THE third of a planned series of extended political articles written exclusively for the Penguin News web site by Deputy Editor John Fowler. John is a former Superintendent of Education and a former Manager of the Falkland Islands Tourist Board. Read full article
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Ask your british colonial masters to leave south atlantic and then we can talk about neighbourgh relations.Dec 05th, 2011 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Stop acting as colonial subjects of an european power, became citizens so we can solve our differences.
Mr.Fowler , remember that main issue and main obstacle to normal relations arg-kelper is british presence; keep your land but please don´t ask Argentina to accept british presence in south atlantic.
Ask your masters to leave and in that moment ask Argentina to negotiate a settlement about your selfdetermination.
threatening to do disgusting things to the Queen. disgusting things like finding her a job?Dec 05th, 2011 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
the out-and-out ‘nasties’ who send emails calling us pirates and threatening to do disgusting things to the Queen. I swear I am not one of those nasties, this time it wasn't me :)
Mr. John FowlerDec 05th, 2011 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
”It is distressing to Falkland Islanders that our right to exist is now being questioned by people with whom we used to share so much in common.”
I consider myself one of those you ”used to share so much in common” and I don’t question your right to exist.
I question however your “right” to exploit South American resources for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
I do also question your “right” to be a stepping stone for British geopolitical interests in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic.
Even though the majority of Argentines now regard the invasion of the Falklands as a last-ditch act of lunacy by a repressive regime that they were glad to see the back of, it is sad that they do not seem to recognise that the whole Falklands/Malvinas issue is as big a diversionary irrelevance now as it was in 1982.Dec 05th, 2011 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
We will never recignise that because we are sure the whole Malvinas issue is relevant and a historical fact. It has been in our political agenda since 1833. I respect your argument, so dont downplay us. It s funny, when british politicians speak of The UK or of its history, then they are being patriotic. But when some argetinian, brazilian, chinese, russian or marcian speak in those same term, then they are being populistic.
Dear Mr Fowler,Dec 05th, 2011 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Its deeply sad that Argentines are utterly incapable of seeing through stereotypes and continue to talk in absurd cliches about British colonialism 50 years after the end of Empire. They prefer to cling to nonsense as long it confirms pre-conceived notions of nationalistic identity and refuse to see you as a human being.
You have my sympathy.
I don't want to read what a British governent employee thinks, I want to know what the regular islanders think. What don't you let them express their opinions?Dec 05th, 2011 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I don’t question your right to exist.Dec 05th, 2011 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Dementia taking its toll on you think, dont you remember? you wanted the squatters to go home and leave you the keys
@ 7 They still can exist, but in a different place.Dec 05th, 2011 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/86522/subway-b-line-workers-refuse-to-work-with-fare-charging-cardsDec 05th, 2011 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Workers say that the current posnets are located too high in the ticket booth making them to raise their arms every time they have to charge credit on a passenger’s SUBE or Monedero card, which tends to cause tendinitis.
The argies didnt have that much trouble raising their arms when the British kicked their arse's
Neither did your lads when we surprised and overpowered them with so little resistance we weren't fighting even long enough to inflict a single casualty. Their arms went up so fast you'd think it was raining money.Dec 05th, 2011 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Usual cr*p from the Argies I see. Unable to establish that they have any 'rights' at all, they claim them anyway.Dec 05th, 2011 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Not sure why the author bothers in all honesty.
Think,Dec 05th, 2011 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Would you care to tell us what these resources the British are supposed to be exploiting are? There is no oil exploitation as yet and when there is it will be for the benefit of the Falklands, and the fisheries are primarily exploited by the Spanish fleet, and fleets from various Asian countries. I'd hazard a guess that there is greater involvement of British companies exploiting resources in Argentina than in the Falklands.
Why bother establishing any facts if you won't even recognize them when they're presented to you? Case in point, Mr. Fowler erroneously states:Dec 05th, 2011 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Among the many fictions bandied about by the proponents of the Argentine sovereignty claim is the notion that it has been energetically pursued since 1833.
The fact is that the first complaint was made 17 June 1833 by ambassador Manuel Moreno. Nothing I've read thus far leads me to believe that the British and islanders back their case for sovereignty with anything other than half-truths and willful ignorance of historical events that don't support their viewpoints of narrative. It's easy to think you're in the right when you simply ignore facts, which in this case range from documented events of Argentine and Anglo-Spanish history all the way to statements by high-ranking British officials which question the legality and validity of British sovereignty.
Intellectual and academic honesty is the harder path to take; then again it's not needed when you've got British weapons and that fact speaks louder than any other. It is not the Argentine claim that blocks human contact between Islanders and Argentines; rather, it is the fact that under British law the FIG has no power of negotiation to employ even if they were amenable to discussing the issue. We did not make that rule, so don't blame us for it.
We do think objectively, and objectively speaking, the ongoing penchant for ignoring or twisting history renders the malvinas is a distraction argument relatively moot, for even if it were used as a domestic distraction, the factual basis for our lawful sovereignty remains even if it's not to the full extent which either side claims. Negotiations could lead to a happy middle ground satisfactory to all three sides - yet it is not Argentina who continues to reject any attempt at a peaceful solution to obtain reconciliation, but Britain.
Mal - I was beginning to think you were avoiding me !Dec 06th, 2011 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Funny you talking about facts, when you have such a slight grasp of them.
Manuel Moreno did object in 1833. But he had no right to and was propoerly dismissed by Palmerston in 1834, who appeared, if anything, slightly bemused that Argentina even thought it was a player.
People should question, it helps the thought process along. Argentines don't appear to do so much of it though, otherwise they'd ask why their Government's web site on the Falklands makes bland statements as though they were facts, but adds no supporting evidence.
As for honesty, well Argentina has displayed so little. From Vernet via Moreno to Ruda.
And it is you that twists history. It's there for all to see, which is why Argentina is still arguing after 178 years. Nobody is paying serious attention.
No factual base for any claim of sovereignty. No uti possidetis juris, no inheritance, nothing from the Viceroyalty who fled before you, no legal claim to east Falkland and less for the West. Spain didn't recognise more than what you held in 1858, nor 1863. No recognition of Uti, no recognising that you were entitled to what she formerly claimed.
MalArg - you are full of cr*p !
Argentines can sometimes be harder to deal with than the out-and-out ‘nasties’ who send emails calling us pirates and threatening to do disgusting things to the Queen. Such people can be ignored without regret,Dec 06th, 2011 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
This is such a shame, because Argentina is in many ways a fabulous country
Ask your British colonial masters to leave south Atlantic and then we can talk about neighbour relations
In other words mr Billy Hayes wants the shepherd, to stay at home, while the FOX talks to the chickens,[[ Metaphor examples]] no offence,
@8 Hahahaha That was funy.Dec 06th, 2011 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Why bother establishing any facts if you won't even recognize them when they're presented to you? Case in point, Mr. Fowler erroneously states:Dec 06th, 2011 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
“Among the many fictions bandied about by the proponents of the Argentine sovereignty claim is the notion that it has been energetically pursued since 1833.”
The fact is that the first complaint was made 17 June 1833 by ambassador Manuel Moreno.
The protests did start in 1833 but they have not been continuous, which is what Mr Fowler meant.
There was no protest at all between 1849 and 1884 = 35 years
Between 1884 and 1888 there was an exchange of correspondence over the same protest.
There was no protest to the UK over the Falklands between 1888 and 1945 57 years (during this period there were protests over the Falklands made to other countries and bodies eg Universal Postal Union, but not to the UK, and there were protests made over other islands to the UK, but not over the Falklands). For a diplomatic protest to be legally valid it has to be made to the country concerned or an international body with the power to deal with matters of sovereignty, which, by the way, rules out both the UNGA and its subsidiary body, the decolonisation committee.
@ 15 briton, nobody's asking anymore. Islanders are being isolated because this is what they want. They're British and want to stay British, we are doing that exactly, we let them to be British but in isolation.Dec 06th, 2011 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
It also rules out the Postal Union /International Postal Bureau.Dec 06th, 2011 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Did you know that in 1928 Argentina complained to Belgium about the extension of a Treaty to the Falklands, which only happened to have been signed in Belgium !
The Treaty was on the provison of treatment centres for seamen with VD !
Belgium! Britain was a signatory, but received no complaint (and it wasn't actually intending to include the Falklands anyway).
Bit like talking behind someone's back !
There's no real point to debating with the Argentines about the Falklands.Dec 06th, 2011 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
They're mostly liars or at the very least, twisters of facts.
And such hypocrites!
Good one #7 sticky, Think's changed his tune. Probably just realised that he's an Andean squatter.
lf you're talking about the original Marine party when the invaders first came ashore, then they were ordered to surrender by the Govenor.
lt was obvious that they would've died for nothing as they were outnumbered 200-to-1.
We fully intended to return & turf you out--and we did!
Do your troops obey orders?
Xbox, do you exist? or are you a figment of our imagination?
lts none of Think's business which resources we exploit here as said resources belong to us & not him or his silly country.
l'm sure that he will understand this fact in time!
As I once explained in halting Spanish to an Argentine soldier to whom I gave a packet of cigarettes after he had complained that “they don't take Argentine money here .......... (John Fowler article)Dec 06th, 2011 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
John Fowler was not in the Falklands during the 1982 conflict in fact I do not think he arrived in the Islands until the late 1980's
Anyway it hardly matters does it as you must all be able to see the writing on the wall by now.
Yes, it says ARGENTNIA KEEP OUTDec 06th, 2011 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
@ 20 Wrong atitude lady. As a British government employee, you should not lose control.Dec 06th, 2011 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Oops . I hate this dyslexic keyboard !Dec 06th, 2011 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Arg will never drop its claim....next articleDec 06th, 2011 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
and neighbourly relations you can enter to Arg whenever you like dont need passport, next article (its UK that wouldnt like that, and that needs to streghthen their partnership with OT). Able to make tourism, shopping, etc.
Once, I was approached by an Argentine when I was in Chile. He overheard me talking to one of my friends and recognised my English accent. He immediately started talking about the Falklands. He talked through Argentina's claim and how far the UK was from the Falklands. After about 20 minutes of his rant, I then reached into my pocket, pulled out my passport and showed him where I was born (Stanley, Falkland Islands). I have never seen a person turn so white so quickly. He didnt bother me again.Dec 06th, 2011 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@26 And the lesson is?Dec 06th, 2011 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I wanted to say something, but #20 Isolde said everything that needed to be said by one who really knows!Dec 06th, 2011 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Mr. Fowler: Please don't waste your ink.
#27 Islas FalklandsDec 06th, 2011 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The lesson is that partricular Argentinean was an abject coward, much like most of the Argentinian bloggers on here who are paid by the Peronistas' to cause trouble.
What a bunch of lying, spineless, whinging, motherless cretins you are. AND I am being polite.
according to this article you give cigarettes, bar of chocolats, coffee to the argie soldiers, and its the arg who are so aggresive sending bad messages to you and calling you pirates.Dec 06th, 2011 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
i feel this man fowler doesnt read too much mercopress, look how they call us cretins, liars, cowards, fascists, etc. and so on. you only see what you want in others, not in yourselves.
#21 John Fowler was in the islands in 1982, he organised the evacuation of children from Stanley.Dec 06th, 2011 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
John Fowler's home was also hit by a stray shell, which killed 3 islanders in 1982. There is a large chunk of his leg missing from a shrapnel wound.
That the Chilean is not Argentinian and that M-of-Fi is Argentinian by birth,or will go back? to Britain when the Malvinas are finally returned to Argentina.Dec 06th, 2011 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@27 The lesson is that you're a prat!Dec 06th, 2011 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@6 And you're a prat too! So let's see all you dagos identifying who you REALLY are, where you live and what, if anything, you do for a living. Besides sponging and exposing your rears to passing strangers at a peso a time.
@21 Hello, Brain-dead. It's not hard to find that John Fowler is Originally from York in England, John has lived in the Falkland Islands since 1971, apart from an absence between 1984 and 1993, when he was for some two and a half years Editor of the paper before becoming Manager of the Falkland Islands Tourist Board, And I found that out, from 8,000 miles away, in less than 5 minutes.
@10 Ordered to surrender by the Governor, less than 80 Royal Marines surrendered to approx. 10,000 Argie assholes. On 14/15 June 1982, at least 8,000 Argie cowards surrendered to less than 3,600 British troops. Oh, and MEN of J Company, 42 Commando, Royal Marines, from which the 80 Royal Marines ordered to surrender by the Governor were drawn, were there AND raised the Governor's flag over Government House.
@18 Your country is in breach of the UN Charter. It's also full of cowards. Or, as I believe you call them, the mentally-challenged, mentally-disturbed or just plain lunatics.
@20 Isolde. Argentina doesn't really exist. What it actually is is a country-sized mental institution for the criminally insane. It is, of course, headed for closure. The only way possible. Perhaps we should feel sorry for 40 million terminal inmates. Nah, why would we bother?
Good Morning you all , reporting from the Lone Star State. Back from my annual tour to Buenos Aires and I haven't found not even one article or fellow countrymen talking about Malvinas ..... is Merco Shit inflating the issue? Just a thought and I'm glad that everything stayed the same as i left it :-))Dec 06th, 2011 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
As usual, and to collaborate with the 'doves' in this dispute, I'll bring here what late Jorge Luis Borges had to say about the UK and his own country (Argentina) fighting over these islands: It is the fight of two baldmen for a comb.Dec 06th, 2011 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
So we won a comb! A wins a win :-)Dec 06th, 2011 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@ 33 ...Dec 06th, 2011 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
(#) 36 AmigoDec 06th, 2011 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Are you -- The Telegraph -- employee ?
@32. What the hell are you talking about? Coherence is not your best quality Yuleno.Dec 06th, 2011 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Why would I go back to Britain? I was born in the Falklands...they are my home and I am not leaving.
@ AllDec 06th, 2011 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
M_of_FI is malvinense and there´s no reason to make him go anywhere else. He can´t be blamed for what his pirat ancestors did.
Asking malvinenses to go to the UK is stupid.
I´m with you on this M_of_FI!
We won´t agree on the self determination principle, though.
If you complain about havin a voice... I say you do have it and is well represented by Mr Cameron.
You can also use your right to claim you argetinian citizenship and let you voice be heared voting and selecting your governors in your capital city, Ushuaia.
@ 40 well said, he's our brother, as Argentine as we are, even though he's a British government employee. He's still an Argentine.Dec 06th, 2011 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Seems to me, the more you push the more you seal your own fate.Dec 06th, 2011 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The world is about to get a very violent wake up call,
The Americans and British are already drawing up plans,
Yep, the time is drawing to a close, sooner or later, [bang]
The world will stop for a moment , then panic will ensue,
Who what why when how ,
And Argentina, yes what about Argentina,
WHO knows, but someone’s going to regret putting her foot into ones mouth once to often.
Just a tantalising thought .
@42 Nonsese and paranoia.Dec 06th, 2011 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@ 42 fishy boy, stop throwing fish at people man, it stinksDec 06th, 2011 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
43 Islas Malvinas (#)Dec 06th, 2011 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@42 Nonsense and paranoia
you may well be correct, Argies normally are, [are they not]
But if you wake up one morning and find IRAN has been whacked,
You may well find, on this occasion, you may well be wrong,
But by then, it will be to late for you withdraw your claim,
@ 42 fishy boy, stop throwing fish at people man, it stinks
The early bird catches the worm, so im told,
But will it catch a great big fish,
Wet and smelly,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DayDnKZAibkDec 06th, 2011 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
M-of-Fi where are you?Dec 06th, 2011 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@ @ 47 washing his crap out of his pants :PDec 06th, 2011 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@48 And you Argies are experts are crap. Since you leave it everywhere you go. In people's homes and wherever you're standing when MEN turn up. That's because you're all queer, cock-sucking, ass-spreading cowards. Don't be upset. There's no shame in admitting what you are. Gutless nancy-boys with a taste for cock. Wonder if any of your uniformed cowards offered their asses to british troops? Are there any Argie corpses distinguished by signs of bayonets entering their asses? Probably lots. Have you checked out the asses of your veterans? You know the bunch. We've been here three weeks and now nasty MEN are coming to slap our legs and spank our botties. How to defeat Argies: Piss on 'em and they melt. Oh, and on the subject of crap, you talk a lot of it as well. Is there anything Argie that isn't sh*te?Dec 06th, 2011 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
46 Islas MalvinasDec 06th, 2011 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Interesting video, proves my point does it not,
You cannot keep pushing, never has a country like Argentina got away with so much, -
Like Argentina , got away with so much, without being pulled to book,
Perhaps the government already has a surprise for you, who knows,
But ones things for certain, sooner or later, Argentina will regret she ever heard of the British Falklands .
Well done Mr Fowler at least you made a clear statement of actual life in the Falklands rather than all the usual C**p from the argentine posters on this site with there made up history one word springs to mind LOSERS!!!!!!Dec 06th, 2011 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Long Live the Falklands
(#) 36 clever cavalryDec 06th, 2011 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Good Morning to you by Sydney time.
46 Islas MalvinasDec 06th, 2011 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
M-of-Fi where are you?
[he’s behind you ]
Good phanto this,
M-OF-FI, is very popular tonight.
53#take these words and redirect them as you usual do.I love Argentina and I share my life with argentinians and I love it.Dec 06th, 2011 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Can wait for your thoughts unlike conquerors 49# drivel.But then you have more thoughts and less emotions.he only has motions.
47 Yuleno no offence intendedDec 06th, 2011 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
We appreciate that you are proud to be argentine,
As we are to be British
Yes the Falklands are British, and will always be British,,
No doubt you will always be argentine,
You are a very big country, and growing,
Ignore the British Falklands
You don’t need them,
Relax and enjoy the debate.
Banter is good for the sole, if you can catch one,
That’s a fishing thought
Is it not .
For old time' sake, can't agree more. It's high time UK subjects on the islands leave all myths they've been taught sincenchild and come to terms with reality: not even UK former colomies in the Caribbean support your flawed arguments. Accept it, the sooner the better for you all. If I were you, I'd stop useless propaganda and accept the facts. Good job Argentina, once again!Dec 07th, 2011 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Myths taught since childhood .... godd one ! Funny lolDec 07th, 2011 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
”1934 – prompted by Dr. Palacios, Argentina’s Congress passes a law requiring all schools to be supplied with Les Isles Malouines, a book by French historian, Paul Groussac, which promotes an Argentine claim to the Islands; “ It being necessary that all inhabitants of the Republic should know that the Falkland Islands are Argentine and that Great Britain, without any title of sovereignty, took possession of them by force.”
Brainwash anybody ??
@14: Manuel Moreno did object in 1833Dec 07th, 2011 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Oh so now it did happen, but it doesn't count. And your reason for that is...British self-righteousness? Palmerston's bemused ego?
No, not Palmerston's ego, even in your own timeline he acknowledges the
limitation of Britain's claim, which he's not sure of, is Edgmont - and recommends pursuit of sovereignty only to that which may belong to the British crown and no more.
No, the ego is not Palmerston's - it's only yours, and appropos! You see, Argentines have the biggest egos, and it goes to show inside every islander is an Argentine trying to get out!!
We don't twist history, we argue for the examination of all the history and not the bits and pieces that you choose. There are multiple factual events which lead to our sovereignty; if you know anything about international law you also know that independence is ex post facto, meaning territories, when recognized, are recognized to the
extent they were held and controlled by the former power at the end of its jurisprudence. The clock doesn't start in 1858 (and that's the wrong year anyway). The clock starts in 1816 and very much with the islands under Spain's dominion at the time of declaration, in their possession on 8 July 1816, clearly passing to the United Provinces the very next day.
On 21 SEP 1863 Spain recognized Buenos Aires' independence AS DECLARED (Tucuman), WHEN DECLARED (1816), without listing each individual territory or excluding any former Viceroyalty territory as you'd have us believe.
Until the British can disprove that fact, their sovereignty claims will always be in question as this is the most fundamental challenge to British sovereignty which has never been satisfactorily answered. The Americans and British are already drawing up plans. They're just not so good at paying for them!
But Fowler's right one 1 thing: Argentina IS fabulous, encompassing vast differences of climate and vegetation from its sub-tropical north to its SOUTH ATLANTIC MALVINAS.
Think you are getting confused there MalArg.Dec 07th, 2011 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
One thing I can guarantee, Palmerston never recognised the limit of British authority. He practically invented Gunboat diplomacy. I suspect you're thinking of Wellington, who knew that West Falkland was British but had a doubt about East Falkland.
He got over it.
1863 – September, a, 'Treaty of Recognition, Peace and Friendship' is signed between Spain and the new Argentine Republic.
“Article 1: Your Catholic Majesty recognises the Republic or Confederation of Argentina as a free, supreme and independent nation that consists of all the provinces mentioned in its present federal Constitution, and other legitimate territories that belong or could belong in the future. According to the Spanish Parliament Act of December 4th 1836, the kingdom renounces any rights and actions on the territory of the Republic.
Following his visit to Buenos Aires, the Falkland Islands receive a diplomatic mission led by Spanish Vice-Admiral Luiz Hernández de Pinzón.
Now you need to check what was mentioned in the Constitution of 1860 !
No mention of the Falklands I think you'll find. But then it fell in that quiet period between 1849 and 1888, when Argentina accepted the Islands as British, so perhaps that is not so surprising.
And the point is that we don't have to prove anything, after all 'possession is 9/10th of the law. The prove has to come from Argentina, and it appears that she is not good at evidence.
And yes - Argentina does twist history, and likes to miss out the parts that don't suit her argument.
Malvinas No Son Argentinas, Son BRITISH !!
Wellington, I stand corrected. However I don't fully understand what weight or significance you are assigning to Pinzon. The purpose of his mission was that of goodwill and to initiate negotiations for recognition. You will notice that his visit to BA was posterior to the islands. Assuming his actions on the island constituted an official acceptance of British sovereignty by Spain (which I disagree with and elaborate on later), Spain's declared recognition of Argentine independence was after his stop at the islands, not before.Dec 07th, 2011 - 04:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The difference between the 1860 constitution and the 1853 constitution was about changing Buenos Aires from a federally-controlled yet constitutionally unclear jurisdiction to one which delineated clear boundaries between city and province. The 1853 constitution included BA and all its territories as of the 1816 declaration; prior to 1816 the islands were controlled by BA through the virreynato.
By recognizing Argentina's independence, and its territories claimed in 1853 and later again in 1860, Spain recognized Argentina's lawful possession of all of Spain's former archipelagos administered from Buenos Aires for the Spanish crown. You could say there was a gap if you give validity to BA's secession from the conferedation, such that Buenos Aires would be considered independent and not recognized by Spain (until 1860). BUT you'd still have to consider that Buenos Aires had still been the administrator of the islands prior to independence from Spain, and that Spain's 1863 recognition resolved this.
The mistake that you make is that you think Spain's recognition pertains to the national territories at the time of recognition; this is incorrect, Spain recognized separate jurisdictional authorities as exercising sovereignty over its former territories as of the time of their independence - a time in which there was solid Spanish control over the islands.
...and other legitimate territories that belong...
What evidence have we ignored?
Ask your masters to leave and in that moment ask Argentina to negotiate a settlement about your selfdetermination.Dec 07th, 2011 - 04:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I fully agree with that Bill Hayes!
For a start off you haven't answered the question -Dec 07th, 2011 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Article 1: Your Catholic Majesty recognises the Republic or Confederation of Argentina as a free, supreme and independent nation that consists of all the provinces mentioned in its present federal Constitution, and other legitimate territories that belong or could belong in the future. According to the Spanish Parliament Act of December 4th 1836, the kingdom renounces any rights and actions on the territory of the Republic”.
Note well the reference to 1836. Prior to that Spain could not recognise the cession of ANY territory as such was forbidden by its Constitution, so that, by the time they amended it, Britain already has the Falklands firmly under control.
The mistake that you make is that you think Spain's recognition pertains to the national territories at the time of recognition; this is incorrect, Spain recognized separate jurisdictional authorities as exercising sovereignty over its former territories as of the time of their independence - a time in which there was solid Spanish control over the islands
Utter Rubbish. On the contrary, I believe that it is you that are misled. Spain COULD NOT recognise anything before 1836. She did not grant retrospective recognition of Argentina.
... Your Catholic Majesty recognises the Republic or Confederation of Argentina as a free, supreme and independent nation that consists of all the provinces mentioned in itsPRESENT federal Constitution, and other legitimate territories that BELONG or COULD BELONG in the future.
Seems pretty specific. Show me where in the Argentine constitution of 1860 there is mention of the Falklands.
.. According to the Spanish Parliament Act of December 4th 1836, the kingdom renounces any rights and actions on the territory of the Republic”.
And that seals it !
You seem to be ignoring rather a lot of evidence.
@40. Lets say hypothetically that my ancestors did kick Argentines out of the Falklands (I say hypothetically as it didnt happen). So if this did happen and therefore Falkland Islanders are not able to apply self-determination, why can Argentines apply self-determination for themselves when they killed the native inhabitants of Patagonia to gain their land? It just doesnt make any sense. One rule for the Argentines and another for the Falkland Islanders. As I have said many, many times. The hypocrisy is outrageous.Dec 07th, 2011 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The Falklands is my home because I was born here and choose to live here. Therefore this makes it my right to decide the future of the Falklands along with others like me. This rule applies to everyone else in the world and it applies to the Falklands people. Read the Charter of the United Nations. Self Determination is applicable to EVERYONE. No Exceptions.
Of course the question is - 'which legal jurisdiction in the world has rules of interpretation that don't examine the words used, but prefer to accept the words that one side wishes to see' ??Dec 07th, 2011 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Still, a 1,000,000 square kilometre protection zone around South Georgia should exercise a few Argentine legal minds :-)
Ah, a beautiful photo that shows a beautiful aspect of the beautiful Falklands!!Dec 07th, 2011 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@64 Malvinas: The Congress considered the British project a new colonial action.Dec 07th, 2011 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@ 65 that's so true my friend. I've always admired that beautiful aspect of the beautiful Falkland Islands.Dec 07th, 2011 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Very well then, let's examine the words used, and not the ones you or I would prefer to see.Dec 07th, 2011 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
...consists of all the provinces mentioned in itsPRESENT federal Constitution, and other legitimate territories that BELONG...
Provinces mentioned and other legitimate territories - note the requirement of specificity applies only to provinces, not territories -
...that belong (present tense).
Belong? Not in possession of?
What say Webster?
Belong: To be the property of a person or thing; to be attached or bound by birth, allegiance, or dependency.
So, clearly, according to an examination of the words used, Spain held it within the realm of possibility that there at least COULD be territories which, not being provinces, were former Spanish possessions now bound by dependency to Argentina.
Now, you may wish the text read that Argentina must presently be in possession, and you may argue that on the British or international law angle as a requirement, and as expected add the usual semantics about what degree of possession Argentina must have had in order for it to count, naturally all arguments being openly interpreted using nothing but the uncanny penchant for arbitrariness that is customary for proponents of British sovereignty - BUT IF WE'RE EXAMINING THE WORDS THE SPANISH USED, those words don't appear.
The question, is, whether or not Spain actually recognized Argentina's sovereignty over Malvinas. The answer is yes, for under Spain the islands were a territory controlled by Buenos Aires, and territories need not be listed. Buenos Aires is listed, its territories are encompassed within including Malvinas.
The legislative power of cession granted by Spain's constitutional amendment does not enjoin Spain from ceding territory as delimited or militarily controlled by Spain from the amendment's effective date forward. It simply allows for this cession to legally take place, without limiting a recognition of independence as declared, when declared.
In 1863 the Islands most obviously did not BELONG.Dec 07th, 2011 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
And as Spain did not relinquish its own claim till 1836, there is no way any interpretation could give ownership to Argentina.
Much as you wish it might.
Of course added to that can be the Treaty of 1849 - which resolved ALL matters!
And no complaint between 1849 and the signing of the Treaty with Spain.
So - everyone in 1863 seems to believe that the Islands are British !!
However you cut it, Spain did not recognise any cession until after 1836 - and that makes it a done deal !
Hasta la vista
If Argentina could prove their case,Dec 08th, 2011 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Then they would have had us in the ICJ years ago,
They wont and they cant, because if they went to the ICG,
1, they would be forced to listen to the truth, and not their fantasy and lies,
2, they would be totally embarrassed in front of the world, and there friends in SA,
That just so happens to be the truth,
If you disagree, then don’t argue with us, just take us to the ICJ.
just a truthfull thought .
I forgot to add, that your concept is still locked into the legal fiction of constructive possession known to South America as uti possidetis juris. No inheritance means that Spain's cession is important and affects Argentina's claim.Dec 08th, 2011 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I should also mention that the last place that the Viceroyalty administered the islands from, according to your own reckoning, was Montevideo ! So perhaps I should be having this conversation with Uruguay.
# 70 i really hope to make this point clear:Dec 08th, 2011 - 05:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
UK refuses to recognise ICJ compulsory jurisdiction in disputes arising before january 1st 1974 (Falklands-Malvinas dispute: 1833)--
tell UK to change this and maybe we could start to believe in its case...
it says “1. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accept as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after 1 January 1974, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date...”,
therefore UK refuses to negotiate... well... make your own conclusions.
is this a rational attitude? i'd really love to speak with islanders freely, i do not accept Mr. Fowler conditions... a friendship offer cannot be qualified... human bonds can be restored... and let me tell all of you UK-islanders that an enormous amount of continental inhabitants are not brainwashed violent peronist-military gorillas... just decent sesitive and sensible persons that desire to speak truly and freely...
i know and love the who, and the beatles, the kinks, the rolling stones, the zombies, the tornados (Telstar), pink floyd, Donovan,Bowie, black sabbath, the clash, sex pistols, buzzcocks, the jam, the smiths, the cure, oasis, blur, pulp, the libertines, arctic monkeys, etc,etc... i'm a musician too, and i really love to make a tour there just like the Draytones!! can you see this??
are at least an excerpt of these conversations printed in Penguin News? how do readers know about not-angry-bitter , honest and polite argentines?
What are you talking about?Dec 08th, 2011 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The UK recognised the jursiduction of the court before 1955, which is why it tried to get Argentina to go there!
The UK recognised the jursiduction of the court before 1955, which is why it tried to get Argentina to go there!Dec 08th, 2011 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The MAlvinas were never taken to the ICJ.
Argentina invited,at least 6 times for the arbitration,uk never accepted...
Stop the usual crap pelotared!!
ICJ ICJ ICJ ICJ ICJ ICJ ICJ ICJ ICJ ICJDec 08th, 2011 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
HOW MANY TIMES WILL IT TAKE
ICJ ICJ ICJ ICJ
72 Riverplatewriter , ICJ or nothing, no exuses , no lies, icj.
Marvin - as I've said before - PROVE IT!Dec 08th, 2011 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Nobody will believe you until you offer some evidence.
I'd love to see some :-)
Red, ”I've got a bone to pick with you, are you ready? :-)Dec 08th, 2011 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Subject: British invasion of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata 1806 , who said it was an illegal invasion?
As I said before ,amigo Redhoyt is very clever kid but very unlucky.Dec 08th, 2011 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The ICJ is the correct UN body. Argentina must present its claim to the ICJ.Dec 08th, 2011 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Art - As I understand it Sir Holmes Popham was only ordered to capture the Cape in South Africa, but, not having had much of a fight, he headed across the Atlantic to take Buenos Aires. He had no orders to do so and was later court-martialed for it. He got no more than a slap on the wrist, so the authorities were not that bothered.Dec 08th, 2011 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
He was also aware that the idea had been discussed before.
The second force that was sent to relieve him and take Montevideo was authorised, but only for Montevideo.
General Whitelock's orders were less clear and he may or may not have had orders to retake Buenos Aires.
However, he certainly should not have surrendered Montevideo when he failed, and he was also court-martialed for that. His punishment was to be cashiered.
What I have, I have here -
@80 But,Dec 09th, 2011 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
what happened to the $ 1,291.323 pesos stolen from Viceroy Rafael de Sobremonte. That money went to London and deposited in the Bank of London. If the first invasion was illegal, would the money had to be returned to the original owners instead of being paraded in the streets of London? :-))
Stolen? I heard he lost it :-)Dec 09th, 2011 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
But you are right of course, I'm surprised that the Viceroyalty didn't submit a claim!
Popham's Court Martial is here - http://books.google.co.th/ebooks/reader?id=j2o3AAAAMAAJ&hl=th&printsec=frontcover&output=reader
The European Magazine, and London Review Vol. 51 1807 (in case the link doesn't work).
Whitelocke's here - http://books.google.co.th/ebooks/reader?id=j2o3AAAAMAAJ&hl=th&printsec=frontcover&output=reader
Trial of Lieutenant General John Whitelocke Commander in Chief of the Expedition against Buenos Ayres Samuel Tipper 1808
Happy reading :-)
Thanks Red, always a pleasure !!Dec 09th, 2011 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
(80) and (82) RedhoytDec 10th, 2011 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
”The second force that was sent to relieve him and take Montevideo was authorized, but only for Montevideo.”
”General Whitelock's orders were less clear and he may or may not have had orders to retake Buenos Aires.”
Didn’t you read your own material…..? It says……………:
“First charge.- That Lieutenant-general Whitelocke, having received instructions from his Majesty’s principal Secretary of State, to proceed for the reduction of the province of Buenos “Ayres…………….....................
What’s unclear about the above? You are getting sloppy and unserious, lad!
Fact is that Popham and Whitelocke were the military “fall guys” to save the Crown from the embarrassment of two very expensive defeats and the “dishonour of his Majesty’s Arms”, as the above book so correctly describes it…………..........
Think !Dec 11th, 2011 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
His orders were to 'reduce' the 'Province' of Buenos Aires. Which is not the same as 'capture' or 'occupy' the city, but basically to put it down whilst holding Montevideo. Whitelocke's reluctance to enter the city can be seen in this although, honestly, I haven't been through the whole of his court martial which took place over 30 odd days and isn't directly relevant to the work I am doing.
Art may now be the one to ask. :-)
Popham certainly did not have any orders to take Buenos Aires, BUT - he was familiar with the Maitland plane and had argued in favour of taking stategic positions from which to 'reduce' the countryside. He may not have had any written order but he must have at least been given a 'nod' and a 'wink' as we would say.
The second expedition was an attempt IMHO to turn a bad situation around. I suspect that Montevideo was seen as more accommodating, but the threat (and the previous defeat) from BA required a clear message.
As for 'fall guy', Whitelocke was lucky he wasn't charged with cowardice. Some obviousy thought he should have been.
My thoughts Think - IMHO :-)
ps. I am impressed if you worked your way through all the court martial record.
(80) RedhoytDec 11th, 2011 - 07:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
”His orders were to 'reduce' the 'Province' of Buenos Ayres. Which is not the same as 'capture' or 'occupy' the city”
To paraphrase petite British squaterette Isolde:
Huuuuhhh…….... Redhoy…........ Stop it….........! (Snigger, snigger)
You are making me giggle with your Humphrey Applebyan semantic trickery …….
You poltroon ☮
Poltroon ! How quaint :-)Dec 11th, 2011 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
As you like ... so tell me .. why did he take so long to enter the City ?
I see that you haven't read all the court martial :-)
Jupppp……Dec 11th, 2011 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Poltroon is one of “Nouveau Kelper” Isolde’s favourite expletives.
I find it quaint too…….....................................
Especially when applied to a bowman (“POLlice TRUNcus” and all that; you know:-)
Ah - I know .... semantics :-)Dec 11th, 2011 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Juppppppppppp……….; Semantics...........Dec 11th, 2011 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You Brits are quite good at it……….
#90 ThinkDec 11th, 2011 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Now I know this is a new concept for you, but THINK!
I realise the Argentinean government behave like the clip shows, but it's a joke on the British Goverment!
You know, like your government.
© just a matter of time, before i worked it out,Dec 11th, 2011 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
We have to be good at it ...... semantics make the world work !Dec 12th, 2011 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Carefully chosen of course - (have I ever given ayoutube link before ?)
My dad uses the word, Poltroon. l got it from him. Very apt, in some circumstances.Dec 12th, 2011 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
l didn't know that it was quaint, thought it was a Yorkshire word.
@85 & @86 to better understand the logic of the unauthorized first invasion of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata in 1806, somebody had to finance it, correct? The money stolen or lost (same shit isn't ) 1,291,323 pesos (in today's money @ 27 million dollars) did exactly that ! IMHO.Dec 12th, 2011 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
What was going on with England and Spain at that point? (1806-1807) ... and the second unauthorized invasion on 1807 with triple the men and resources, was it to teach us a lesson? No, doubt.
Since, Red game me homework to do ( about the court martial of Popham and Whitelocke ), I will report my opinion (always humble) shortly ! :-))
This is fucking fascinating !!!! ( I meant to say freaking, my bad)
Correction: instead of 3 times more men, it was 10 times, from 1200 to 12000.Dec 12th, 2011 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Be careful Art - getting interested in this stuff can become an obsession:-)Dec 13th, 2011 - 02:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
6 months and 120,000 words so far .... :-/
The attacks on BA aren't really relevant to my stuff but I suggest you go back further -
”1796 – Spain and France form an alliance against Britain.( Britain was almost constantly at war with France between 1792 and 1814. The shifting alliances between Spain and France had a direct effect on Spain's relationship with Britain, and on its ability to govern its colonies.)
Nicholas Vansittart, MP for Hastings, proposes a plan for an attack by British forces on Buenos Aires.
1800 – Major-General Thomas Maitland proposes an attack on Spanish colonies in South America beginning with Buenos Aires. The objective is to secure new markets for British goods, which Spain has banned.
1804 – a discussion takes place between William Pitt, Lord Henry Melville and Sir Homes Rigg Popham on the merits of the Maitland plan to attack South America. Popham believes a better plan would be the taking and holding of strategic positions.
1806 – January, Sir Homes Rigg Popham leads 6000 soldiers in the capture of the Dutch colony at the Cape, in South Africa, which is taken without much of a fight.
April, Popham, with the 71st Regiment of Foot, heads towards South America, via St. Helena, intent on taking Buenos Aires. He has no orders to do so.”
No, he had no orders to do so & when he failed, they held him out to dry.Dec 13th, 2011 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
lf, however, he had succeeded then when he returned he would have been a hero.
Oh dastardly fickle governments. Politicians have much to answer for.
Hardly hung out to dry ... a slap on the wrist - nothing more !Dec 13th, 2011 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
So we already established that the attack to the colonies was related to the French - Spanish alliance (which it makes sense). What was the deal with the war of 1812? An act of retaliation to the United States? due to what? I need the British version on this one, please.Dec 13th, 2011 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
And yes Red , it's becoming an obsession already!! :-))
Don't know much about the war of 1812.Dec 13th, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I seem to recall it was about borders, and perceived insults !
What was British and what American. Usual stuff throughout that period in the Americas. Retaliation? I don't think so, it was the Yanks that started it, probably because they could see we were busy elsewhere.
The British hardly paid any attention till 1814.
Always look at the bigger picture. What was happening in Europe? Napoleon, Peninsula War etc, etc. I like starting with Wikipedia as a basic and then moving forward from there.
Whole thing rather petered out. The US had gained a bit over here, and the British had gained a bit over there, but the US reasons for their declaration of war had gone before the end.
Strange little conflict really.
I look forward to hearing what you've found. The US has plenty of its history on the internet. Lots of original messages and documents. Google works best with American archives.
Have fun :-)
@100A & 101R,Dec 14th, 2011 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
One of the things that really annoyed the Americans was that we didn't recognise that British immigrants to the US could lose their British nationality.
l believe that RN ships used to stop American ships and pressgang any British born seamen.
There would have been other reasons too, of course & the yanks also wanted Canada.
Yup, that ws one of the reasons given !Dec 14th, 2011 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0