of retrenchment adopted at that time by his Majesty’s Government“.

Which just rights?

”4thly. That the marks and signals of possession and of property, left upon the islands, the British flag still flying, and all the other formalities observed upon the occasion of the departure of the governor, were calculated not only to assert the rights of ownership, but to indicate the intention of resuming the occupation of the territory at some future period....”

You know very well that this is useless if not accompanied by other actions such as protest.

please dont feed
the animals
the trolls
the moles
we know its a plipping cheek
but they are weak desperate and deluded,
please do not feed them .

#346 - Ours, as the true owners of the Falkland Islands! Who else ;-)

And no, I do not know it is useless. It obviously wasn't considered useless in either 1774/6, 1811 or indeed when the letter was written in 1834. Your argments are 178 years old. Expounded by Moreno and dismissed by Palmerston. 178 years and your arguments are still meaningless!

Still banging on about what happened in 1774 Malvinense. I can't fathom why. Argentina didn't even exist then...

but does she really exist now, under her glorious deluded leader .

What prior rights? Spain did not have any till after France transferred its settlement. Spain can't claim it received France's prior rights because it never recognised those as valid, and France itself by declaring its settlement illegitimate relinquished any rights as first occupant. So the only prior rights that statement could possibly refer to are the British ones.

@351 Hello Dab, France first occupant, recognized Spanish sovereignty.
The only country (France) that had the right to protest was transferred sovereignty to Spain.
When Spain became aware of the French presence protested.
England did not protest.
England did not protested the transfer of sovereignty from France to Spain.
France reported this transfer to the English ambassador.
England never announced its presence in the islands.
The British remained hidden until the Spanish found them.
England never incorporated the islands into his kingdom.

can you prove this,
or is this just your interpretation of events,

the falklands have been under british control for over 250 years,
who is going to argue over that, except argentina,

why then does argentina create such a fuss over wind swept islands in the meddle of knowhere,
oil oil thats it oil ,

France, Spain, England... not Argentina though...

No, it's the concept that you can steal something that doesn't belong to you by force of arms and get away with it.

Understand we may accept your presence and acknowledge your human rights, but we will NEVER GIVE UP OUR RIGHT TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THESE ISLANDS WHICH BY TREATY JUSTLY BELONG TO ARGENTINA.

@309 Dab - no one, in this threat or the last, ever wrote the phrase

“uti possidetis de facto”

the assertion made was that the TERMS “uti possidetis” and “uti possidetis juris” were one and the same, when they clearly ARE NOT and never have been.

However YOUR distinction is correct, as there is always a “de jure” and “de facto” to most actions - although I disagree with the conclusions of the idiot from Florida that you people keep citing.

The bottom line is that Uti Possidetis exists very much as an esablished principle both outside of South America and in the UK. To wit, I offer the words of Lord Kershaw on the matter of Zimbabwe's independence, in respect to that newly-sovereign nation's borders that the territories over which the UK had exercised sovereignty...

“was inherited by the new government of Zimbabwe”.

Wait, wait, I can smell your wave of BS coming already: “But he didn't specifically mention Uti, so it doesn't count!”.

So let me pre-empt: a tord by any other name would smell as foul.

Indeed Uti is a well-known universal legal principle in Britain, as attested by legal prof. Akehurst at the U. of Keele:

“Argentina succeeded to Spain's title. It is a rule of internatinal law that a newly
independent State which was formerly a colony succeeds to all the territory
within the former colonial boundaries. This rule, known to Latin American lawyers as the principle of uti possidetis, is NOT PECULIAR TO LATIN AMERICA; it has also been applied to former colonies in Africa and Asia”.

@ 317 RedRuffian:

“Don't be daft Think, the lad's all wind and water !”

Indeed - wind, water, and BRITISH CITATIONS.

Didn't wind & water make the grand canyon??

PA-LI-ZAAAAA!!!!

@309 Dab - here's some irrefutable evidence that Uti Possidetis Juris emerged BEFORE SA independence.

Do some research on the Treaty of Madrid - 1750, and you will find that Uti was the premise for this treaty. It won't take long, a simple google search for the terms will verify this to be true.

Now - assume, for a moment, that no other treaty before this treaty in 1750 used Uti Possidetis as a basis, such that Uti Possidetis would never have been found in any legal document, tome, or treatise.

In other words, assume that up to 1749, the only western concept of Uti was that of an ancient and long-dormant Roman concept, that had no basis or correlation in 18th century law whatsoever, much less 19th.

ASSUME, THAT UP TO 1749, THERE WAS ONLY A TRUE, Uti Possidetis “de facto”, “in fact”, NOT “de juris”, “in law”, because it wasn't in law.

WELL GUESS WHAT HOT SHOT?

Even if that assumption were true up to 1749...

....the FACT that the Treaty of Madrid in 1750 was based on Uti IMMEDIATELY TRANSFORMS the concept of Uti from “de facto” INTO “de juris”.

HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE??? AFTER ALL, ARE TREATIES NOT LAWS????

This is where your argument loses all notion of logic and reason. If a principle is used in a treaty, it becomes a LEGAL principle, and from that point forward IT IS JURISPRUDENCE.

You like to peddle this insane fantasy that the SA nations sort of “made up” this Uti principle that no one ever heard of before, when in fact the SA jurists were CITING PREVIOUS, WELL-ESTABLISHED EUROPEAN LEGAL PRINCIPLES, no matter what the idiot from Florida says in his paper. And yes, he's an idiot.

The very nature and purpose of treaties is to transform a situation that is “de facto” into one that is “de jure”.

Thus, your assertion that Uti didn't exist before SA independence as a concept of law, ignores ALL pre-existing treaties, such as Madrid in 1750, that based themselves on the LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF UTI.

Your argument is therefore laughable. Try again.

@309

You say

“Google books has 71,000 publications that have the term 'uti possidetis', 4560 published before 1816. Not a single one published before 1816 uses the term 'uti possidetis juris'. ”

Is CRAZY!!!

You really thin the only valid content a book is its publishing date!

I think maybe once in a while you READ CONTENT of the book, and not see just when it was published. Crazy, crazy....very crazy.

In your reason, then, Platon did not live before the 18th century, because the earliest publication the Google Books has on Platon is 1771.

Really??

Marvin33 - “ ... England did not protested the transfer of sovereignty from France to Spain....”

No need.

If you check out the handover document from Louis de Bougainville you see that the StMalo company handed over its assetts on the islands. Sovereignty is not mentioned! there was no handover of sovereignty. Indeed there is no evidence that France claimed sovereignty!

“ ... am bound to deliver up, in due formality, to the court of Spain, those establishments, along with the families, houses, works, timber, and shipping built there, and employed in the expedition; and, finally, every thing therein belonging to the St. Malo Company, as included in the accounts which are so settled, and to his Most Christian Majesty, by this voluntary cession, making void for ever all claims that the company...”

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1493-1771/

Ailing you're back .... and still full of wind and water. And so arogant too. You, a mere student, so easily dismiss an expert on the subject of Uti just because he's from Florida. :-)

Stupid boy ! De Juris is a modern concept and it doesn't much matter how you twist and turn it ... it does not apply to the Falkland islands!

@310 Justin

“Constantly chanting the same thing in the face of overwhelming rebuttal is not winning the argument.”

Then I wonder why you seem so fond of that method! Seems it's the only thing you've gotten good at over the years.

“Our position is clear”

(yes, clearly incorrect, clearly baseless..)

“and backed up by historical records, precadent and legal opinion”

(except for those that don't back you up, which you conveniently ignore, including those of prominent British origin)

“you pick on odd phrase by individuals and claim it is the same.”

(What's odd about them? That they don't neatly fall into your pre-determinations of British sovereignty?)

“In 1771, Spain did back down, it bottled basically when the French wouldn't back the Spanish threats of war and the British stood up to them.”

And yet they come out with a treaty in which they have sovereignty and the British do not. You call that “losing”? I call it a “Plan B” win - and a win is a win.

”Funny isn't it, British marks of possession don't mean anything but the equivalent Spanish marks (identical in fact) do. You're a two faced hypocrite aren't you.“

Well, ok Justin - I'll take it back..

...just as soon as you show me a post-1771 treaty that asserts or reserves
British sovereignty over the islands....

....what? No treaty?

Well then I suppose those little inconvenient FACTS will have to prevail!

” you claim UPJ is part of Roman law doesn't make it so. IT is not, you've had plenty of documentary
evidence to suggest you're wrong, so you're either too stupid and failed basic reading comprehension
or a religious zealot.”

I don't need documentary evidence, I only need for you to explain to me how the 1750 Treaty of Madridbased on Uti never really happened (in this universe).

“the UN Charter is the basis of resolving territorial disputes”

Yet this one HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED.

“no doubt you'll claim to have won”

Just like the islands - I NEED SHOW NO CLAIM FOR SOMETHING SO OBVIOUSLY TRUE.

¡¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS!!!!

@309 Dab

“If uti possidetis has not changed, why the need to start calling it 'uti possidetis juris'?”

You're obviously confused about the terms. The “juris” at the end only means to say “the legal principle of”.

@327 & 328:

The 1850 treaty made no mention about Malvinas because IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MALVINAS.

The CAUSE for the 1850 treaty was British military activity in Uruguay during the 1840s. In view of the two previous British attempts to invade Buenos Aires by force, both of which happened within that same century, the authorities at the time found it prudent to secure a pact of non-aggression.

THAT'S IT! No more, no less.

Any assertion that the islands had ANYTHING to do with the 1850 treaty is unfounded and plainly idiotic, in that it is ignorant of the history that caused it to be brought forth. READ THE TEXT:

...“is restored to its FORMER state of good understanding and cordiality”

What was the FORMER state?

The FORMER state was, the United Provinces had sovereignty of the Islands, and a renounciation of that sovereignty by the UP simply NEVER TOOK PLACE.

Keep dreaming, chavs. Keep dreaming.

@332 Domingo

I am aware that Fitzwilliam is referring to 1770.

May I remind you the 1774 and 76 events were preceded by the 1771 treaty in which the ONLY stated sovereignty was Spain's whereas Britain had limited rights. May I also remind you that after the subsequent destruction of British facilities at the hands of the Spanish there were no complaints from Britain.

Not a peep. You'd think, if it was still theirs, they'd have at least complained, since as RedRuffian and Justin-hishead like to think, Britain “won” in 1771 (right).

That Fitzwilliam speaks of the economic costs of war does not invalidate the fact that he acknowledges the abandonment of the islands by the part of the British, and this is important given that he was a contemporary, and can therefore shed light into how those events were viewed by the British at the time.

Mister Red, His ignorance of the facts, does not mean they have not occurred.

@333 Briton

You want to see that? YOU CAME HERE, so respect us first, and you will see it.
Acknowledge Argentina's sovereignty and ask for your for your independence, and your kind and generous neighbors will say you shall have it forevermore.

After that you can associate with Timbuktu for all I care.

@336 RedRuffian

“that withdrawal took place only in pursuance of the system of retrenchment adopted at that time by his Majesty’s Government”

You mean the one set by 1771 where His Majesty had only LIMITED RIGHTS UPON THE ISLANDS?

You know...the one where Britain agreed the only sovereignty belonged to SPAIN?

Yes. That “system of retrenchment”, the one that took place 3 years after the treaty with Spain was signed.

By the way:

1) Argentina WAS Spain
2) Argentina INHERITED ALL TERRITORY from Spain
3) Argentina EXERCISED SOVEREIGNTY over the Malvinas Islands, from 1820-1833.

“Who gives a damn about an ancient Pope granting land he didn't own to Spain, who hadn't discovered much of it in the first place.”

Another instance where you conveniently ignore the contemporary laws and treaties when it suits your views to do so. How many times need I say it?

TREATIES ARE LAWS!!!

No matter how you much ignore it, that will always be the case.

“Expounded by Moreno and dismissed by Palmerston.”

Wait 30 years - the headline shall read “vindicated by Argerich”.

@ 341 Legion

“You can't give away that which you do not own”

EXACTLY why the islands must first obtain independence from Argentina, not Britain. You own nothing but a gun, a very expensive gun, one that won't be there forever - and one that you'll remove at about the same time Argentina's new gun comes on line. We'll see where things stand when ARA Santa Fe goes to 5-deg down bubble.

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/08/01/argentina-planning-a-nuclear-powered-submarine-with-conventional-weapons

I can hear the order now:

“Jefe de turno, por CP 1: buceo! buceo! buceo!”

Wait, the french will protect you!

centro para Ale
Red, in French:
Monsieur de Bougainville de Nerville, dans la ferme résolution oú je suis de cimenter par tous les moyens possibles l' amitié qui m' unit avec mon frére le Roi Catholique, j'ai consentí que les iles Malouines, dont je vous ai confié le commandement, lui fussent remises: mon intention est qu' en conséquence, vous les livreriez á l' officier que Sá Majesté Catholique doit envoyer avec un détachement de troupes, pour en prendre possesion...
A Compiégne, le 30 aout 1766. Signé Louis XV
The lie has short legs...

“I, Sir Bougainville of Nerville, in firm resolve to by all means possible cement the amity with my brother the Catholic King, consent that the Malouine Islands, where I have given command, are remitted to him. I intend, therefore, that you may delived them to His Catholic Majesty that he may send a detachment of troops and take possesion”

Louis XV.

Gracias!

@340 Domingo, about what you said:

“I suppose the “1833 British position” derives from...to...protest against the Lavalle's regime in Buenos Aires in November 1829”

Do you deny that in the 1771 Treaty held Sovereignty only for Spain, not for Britain?

“I also think the basis of the Argentine claim is weak insofar as the Uti inheritance argument”

Do you deny that Uti inheritance was a legal principle that was most recently recognized in 1750 in the Treaty of Madrid?

“Argentine attempts to establish sovereignty had been ineffectual”

Well they work better when some english wanker doesn't come and kick you out by force.

“I can see why Britain decided it could exercise sovereignty and maintain effective sovereignty for 149 years.”

I can too: it's called “military force” and has no legality associated with it.

“The fact of the matter is that Britain was the first Country to establish convincing sovereignty over all the Islands of the Falklands”

Only to give them up in 1771.

“The 1850 Convention does not dispute British de facto sovereignty by treaty”

Neither does it dispute Argentina's de jure sovereignty claim.

@ 342 J.A.

“How does the Conquista del Desierto and the Conquista del Chaco become valid if there are no treaties with the natives who's land was stolen?”

You're right, those were despicable acts of cruelty and I repudiate them in the strongest possible terms, just as I also repudiate Spain's actions in Bolivia or the USA's Trail of Tears and other crimes against natives.

But you know what? I, at least, ACKNOWLEDGE MY PEOPLE'S CRIMES. You PERPETUATE yours. That's the difference between us.

¡¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS!!!!

#360 - Ailing - there was an agreement in 1771. Now you show me the Treaty!

As for UPJ - proclaimed in Lima in 1848. Did Britain sign up for that, did Spain? Hell, did Argentina ??

#362 - So Nootka which doesn't name the Falkland Islands does include them, but the 1850 Treaty which also does not name the islands, does not include them.

Any consistency in your arguments lad?

“ ... May I also remind you that after the subsequent destruction of British facilities at the hands of the Spanish there were no complaints from Britain...”

Did we even know? But of course that's not the point. The point is Rochford ensured that the recognised marks and signs were left behind. That was sufficient. And please don't tell me that Rochfor is unimportant ... he was the one that order the fleet to ready for war, and he was the one that dealt with the approval of the Spanish defeat!

In 1771 Spain lost and the only people to say otherwise are you lot.

I don't know how much you've learnt but you obviously have a way to go. Take a look at any statue of 'justice'. She has scales to weigh the evidence. Rochford's papers from 1771 outweigh your. There was no Treaty as such, just an agreement. Spain put forward its position and we put forward ... the last word. It belongs to the victor you know:-)

And you still claim that Jewett did sufficient to gain Argfentina sovereignty, even though he left no settlement and imposed no administration on the islands. Lad, you live in a fantasy world!!

The Pope's law was only law for Spain and Portugal, the rest of Europe paid not a bit of heed.

Dear lunatics:

here's few more British quotes on the subject for your nightly reading!

“Our case has certian weaknesses mainly on account of doubts over whether the islands were res nullius at the time of Britain's initial claim in 1833”

-Baron Edmond Fitzmaurice

(notice how he said Britain's INITIAL claim in 1833 - QUITE CORRECT, INITIAL)

“I think it is pretty clear that there was a tacit agreement that we were going to stay there a bit to save face and then to withdraw”

-Malcom Deas, memorandum to HC Kershaw Foreign Affairs Committee 1983, on the 1771 treaty and subsequent British withdrawal.

While I'm at it, I'll also throw in a good old American quote the THE authority on the subject, (this one's for you Domingo, since you brought up the economic angle):

”England finally executed the promises by which the declaration (of 1771) had been induced...We are justified in dismissing as a mere diplomatic phrase the reference to a policy of economy“.

-Julius Goebel

Also a good one from the commander of the Spanish Brig Galvez to the Master of the American brig ”Nancy“ in 1793:

”In consequence of the recent treaties (NOOTKA in 1790 btw) between the Spanish and the British Governments...it is my duty to inform you that you have no tight to either fish or anchor....solely the English Royalists are allowed to
fish at a distance of 10 leagues from said estalishments; nor are they permitted in this part of America to construct in any place not situated to the south of them”

-Lt. Don Juan Latre

y todavia siguen, INGLESES BOLUDOS, PIRATAS DE MIERDA!!

@368 Red, 360 - Ailing - there was an agreement in 1771. Now you show me the Treaty!
SPANISH DECLARATION
LE PRINCE DE MASSERAN DéClARE EN MêME TEMS, AU NOM DU ROI son Maitre, que l’engagement de sa dite Majesté Catholique, de restituer à sa Majesté Britannique la possession du port et fort dit Egmont, ne peut ni ne doit nullement affecter la question du droit antérieur de souveraineté des Iles Maloüines, autrement dites Falkland.

Spain makes a reservation of its sovereignty.

BRITISH COUNTER DECLARATION.
sa dite Majesté Britannique, afin de faire voir les mêmes dispositions amicales de sa part, m’a autorisé à déclarer, qu’elle regardera la dite déclaration du Prince de Masserano, avec l’accomplissement entier du dit engagement de la part de sa Majesté Catholique, comme une SATISFACTION de l’ INJURE faite à la Couronne de la Grande Bretagne.

England agree to restitution as a satisfaction for the injury done to the crown of Great Britain
England withdraws from the islands.
May continue to lie does not matter.

Ailing, thanks for the translation. So - no mention of sovereignty then!

And who is Louis de Bougainville de Nerville, the only one I can find lived 1687-1762 . 1762?
I thought we were talking about Louis-Antoine, Comte de Bougainville - you know, the one who was still alive when he handed over the settlement he commanded for the St.Malo company - in 1767!

Still quoting opinions from obscure sources I see. Not much weight in those. Not as far as corroborative or even circumstantial evidence is concerned.

Their opinions are worth as much as yours, ie nought.

Remember Nootka only applies to adjacent islands. Was Paris adjacent to London in 1790 ... or was it further away then?

:-)

@368 RedRuffian

“Now you show me the Treaty!”

Ok, since you're so lazy - here, from the FI site, so you won't accuse my source of being “biased”:

http://www.falklands.info/history/1771agree.html

Truth hurts, doesn't it.

“Did Britain sign up for that, did Spain?”

Sign up for what? The question is whether or not UPJ was an established principle of international/treaty law in the western world prior to Lima, or whether it was some antiquated notion of Roman post-bellicose jurisdiction.

Answer? YES IT WAS ESTABLISHED “DE JURIS”, “IN LAW”, in 1750, with the Treaty of Madrid.

Loooooong before Lima ever REFERRED to it, instead of pulling it out of their arse, as you seem to be so fond of implying.

“The point is Rochford ensured that the recognised marks and signs were left behind. That was sufficient.”

SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE TERMS OF 1771, THE REASON FOR THE DEPARTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE???

Ridiculous. Please, you're embarrassing yourself!

“In 1771 Spain lost and the only people to say otherwise are you lot.”

AND the treaty text. And Fitzmaurice. And Goebel. And Deas. And the countless other British people I've cited in the Foreign Office. And the 1936 Ambassador to BA.

Oh yeah, I forgot, none of that counts, least of all the treaty. Right.

“I don't know how much you've learnt but you obviously have a way to go. Take a look at any statue of 'justice'. She has scales to weigh the evidence.”

Funny, all my instructors have based their courses on jurisprudence, not sculpture. Perhaps they're wrong, too! Of course, those scales work best when evidence is actually weighed, not simply ignored or tossed aside when it's convenience for one side.

See, that's why she has a SWORD on the other hand, to keep wankers from gaming the system.

“Rochford's papers from 1771 outweigh your. There was no Treaty as such, just an agreement.”

Rochford's papers outweight the treaty?

That's your argument?

No more holes for you to hide in, little mouse.

JAAAAAAAAAA TOMAAAAA BOLUDO!!!!!

Ailing, a Treaty is a document setting out the details that have been agreed and is signed by both parties. Probably used parchment in those days, so pray do tell ... where is the Treaty.

Not the agreement, not the two declarations .... the Treaty.

So yes, Rochford's marks and signs beat the agreement of restitution in 1771, where Spain as the loser felt the need to emphasise a claim in its declaration that it knew it could not enforce in reality. Not without a war anyway.

I can see that your instructors (?) have a way to go on 'evidence' :-)

@ 349 JA / 350 Briton

“Argentina didn't even exist then...but does she really exist now, under her glorious deluded leader .”

Ooh. Touche! Let's see how England was doing 200 years into its existence...conting from unification, onward.

So, 937AD + 200 years = 1137 AD: Why, Stephen, and the beggining of Civil war, a regular stumbling block that Argentina had settled not even 40 years into its history.

Looks like we're ahead - and, I think in the long run, we'll have your record beat.

@372 RedRuffian

“Still quoting opinions from obscure sources I see.”

Yes, totally obscure - as in the foremost international scholars on the FI dispute issue, called to testify before the House of Commons and the UN.

Veritably unknown! Vagabonds!!! Oh but here to back up your lunacies comes some “Ph.D.” from...where??

Cambridge??

Oxford??

LSE??

F*cking HOGWARTS???

No - TALAHASSE - and over and over you offer him up, as if his idiocy gets better every time.

Well I must say - those are some big academic guns you've got there mate!!

“Remember Nootka only applies to adjacent islands.”

Ah, but it also applies to “islands already occupied by Spain”.

GUESS WHAT ISLANDS WERE ALREADY OCCUPIED, SOLELY, BY SPAIN, IN 1790. Ref text Δ.

Last quote of the evening - to all you who say Jewett was merely a privateer
when he made his 1820 landing and declaration:

“I hereby name don David Jewett as Colonel of the Army in the service of the National Marines, with a directorial deployment ongoing, this 15th of January, 1820”

Matias Irigogyen
Minister of War

(Commissioning letter from Argentina's National History Archives, to be found in the Revista del Archivo Nacional de Historia, Sección del Azuay, Issue 5, pp. 120-121)

You are like little elves, but instead of making presents for children or cookies or candy, you make BS. Tonnes and tonnes of BS. Well, you may now turn the BS factory on and elaborate your unique product.

That's all for tonight's history lesson, boys.

Rochford British rights based on the discovery and occupation. Both are lies.
Louis Antoine Bougainville
Michel Francois Bougainville de Nerville
Do not know the story?
Read more, learn more, please

” .. “I hereby name don David Jewett as Colonel of the Army in the service of the National Marines, with a directorial deployment ongoing, this 15th of January, 1820”

Yes, Jewett was a 'sanctioned' privateer authorised to hunt down Spanish ships .. not the Portuguese ones! Nothing about him having a job to do in the Falkland Islands then? Oh dear :-)

Are PhD's worth less from Talahasse than from ... Buenos Aires?

History lessons? Hardly, certainly no law lessons :-)

Still got a lot to learn Ailing. Not sure I can wait another 30 years to see you prove that you learnt anything at all. Sleep well.

Red, in Spanish
Carta entregada por Louis Antoine Bougainville a su primo Michel
Sr. Bougainville de Nerville (Gobernador de las islas en ausencia de Louis Antoine): en la firme resolución en que estoy, de cimentar por todos los medios posibles la amistad que me une a mi hermano el Rey Católico, he consentido que las islas Malvinas de las que os he confiado el gobierno, les sean devueltas; mi intención es que en consecuencia, usted las entregue al oficial que su Majestad Católica debe enviar con un destacamento de tropas a tomar posesión...
En Compiegne, 30 de Agosto de 1766 Firmado Louis XV.
Fuente: Malvinas, nuestro legado francés.
Autor: Gisela Martinez Casado
Have a nice day, I go to sleep.

Marvin - I learn quick :-)

“1748 – Admiral George Anson, 1st Baron Anson circumnavigates the globe. His report motivates the British Government to send an expedition to the Falkland islands. Spanish objections put the matter into abeyance.

1756 – Louis-Antoine de Bougainville meets Admiral George Anson and learns of the strategic importance of the Falkland Islands and of Anson’s suggestion of 1748, that the British settle the islands.

1763 – Bougainville, having failed to get funding from the French Government for his idea of making a settlement on the islands, forms a company together with his uncle d’Arboulin and a cousin, Michel-Francois Bougainville de Nerville . In February the three men fund the Compagnie de St. Malo.

1764 – April 5th, an expedition led by Louis Bougainville, founds a settlement on East Falkland and names it Port St. Louis. Bougainville stays 3 days and then departs. He leaves behind some 28 Arcadians from Nova Scotia as settlers...”

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1493-1771/

Not sure about your quote. I know that Louis handed over to Spain personally before embarking on his round-the-world voyage.

In any case it is still the handing over of a company settlement. No suggestion that France handed over sovereignty because there is no suggestion that France claimed it. Indeed the french King pressured the St. Malo company into the handover because the Spanish King was saying that sovereignty belonged to Spain.

“was inherited by the new government of Zimbabwe”

That's because Zimababwe was formally granted independence by Act of the British Parliament

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/60/pdfs/ukpga_19790060_en.pdf

Show us the instrument granting independence to Argentina by Spain and you have a case, otherwise you have nothing.

“The 1850 treaty made no mention about Malvinas because IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MALVINAS” I think the word “all” covers the Malvinas, and this was reinforced by UP actions after the Convention. Before the Convention the claim was mentioned in Messages to Congress every year from 1833 until 1849. After the Convention the claim was not mentioned again - until of course Peron instituted the modern claim that is... Actions speak louder than words.

“Ooh. Touche! Let's see how England was doing 200 years into its existence...conting from unification, onward.”

Completely irrelevant. England has never claimed anything from before its existence.

Oh and if Uti Possidetis really is the principle applicable in the case of Argentina, then please explain why Uruguay, Paraguay and parts of Bolivia, Peru and Chile are not part of Argentina today? And why is Buenos Aires the capital of Argentina considering the last Spanish governor of the Viceroyalty was based in Montevideo? And why is most of the Chaco, the Pampas south of the Salado del Sur and all of Patagonia part of Argentina when it was not part of the Viceroyalty?

Ailing - a bit of a round up :-)

1.There was no Treaty between Britain and Spain in 1771. The dispute was resolved by two Declarations. The first made by Spain offering full restitution but making it clear that the issue of sovereignty was not addressed. The second from Britain acknowledging the restitution.
2.No, ‘juris’ is added to show that it’s different from the original ‘de facto’.
3.The 1850 Treaty settled ALL differences … or do you think that they forgot one?
4.A discussion in Parliament 20 years after the event DOES NOT outweigh contemporary evidence or sources.
5.Argentina has never managed to gain sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, therefore Britain cannot acknowledge what has never existed.
6.Britain’s withdrawal between 1774 and 1776 was for our own reasons. They are not relevant to the issue of sovereignty.
7.You have not shown that Argentina can claim Uti Possidetis juris in relation to the Falkland Islands
8.Treaties ARE laws – for those that sign them, they do not necessary bind others.
9.Marvin33’s quote from a recent book raises some interesting questions a) the quote is presumably a Spanish translation by the author as the French king is not likely to write to a French subject in Spanish. So how good is the translation? 2) why is the French King sending a letter to Nerville when Bougainville and d’Arboulin are in France and have been dealing with the matter? Bougainville is the senior partner in any case. Has the letter been validated? 3) there’s still no specific acknowledgement that at any time France has attempted to claim sovereignty. Bougainville did try to convince the French Government that they should, but the government weren’t interested.
11.“islands already occupied by Spain” – no you’re getting sloppy Ailing, “adjacent islands occupied by Spain” !

No 1771 Treaty, No Nootka, No Uti, No Argentine sovereignty. No territorial integrity .... and after 1833, No ownership OR control.

Not actually got much going for you really :-)

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~phensel/garnet-phensel/Research/iowa06.pdf

“When the Spanish colonies of Central and South America proclaimed their independence in the second decade of the nineteenth century, they adopted a principle of constitutional and international law to which they gave the name of uti possidetis juris of 1810.”

“The norm cascade stage in the development of uti possidetis – when states that haveaccepted the norm attempt to socialize other states to accept it as well -- began with the 1847-1848 Congress of Lima,”

Utis Possidetis Juris, => an agreement between Latin American states from the Congress of Lima in 1848. Something that neither Britain nor Argentina subscribed to.

In 1810, the Falkland Islands penal settlement of Puerto Soledad was administered from Montevideo. Application of the UPJ principle confers a claim upon Uruguay not Argentina.

So a) UPJ does not apply in a dispute with Britain as Britain is not a signatory to the treaty that evolved the principle b) UPJ would not even give Argentina a claim.

I only offer the above to illustrate the point that Alejandro continues to spout the same nonsense long after being proven wrong by objective, independent 3rd party opinion.

With the 1771 Agreement, Spain acknowledged the right of Britain to be in the islands. Nootka was not applied to the Falklands by either party. I merely note that the pointed question as to why it took someone nearly a century to concoct this ridiculous semantic argument hinging upon the creative interpretation of “adjacent” went unanswered.

I suggest you buy a copy of Goebbel rather than relying on 2nd hand quotations. His bibliography is interesting.

well despite all the arguments,
it still semms to me that the british falklands are british, and not argentine,
its the oil and nothing else,
and of course the election,
you argies can say all you want, but as long as the falklands wish to remain british,
then that is the way it will remain,
no amount or arguing or treaties or threats, or blockades and generaly being very childish, will alter the facts,
british british british, take of leave it,
you cannot and will not get what you have never owned,

Malcolm Deas - “ ... Territorial disputes are, in the Spanish phrase, matters de mucha teologia. These matters of much theology can easily cause violence; short statements about them are nearly always wrong; intensive study of individual problems can drive you round the bend. Experts in public international law, like theologians, frequently disagree, and like theologians they are not at all immune to national bias. There is also usually much mist surrounding what they are trying to get at. Arguments are frequently both inconclusive and unrewarding. ...”

He has a few comments about Dr Goebel's book too!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v04/n15/malcolm-deas/falklands-title-deeds

Which is exactly why you should stop your bickering and accept his conclusions as the foremost expert in the field, instead of quoting Hensel as if he was the last word on the subject.

Hensel?? Really???

Very slim pickings for you there!

What's next, quotes from Talahasse Community College?

A tweet from a teacher in the North Florida Christian High School?

A note written on a napkin by a teacher in Bretton Hills Kindergarden?

Because that's about what your source's weight is when compared against Fitzmaurice, Goebels, Myhre.

You expect me to believe their entire body of work is wrong because of one
idiot in Florida with a “PhD” ??

“As for the accusation that uti possidetis is a regional principle..., this simply is not true. It is hard to see how the contention that it is only a regional practice can be made in light of the facts.”

Jeffrey Myhre, London School of Economics

I choose to take the word of one of the foremost modern-day experts on the subject, who teaches at LSE, over the word of the redneck hillbilly with a “PhD” that used to teach in Florida, and now teaches in Texas.

Correction: NORTH Texas (aka the middle of buttfuck nowhere).

Sorry boys, facts are facts. They don't just disappear because you choose to ignore them.

FACT: UP is in a treaty in 1750 = it's “De Juris” in 1750 b/c treaties are LAW.

FACT: UTI “DE JURIS” EXISTED IN WESTERN TREATY LAW 98 YEARS BEFORE LIMA TOOK PLACE.

Hensel can't refute it. YOU can't refute it. But I suspect you'll continue to ignore it, stand behind a weapon and say the islands are “yours”. Which is why...

FACT: The islands are yours only by force.

FACT: Your occupation has ZERO force of law, and it never will.

FACT: Anything islanders do that exceeds their crown-negotiated rights is THEFT. The fact that you hide behind a borrowed gun when you do it matters not one bit insofar as the law is concerned.

FACT: BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN, NOTHING MORE.

Fact: No country can derive any benefit from treaties it was not party to. That includes Argentina.

Fact: All Argentine territory was taken by force. The first parts from Spain in 1810 and the rest, the vast majority of the territory, from its native and rightful owners in the 1870s. Just remember that by 1870 the Falklands had been openly and peacefully British for a generation.

You really have no leg to stand on when it comes to taking things by force, so best you drop that line of argument because you are starting to look like a dickhead.

Alejandro,
1) No, a bilateral treaty is not law. It is binding only on its signatories.

2) You’ve totally misunderstood why it is called ‘juris’. It is called because SA countries decided to use previous legal documents establishing boundaries between former Spanish colonies as a basis to establish borders, REGARDLESS of which colony had effective possession at the time of independence. There was no formal agreement to do this until the Congress of Lima 1847- 48. Brazil rejected this new version of UP in favour of the older version that European powers had been using: that sovereignty was established on the basis of effective possession, REGARDLESS of what previous legal documents, ie treaties, had said. If you bother to read the 1750 treaty,

http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Madrid_entre_Espa%C3%B1a_y_Portugal_-_1750

you’ll see that it overturns all previous treaties between Spain and Portugal and establishes occupation as the basis of sovereignty. This is why this website you posted

http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Madrid_entre_Espa%C3%B1a_y_Portugal_-_1750

says this: Consecrated the principle Uti-Possidetis (who has the possession has the dominium). The possession they mean here is effective possession.

Since South American countries had given a new meaning to uti possidetis and called it uti possidetis juris, the term de facto was added to the old version to distinguish it from the new version

To sumarise

uti possidetis de facto (sovereignty based on effective control and not on previous legal documents)

uti possidetis juris (sovereignty based on previous legal documents and not on effective control)

http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Madrid_entre_Espa%C3%B1a_y_Portugal_-_1750
note 32 page 4

http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Madrid_entre_Espa%C3%B1a_y_Portugal_-_1750

I observe that numerous sources confirm what DAB and I have pointed out. Yet you ram your head in the sand in the manner of an ostrich, stick your fingers in your ears and chant “I can't hear you”. Is this the high point of Argentine debating techniques?

Mmm, can't refute the comment, attack the author, the sure sign of losing the argument.

The islands are British by dint of nearly 200 years continuous and effective possession, only interrupted by Argentina's use of force in 1982. The only people to ever occupy the Falkland Islands by force were the Spanish in 1770, the Americans in 1831 and Argentina in 1982. There was no force whatsoever used in January 1833. That is a fact but I fear you wouldn't recognise a fact if it were to leap up and bite you on the backside.

The islands remain British because that is the wish of the islanders, its called respecting their right to self-determination. Respect being another concept you're unfamiliar with.

If you feel the Argentine case has any merit then the correct course is to refer the matter to the ICJ, which of course Argentina refuses to do. QED the case has no merits and has all the hallmarks of a pile of festering dingoes kidneys.

Now you can continue to shout and scream, with all sorts of empty threats (to whit an Argentine nuclear submarine) but it doesn't impress.

Anyone else find this boring?

You know what I find boring? Having to repeat myself. Unfortunately it seems your level of comprehension requires it.

@387 J.A. you keep repeating like a broken record that “No country can derive any benefit from treaties it was not party to” as if I had been alluding that.

As we say in Argentina, “disco rayado”. Or, more aptly, just “rayado”.

So once again I'll explain - perhaps your limited comprehension will understand me this time (although I doubt it).

1 - ARGENTINA IS NOT SIGNATORY TO NOOTKA.
2 - ARGENTINA DERIVES NO BENEFIT FROM NOOTKA.
3 - NOOTKA ESTABLISHES STATUS QUO FOR VICEROYALTY TERRITORY.
4 - ARGENTINA INHERITS VICEROYALTY TERRITORY. THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS INHERITING FROM “NOOTKA”.

Would you like me to explain it again?

If English is too complicated for you I can also translate into chavspeak.

@388 Dab

“It is binding only on its signatories.”

And why is it binding? Because it has FORCE OF LAW.

“You’ve totally misunderstood why it is called ‘juris’.”

No, I haven't - YOU have. “De Juris” means “in law”. “De Facto” means
“Outside of Law”.

This BASIC CONCEPT, applies to every principle of law.

You are presenting a 1848 Lima REFERENCE OF A PRIOR LEGAL PRECEDENT as if it had established jurisprudence in and of itself.

That is COMPLETELY FALSE.

It's not called “juris” because “SA countries decided to use previous legal
documents”.
It's called “juris” because it TRULY WAS DE JURIS - IN LAW, A PRE-EXISTING PRINCIPLE OF LAW, 98 years BEFORE Lima.

This is EXACTLY why, when it came time to delineate the borders of the SA
nations, the arguments were of UP DE FACTO on the part of Brazil, and
UP DE JURIS, where DE JURIS bases its arguments on pre-existing legal
concepts. They then APPLIED those concepts to the Treaty of San Ildefonso to
determine borders. But that does not mean they simply made up the idea on the spot.

To say that UPJ was somehow “invented” in Lima in 1848 is simply idiotic and
betays exactly how uninformed your are.

Yes you are very boring indeed, how anyone can continue to spout the same nonsense after having been shown to be so very wrong is beyond me. UPJ was an agreement between Latin American states achieved at the Conference of Lima in 1848. This is a know demonstrable fact, easily verifiable from historical records and contemporary accounts of International Law.

If you continue to spout idiocy, don't be upset when you're labelled an imbecile.

Nootka establishes nothing for the Viceroyalty, it did not as a treaty apply to the Falklands. Neither signatory ever applied it in that way.

And no Argentina did not inherit the territories of the Viceroyalty, it revolted and broke away from Spain. It obtained the territories it could seize by force; as it did in Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile and Patagonia subsequently.

UPJ sets the year of 1810 as it defining moment, so if you were to apply it as a principle any territorial claim would be conferred upon Uruguay.

Your basic logic is flawed.

And Argentina didn't even attend the Conference of Lima.

Sadly for you Alejandro Argentina's claim falls down at Point 4. Argentina did not inherit anything from Spain. Argentina took its independence by force. Spain did not concede anything, let alone recognise Argentina for nearly 60 years.

Oh, and “de facto” means “in fact” or “in practice”, and not “outside the law” and it is quite possible for something to be de facto and de jure at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Get yourself a decent legal dictionary.

Alejandro,
Please provide one single link that supports your definition of the distinction between the two. It must be regarding uti possidetis and not where the terms ‘juris’ and ’de facto’ are used in other contexts.

Meanwhile, here are some more that support what I say.

http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/Ova/fronteras_evolucion/conformacion/conformacion.html

http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/Ova/fronteras_evolucion/conformacion/conformacion.html

http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/Ova/fronteras_evolucion/conformacion/conformacion.html

page 4 pdf

http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/Ova/fronteras_evolucion/conformacion/conformacion.html

Re the 1750 treaty:
Los tratados de Madrid de 1750 y de San Ildefonso en 1777 nunca cumplieron los objetivos para las cuales fueron creadas y no llegaron a acuerdos satisfactorios de delimitación para las partes. Por el contrario, su accionar devino en la legitimación del principio de uti possidetis de facto que consagró el derecho de posesión basado en la fuerza.

also:
los comisionados de España y Portugal nunca pudieron llegar a un acuerdo satisfactorio acerca de la delimitación de la frontera aunque si lograron un reconocimiento detallado del terreno y una evaluación de la real correlación de fuerzas de uno y otro, pero sobre todo, de la capacidad de las fuerzas lusas de poner en práctica el precepto del Uti Possidetis de Facto.

http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/Ova/fronteras_evolucion/conformacion/conformacion.html

page 2 pdf

http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/Ova/fronteras_evolucion/conformacion/conformacion.html

page 168 pdf

http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/Ova/fronteras_evolucion/conformacion/conformacion.html

page 5 pdf

http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/Ova/fronteras_evolucion/conformacion/conformacion.html

note 32 page 9 uti possidetis de facto applied to the Argentina – Paraguay border

http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/Ova/fronteras_evolucion/conformacion/conformacion.html

page 9 pdf more on Argentina – Paraguay

Either way, UPJ and UPF don't help Argentina's claim to the Falklands. If UPJ applied then that fails because there is no legal instrument vesting Argentina with Spain's title or rights and if UPF applied then that fails because there has never been effective Argentina control over the Falklands...

@ Justin sez “UPJ was an agreement between Latin American states achieved at the Conference of Lima in 1848. This is a know demonstrable fact,
easily verifiable from historical records and contemporary accounts of International Law.”

So then how come you haven't demonstrated it? No one else certainly has, that's for sure, since they all cite YOUR source.

Be honest now. All you've done is cite FSU's Hensel...

...and like it or not....

....LSE's Myrhe has beat him, and your silly little fantasy, into a bloody pulp.

It's a matter of who you believe. You believe some idiot from the American south (land of brilliance indeed!). I believe the bloke from LSE that's a foremost expert in the field. Who's more believable?

Look mate, it's quite simple really!

The redneck that teaches at North Texas says:

“When the Spanish colonies of Central and South America proclaimed their independence in the second decade of the nineteenth century, they adopted a principle of constitutional and international law to which they gave the name of uti possidetis juris of 1810.”

And the Bloke that teaches at London School of Economics says:

“As for the accusation that uti possidetis is a regional principle..., this simply is not true. It is hard to see how the contention that it is only a regional practice can be made in light of the facts.”

Need I point out that your assertion is weakly backed compared to mine. This is the best you can do? Not to mention how much it must sting that an Argentine bloke is able to defend his every position with BRITISH quotes while you're down to yanks and the academic bottom of the barrel.

What else have you got?

Bollocks.

“having been shown to be so very wrong”

By whom? Certainly not you.

As usual - “Justin-yourhead”.

¡¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS DE MIERDA!!!!

I also would like to point out something else: Without exception, every single assertion you all have made...

...EVERY SINGLE ASSERTION...

...you all conveniently ignore key FACTS when it suits you. And without the ongoing ignorance of these facts, all your little theories that justify your present acts of THEFT would dissolve into thin fucking air. To wit, let's examine your ongoing lunacies, one by one:

- “Uti de Jure was a South American invention in 1848 Lima”

You ignore the Treaty of Madrid 1750. This allows you to claim UPJ was “invented” in 1848, something LSE's Myhre disproves no matter what your favorite moron at Florida State has to say about it. Your sources are crap.

- “1771 was a Declaration, not a treaty”

Issued in Joint fashion, by both governments simultaneously, and it has full force of law. Does a joint dec. not have force of law?

- “Britain's claim was so strong in 1771 it didn't need to be stated”

You ignore the text.

What a wonderful bit of fantasy. Abslute bollocks!

And then you act as if you've actually proven something. When it comes to law, the only thing that counts is what is WRITTEN.

No dear lass - in the real world, a claim not written in the 1771 text is a claim inexistent after 1771.

- “Nootka doesn't apply to the islands”

You ignore the following:

-Did not the 1790 Nootka text not prohibit new settlements in
“islands adjacent already occupied by Spain”?

-Were not the Malvinas in 1790 SOLELY occupied by Spain?

-Didn't Spain understood Nootka to be inclusive of Malvinas? And
if not, why did Lt. Latre in his statement to the American
brig “Nancy” refer to the “consequence of recent treaties” in
1794 when telling the yanks to piss off??

IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE...straight across the board, every issue, every time. Every one of your arguments is built on ignorance, and your presence is only assured by firepower.

That is why - I'll say it again:

BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN.

Very entertaining fantasies, all of them.

come on now kelpers - tell us another one!!

I see why islands has no insane asylum, becaus it IS an insane asylum....looks like Bedlam has moved 8000 miles away!

perhaps what you need is a complaetly new treatie, that overides all others before it,
signed by Argentina-Great britain-And the falklands
stating that argentina drops all claims on the island forthwith, now and forever,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
just a thought .

Sure, sure....

....OR...

....perhaps what's needed is for the party who continually ignores treaties to finally realize they're in the wrong, that their countrymen who've concluded as much were in the right, and sit down to negotiate as equals to establish a trilateral agreement so we can all reach a mutually acceptable conclusion...

...(instead of demanding their neighbors be content with getting fucked).

Just a suggestion.

agreed then
argentina excepts she is wrong, and gives up the claims forever,

just and idea .

“As for the accusation that uti possidetis is a regional principle..., this simply is not true. It is hard to see how the contention that it is only a regional practice can be made in light of the facts.”

Where does this say uti possidetis juris was established international law before SA independence? And it was originally a regional principle. It acquired wider application AFTER it spread to Africa in the wake of post war decolonization. The above statement simply reflects the situation now.

“You ignore the Treaty of Madrid 1750. This allows you to claim UPJ was “invented” in 1848, something LSE's Myhre disproves no matter what your favorite moron at Florida State has to say about it. Your sources are crap.”

And you provide none that substantiate yours

You are the one who is ignoring 1750. 1750 applied the de facto principle, not the juris principle

www.virtual.unal.edu.co/cursos/sedes/leticia/80011/lecciones/mod3/leccion4.html

Re the 1750 treaty:

Los tratados de Madrid de 1750 y de San Ildefonso en 1777 nunca cumplieron los objetivos para las cuales fueron creadas y no llegaron a acuerdos satisfactorios de delimitación para las partes. Por el contrario, su accionar devino en la legitimación del principio de uti possidetis de facto que consagró el derecho de posesión basado en la fuerza.

also:

los comisionados de España y Portugal nunca pudieron llegar a un acuerdo satisfactorio acerca de la delimitación de la frontera aunque si lograron un reconocimiento detallado del terreno y una evaluación de la real correlación de fuerzas de uno y otro, pero sobre todo, de la capacidad de las fuerzas lusas de poner en práctica el precepto del Uti Possidetis de Facto.

And I'm still waiting for links that substantiate what you say. So far none do.