MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

If Argentina is a circus then why are you so nervous? LOL besides, the funny part is that David Cameron is not only being stupid respect of this conflict, but with other countries too, Now he made french be upset because of his mouth...jaj

British Diplomatic Circus( a different view from MercoStanley)

“People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away..”

Richard Gott

The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands

People always ask me why silly indoctrinated argentines, want to steal what is not hers to steal,
We say,
Ask CFK
According to her and her deluded bloggers, they own just about everything .

Nobody is nervous except for in your little head.

Cameron hasn't really upset anyone, more nonsense.

The UK is simply growing tired of the same ridiculous lies spread by CFK and Tinman in an attempt to distract from your impending economic failure and social unrest.

PM Cameron told CFK off like a little child whilst she attempted to perform a publicity stunt which failed and then the liar that is Tinman claimed it was the wrong forum to raise this issue after the publicity stunt epically backfired. Now anyone with a shred of intelligence knows if PM Cameron hadn't of got in first then CFK was going to try it, I mean she didn't accidentally turn up with a envelop full of resolutions by accident now did she?

It was simply another in a long line of victories for the UK/Falkland's people although saying that it requires almost no intelligence and diplomatic skills to outwit the bordering retarded CFK and tinman.

It is hard to see whose performance in front of the world cameras was more lamentable – that of the puffed-up Argentine president or that of her foreign minister Hector Timerman who is reported to have called the BBC a liar before walking off making a V sign

When there on the world stage there class and diplomatic skills really do shine through.

Still waiting for the Argies to actually do something. Are they that useless that they cannot formulate any kind of credible argument to make us do as they wish?

Come on Argies, do something for once, apart from running in the opposite direction with brown stains in your pants all the time.

5 scarfo Cameron did not show any class or diplomatic skills yesterday, more like some kind of political thug.

They'll just keep thinking they can bore us into submission, droning on and on til our eyes and ears bleed and we'll hand them the islands just to stop the grating sound of their incessant whiiiiining.

Oh shut up Marcos, more sour grapes because PM Cameron tackled your president and schooled her on diplomacy you make ridiculous claims like that.

Not to mention he ruined her attempt at a political stunt and the only person who can be classed as a thug is Timmerman who called the BBC liars and stuck his fingers up at cameras, if that isn't thug like behavior then what is?

A thug?
What did he do that was thuggish?

Marcos - he effectively put your president in her place. Why have your lot not released the video yet? Did they think that Argentina didn't want to dee your president's inability to be put on the spot? Wouldn't you find it interesting to watch her incoherently mumbling something in Spanish about a few headlines?

Why is the envelope that Titman has today completely different to the one CFK pulled out????

When you are worthy to even polish our boots then we may decide to recognise your presence.

Good article - I think it hit the nail on the head

Marcos - if you have to rely on The Guardian for your sources, you're getting desperate old bean!

Mr. Burns is being disingenuous with his article. He is basically using the “spoils of war” argument to assert that Argentina lost the Falklands (Malvinas) in 1982. Argentina is countering that claim with that the invasion was taken by an unconstitutional government without the explicit consent of the Argentines, which is usually expressed by their elected representatives in the National Congress. It takes an act of Congress to authorize the use of force. Therefore, “it is not our fault” argument.

Very timely your comment Marcos Alejandro!

If there is a country that never took seriously the self-determination (true not false determination) that is England, for something was the most colonialist of the world (and examples abound). Now defends the false self-determination, and if there was claim in the 19 century was because was a usurpation (real usurpation) and the claim is generated immediately. The writer seems to forget that the territorial boundaries of the neighboring countries (which is not exactly the case between Argentina and Britain) is governed by treaties that does not exist in the Malvinas issue. If the UN for the recovery of the Falklands in 1982 was illegal, how do you explain that in November the same year, the UN again demanded a peaceful resolution of sovereignty disputes? Resolution 37/9 of 04.11.1982.

@14
Mr Malvinero First of all your points are rather odd in that you haven't explained them. And the point you made regarding resolution 37/9 of 04.11.1982. That resolution was supported by Britain and the rest of the Un/Security council. Argentine refused to leave the islands peacefully and a war ensued. Our fault???

Post #2: “In honor of the human rights treaties incorporated into the Constitution of our country in 1994, the inhabitants of the Malvinas must be recognized as legal persons. Respecting their way of life, as expressed in his first provisional clause, means relinquishing the intention to impose a sovereignty, citizenship and government they do not want. ”

“Malvinas - An Alternative View”

Emilio de Ípola, Pepe Eliaschev, Rafael Filippelli, Roberto Gargarella, Fernando Iglesias, Santiago Kovadloff, Jorge Lanata, Gustavo Noriega, Marcos Novaro, José Miguel Onaindia, Vicente Palermo, Eduardo Antin (Quintín) , Luis Alberto Romero, Hilda Sabato, Daniel Sabsay, Beatriz Sarlo, Juan José Sebreli Emilio de Ipola, Pepe Eliaschev, Rafael Filippelli, Roberto Gargarella, Fernando Iglesias, Santiago Kovadloff, Jorge Lanata, Gustavo Noriega, Marcos Novaro, José Miguel Onaindia, Vicente Palermo, Eduardo Antin (Quintin), Luis Alberto Romero, Hilda Sabato, Daniel Sabsay Beatriz Sarlo, Juan Jose Sebreli

We can quote each other's journalists and writers until the cows come home.

Jose - the issue has been peacefully resolved. You lot just cannot see it as it makes you realise how insignificant you are.

Can you at least tell me what actions Argentina is going to implement to force our hand. Last time i checked you were short of leverage.

14 Thank you José.

11 Beef
I am having serious doubts about the mental health of Mr Cameron. He seems to be lurching from one self inflicted crisis after another. I mean, the man even loses track of his own child on a trip to the pub, for Christ's sake.

@14 - Jose

There is no dispute. The Falklands belong to the Falkland Islanders, who, in line with the UN charter have the right to determine their own future. You remember the UN charter, don't you? Argentina is supposed to have signed up to it.

Next year, the Islanders will hold a referendum, monitored by the UN, in which they will let their views known.

Argentina, next year, will still be in chaos from the inevitable meltdown of your economy, which has been caused by the inept and corrupt Miss CFK and her cronies.

If you and the other Argtards on here are too stupid to realise that the Falklands are a distraction so that CFK can stuff her, already healthy, bank account with Argentine tax payers money, then so be it.

In a year, the world will know without a doubt the Islanders choice, and you and your fellow Argentinians will still be in the financial poo.

We all make mistakes Marcos and you appear to think that i am a fan of DC. I would rather have David Miliband in charge of the country.

Ultimately DC is a prick from Eton but he is still streets ahead of your excuse for a leadership. Why haven't they released the actual video yet? Why has Argentina not taken any action?

There are still FI flagged ships in Mercosur ports so you couldn't even manage that could you?

There are fact, and there is fiction,

[fact]
The islands are British, and as long as these free people elect to remain British, then that is their decision.
And nothing to do with anyone else,
Argentina has no legitimate claims over, below round or under the Falklands,
And if not for there illegal invasion of a peaceful unarmed defenceless tiny little nation ,
Then hundreds of innocent people that died would be alive today,
[that is a fact]

[FICTION]
This is your interpretation, so you fill it in .

.

Resolution 37/9 of the UN General Assembly considered that the maintenance of colonial situations was incompatible with the UN. Then came the Resolution 38/12, 39/6 as above all within the framework of Resolution 1514 and 2065, which means that the war (not caused by La Argentina) did not resolve the conflict in any way to maintain a colonial situation incompatible by a foreign country (England) and that's how should be interpreted. Britain ignores almost 40 resolutions of the UNO and say that the problem is solved. We know exactly how you will address and the return of the islands, such as calling for the vast majority of American countries, which does not care much for England, accustomed as it is (see until then) to despise.

20 Beef , Patience “BigFatDaddy” patience.

@1 Not nervous. Watchful. Your current situation is reminiscent of 1981. But this time we'll be ready.
@2 Richard Gott and the Guardian. There's two twats.
@7 You think? Do you know that CFK looked like a failed whore? Probably is one.
@13 Really??? How would you explain the ecstatic argies in the streets? How about “popular approval”? Doesn't the “power” of your “government” come from the people?
@14 You really are thick, aren't you? Did you know that the United Nations Charter came into force on 24 October 1945? Did you know that, in the majority of the world, legislation cannot have retrospective effect? Do you know that all United Nations General Assembly resolutions are NON-BINDING? Do you know that United Nations Security Council resolutions ARE binding on all members? Did you know that argieland IGNORED United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 dated 3 April 1982? A resolution that might have saved 907 lives.

See if you can get this straight. Argies are SHIT! Argieland is SHIT! No honour. No truth. Nothing but lies, hypocrisy, belligerency, illegal acts, acts of war.

Are you playing cards now? Thought you didn't gamble. BFD already looing forward to the free champagne at the next RKH agm, and the beers afterwards :-)

Making money is about patience Marcos but one has to actually do something and not just talk about it. You are simply spectators and can only cheer and jeer.

@14 Jose

I'm not sure why the Falklands right to self determination is somehow “false”. You can dress it up with sophistry and semantics but ultimately this is now where we are. The Falklands are clearly a “people” (as, I would maintain, are Shetlanders etc - they have a clear identity - if they were to move to the UK, they might find life more difficult that they would imagine as the Islands are their “home” in all senses of the word)

I don't particularly hold to the “spoils of war” argument (but we do have a nice collection of Pucaras at the Army museum at Middle Wallop) - but I'm sure there are posters on this site from the UK who definitely do and some of them may be vets from the '82 war which wasn't a walk in the park - despite what the armchair generals might think. I respect their views and their sacrifice.

I disagree with the Guardian article. It makes some interesting points but I don't know how well it was researched. At first glance the sovereignty issue seems a bit hazy but I think the Act of settlement and the absence of serious claims until WWII is the Achilles Heel of the Malvinistas' claims. I think the UK's claims are strong in their own right in any case.

We are now in the 21st and not the early 19th century and the principle of prescription is a strong legal tenet (uti juris posedis as espoused by Argentina is not). If my family has been using a path to gain access to my house for the past 250 years or so and someone says that I can't due to an alleged dispute from 1833 then I will tell them in no uncertain terms where to go.

I like this link and I am happy to quote it ad nauseum as it is a great place to start a serious debate instead of all the (“jajaja British are finished” nonsense). Here it is http://falklandshistory.org/sites/default/files/false-falklands-history.pdf

Discuss/ compare and contrast

“If was the Juntas fault ,nothing to do with us”. Yet 250,000 celebrated in the Plaza de Mayo.
Celebrations didn't last very long 71 days.

22 José Malvinero
[FICTION]
This is your interpretation, so you fill it in .

And you just have,
And that is all it is
FICTION.

Oh and by the way
ENGLAND has not been for over 300 years,
It’s the British today,
The British,
Comprendo

.

@18 Marcos you have doubts, you have a brain if Cameron is bad what is CFk hitler? Well we'll soon find out your country is going down the tubes pal and now she has no distractions she'll have to face up to that point, or will she?????

Mr Camaron acted the perfect English gentlemen,

CFK acted like a spoily child trying to get her own way and being very rude,
and mr tinman, was acting like a 4th world fool, sticking two fingers up, most ungentlemanly,

still when you deal with urchins, a gentleman has to be polite,
mmm

@22 Yet another!!! commentator who ignores what I said are you a bit of an idiot Mr Malvinero? The first resolution I mentioned was BINDING and insisted your country ignored it and a war ensued, and as for all those other “40” resolutions they invite both parties to find a solution by any means necessary which means sitting down and negotiating. The UK has explained tirelessly that wont happen as the Islanders don't want it and the result will get nowhere. Oh and by the way those resolutions are NON-BINDING, meaning we don't have to talk if we don't want to. If I bring out a resolution that says Argentine must rename itself PinkLand you Argentines don't have to listen.

Marcos - you are fond of links ... wouldn't mind your opinion on this one ?

http://www.cerromercedario.com/2008/03/los-kirchner-durante-los-aos-de.html

26 Seteveu, Repeat it another time? In our Malvinas Islands, the principle of self-determination is not applicable because it is a population (not people in the legal sense) transplanted (and continues to be transplanted if we consider that only 1000? are born in the islands) as the Argentine authorities appointed by the central government in Buenos Aires were expelled and the population was in 1833. This does NOT prescribe. They are not a people distinct from that of the metropolis. Resolution 1514 is for the peoples subjugated by colonialism. Instead what applies in the Malvinas is the principle of territorial integrity, also considered in this resolution, obviously the territorial integrity of Argentina in this case.
Did you know that the prescription has already been taken into account and fully favors to Argentina? England abandoned the islands (the island more properly say Saunders) in 1774 and until 1833 spent 58 or 59 years. And if you dont believe in Possidetis Uti Juris andd to tell the United States because they do believe.
And speaking of the XXI century are good the words of Foreign Minister of Uruguay, Almagro, “The Falklands are a colonial enclave inadmissible” December 2011.

33- Come on -= even a newcomer to mercopress knows the historical facts- as evident from the records held in Buenos Aires and London - that the civilian folk resident in 1833 were NOT evicted - 4 of non Arg origen left of their own free will and all others- including those of Arg origen stayed on - the last one died and buried in Stanley cemetery late 1860s and in some cases their blood still flows in British Falkland Islanders veins.

Argentina needs to be supported by the Latin American region as a block, only then the US will be willing to pay attention to the dispute, only then the UK will sit down to negotiate. Otherwise they will never recover anything.

But before that happens, Argentina needs to stop engaging in all kinds of trade disputes with her partners and friends, they need to understand that in order to get the support of the community she lives in, she has to earn that support by being a good neighbor. Sadly, Argentina has had problems with Uruguay, Chile, trade disputes with Mexico, Peru, Colombia, etc. In Mexico for example, there are some things people remember, for example during the crisis of the Influenza in 2009, Argentina, along with other countries like France and China closed its skies to flights from Mexico, even when our flights were being monitored with high tech medical equipment at each mexican airport during those days to prevent infected people from leaving the country, many mexicans tourists were mistreated in Buenos Aires and had to go to Chile or other countries in order to find a flight back to Mexico. In the US by contrary, the flights and borders remained open the same as always, same happened in many other countries, like the UK for example. Those things weight heavily in our recent memory, specially when Mexico has always opened its doors wide to argentinian emigrants who have chosen Mexico to live and have thrived and assimilated here.

I don´t know how Chileans, Colombians or Peruvians feel about it, I cannot speak on their befalf, but surely it will help a lot if the Argentinian government develops a true friendly relationship with their neighbors and community, and the gather them behind them in their international claim. That will surely paint a different picture that what we see today.

Can somone tell the name of the Argentines expelled in 1833?

I don't know about others, but I don't require the UN's “conscience police” to evidence to me what constitutes a condemnable act.

The Falklands War was a condemnable act. It is the UN who agrees with me, and not me with the UN.

Similarly, the invasion of Iraq was a condemnable act, for the simple fact of being a war of aggession, and worse still a self-admitted “preemptive” act. Which is exactly what the UN was founded to prevent.

The fact the UN did not condemn such war means nothing, since the body that determines the UN's “morality meter” (the security council), is controlled by a few elements which are not representative of the world at large. Those who fall on the UN to differenciate a “good” war from a “bad” one have more fundamental personal mores to impugn.

33 José Malvinero (#)
Jun 20th, 2012 - 11:14 pm

José, you say that the Falkland Islanders are the same as the metropolitan poulation.

You'll find that their language is very disimilar to British English, for example ask an Englishman, or a Welshman, Scot, or Northan Irishman what the following words mean:

Camp; cabresto; recao de bastos; alazán.

There are of course several dozen other words that are used every day on the Islands that have their roots in the Argentine campo, which proves two things:

1) The Falkland Islanders are a distinct people with a distinct culture.
2) That the civilian population in 1833 stayed in the Islands and passed on their criollo terminology to the modern day Islanders.

QED

38 Simon68 The British in Malvinas learned one word, to be honest not even one(campo no camp), so now automatically they are something else, not British. :-)))

It would not matter one iota if every country in South America agreed with CFKC - and they do not - nothing will change. Until and unless the Falkland Islanders wish for a change in status, nothing will change.

I see CFKC is having to run back to her crumbling country to sort out the growing civil unrest and strikes. I predict she will have another 'curled up on the bathroom floor' moment and start bunking off work again. It is amazing how she has the energy for overseas beanos but can't make it into the office.

Nestor, CFK and all their cronies were nowhere in sight in '82 when human rights activists risked their lives to expose the appalling atrocities of the Junta. I'll warrant she and Nestor were dancing in front of the Casa Rosada along with all the other mindless thugs when Galteiri invaded. Now, because they lost, it is not their fault.

Well sorry Missus, but it is your country, you are responsible, and it is your fault. There is no prospect Falkland Islanders will be bullied into submission, and your current behavious is little less reprehensible than Galteiri. And ultimately you will go the same way as him, and we will still be at home, tending the land, caring for the elderly and developing the economy for the next generation of Falkland Islanders.

It is way past time to grow up. All those parts of the world who care at all are laughing at your silly antics.

British lies again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYPHP36sPjg

♪♫ Lieees, la la la la lies. It`s all lies. You´re all lies ♪♫

José Malvinero,
I understand that you consider the people of the Iles Malouines to be “implanted” or “transplanted”. What I and many others do not understand is how Argentina's population is different.

Would I be correct in saying that you think Britain deliberately sends its citizens to the Malouines to enforce sovereignty? What would be your reaction to the proposed referendum if only Malouines-born islanders were allowed to vote?

Just for your information, I think that any non-resident of the Malouines must live there for 7 years before being allowed to vote there. If the UK really is pulling all the strings, they would remove this law and British citizens could move in and vote straight away to keep the islands British. They could have implant 10,000 people to make the population more significant, but they have not done this.

You mentioned the “inadmissible colonial enclave”, could I just take the opportunity to ask you (and anyone else who wants to comment) what you think of French Guyana? How is that different?

...“Argentina should wise up to the fact that after being militarily defeated by the UK thirty years ago it cannot just bully its way back into the Falkland Islands on the basis of a 19th century claim...The world has moved on from old territorial disputes”...

=

...”Yes, Judge, I know my father stole the car at gunpoint years ago and then gave it to me when I turned 18, but it's my car now!! The owner should wise up that after being forced to get out and hand over the keys by my father (and his pistol) 30 years ago he can't just bully his way back into what is now my car!!

Come on, Judge, the world has moved on from such property disputes...”

43 Steve_L What I do not understand is you can not see the difference. It is meaning that Argentina's population is transplanted? I honestly do not understand. If you mean the “myth” of the extinction of the Indian population and “European” Argentina, that makes no sense. A country that promoted immigration is not a country of immigrants.
My reaction on the referndum is absolutely void for not having the slightest value, whether the vote of the 8 or 9 generations as the English born in England. In any case should be made to the Argentine vote if they want to “lose” definitely the Malvinas or not.
I can not speak much French Guyana. I care about the Malvinas. Not that I care about Guyana, but I read something about the Malvinas and not Guyana. Although probably another case of “inadmissible colonial enclave” is a hindrance of French colonialism with its strategic interests in the region and certainly anachronistic.

@43 Steve maybe I can answer better:

“I understand that you consider the people of the Iles Malouines to be “implanted” or “transplanted”. What I and many others do not understand is how Argentina's population is different.”

Certainly, those who reside in modern-day Argentina are descended by and large from people “implanted” in the Americas by Spain. The distinction, from the Argentine viewpoint, is that Spain's domain - the Viceroyalty of the River Plate - exercised authority over the islands. The objection, in addition to a British usurpation of territories administered and populated by the Viceroyalty up to 1816 - and after 1816 by the United Provinces - lies in that the inhabitants and settlers who arrived and lived there under the auspices of Spain or the United Provinces (that is, culturally hispanic) have been replaced by a foreign, culturally British population. Their descendants, obviously pro-British, today pretend to restate their opinions in a referendum, as if this cultural difference or political preference did not exist at all or were somehow balanced by different internal point of view.

I think you will agree, islanders are largely homogenous in their perspectives on the issue of sovereignty - there is no need for Britain to implant more people, as the number already on the ground seems sufficient to support their position and give them talking points to ensure a continuing British usurpation.

As for French Guiana, France ended its dispute of sovereignty peacefully over that territory with Portugal in 1814 by treaty - something that Britain to this day refuses to do.

@46 Yes and Argentina and the UK signed the Arana Southern Treaty in 1850. Argentina gave up her claim on the Falklands by signing this treaty. Also how can you inherit Spain's claim, when Spain didn't give up their claim until the 1860's?

This is sad sad sad, and clearly stupendously desperate:

Diplomats from the Argentinian embassy in London invited senior representatives from Plaid Cymru for talks in the past six months.


Elfyn Llwyd MP, the Westminster leader of the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru party, met two senior Argentinian diplomats for coffee.


Mr Llwyd confirmed the meeting had taken place, but he said he firmly rebuffed the approach to join Argentina’s campaign.


He told The Daily Telegraph that he had “no interest” in helping the South American country with its battle to win support for its claim to the islands.


He said: “I expressed no interest in getting involved in this fraught matter. They were trying to get me to introduce them to sympathetic MPs.”

48 Gwych! Let's help the Welsh to gain independence. :-)
Taflwch y saeson allan.
They can learn the Welsh language again(not from me) from Argentina.

Marcos, you define the word “arse”!

...............But while you are at it, lets help the S.American native indian populations (whats left of them after your historically documented murderous campaigns against them) get their own independant states!!!

Would you agree that would fair marcos??? Will you answer my question????

Give Argentina back to the natives and send all the Italian immigrants home! How stupid does that sound? Well that is Malvinsta logic applied to Argentina. Now lets just try and enjoy the rest of the 21st century shall we!

http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/two-faced-at-the-un-decolonization-committee/

Round and round we go .... :-)

50 ”pig headed arrogant tit” What's the question?
Look, we fight about politics, women, football and many other things, but never about our national integrity. That's not even an issue here. This is Argentina and South America not “not so United” Kingdom nor Europe.

'Diplomatic Circus' ... the journalist, Jimmy Burns has captioned the essence of Argentina's folly in those two simple words ... no less than brilliant :)

@46: so you claim the distinction is that South America hadn't been claimed by anyone else so it's ok for you to be implanted there? I think certain tribes might disagree with you there.

@46

Yet again, the British didn't “usurp” anything. The facts:

1) Britain “shared” sovereignty with the French
2) Britain “shared” sovereignty with the Spanish
3) By 1811 there were no civilian population on the islands
4) Between 1811-1826 the islands were used only as a harbour for ships going round the Horn or through the Magellan Straits
5) in 1828 Luis Vernet set up a small civilian private enterprise having received permission from both Argentina/VRP and the UK
6) in October 1832, Argentina/VRP attempted to usurp the islands by setting up a penal colony. This was not a civilian population but a 20 strong military force, who mutinied, murdered their Captain and raped his wife.
7) in January 1833, this group was removed, by Captain Onslow and the crew of HMS Clio and the Vernet community invited to stay.

There never has been an Argentine civilian population on the islands.

2 Marcos Alejandro

I assume you know you are quoting a KGB agent rather than a member of the British establishment?

Marcos, I made a bet with myself and won it! thanks for being so predictable!

hehe you are a twit!

Marcos - so you are prepared to fight about football but not your national integrity. So I assume that this is why you lot don't actually do anything about the Falkland Islands and i therefore imagine you will cease the ineffective yapping?

How many USD can you buy today?

Just like the German people supported the Nazis, an overwhelming majority of Argentinians supported their Facist war in 1982.
They are all guilty and should have been made to pay a much heavier price than they did. Still, there's always next time.

@ 57 idlehands

he knows nothing!!!

A few weeks ago in a TV interview in London , the ambassador ( sic ) of Argentina replied to the self determination argument by saying “ The people of Chubut couldn't just decide one day to become part of China , so the people of the islands cannot decide to govern themselves ”.
This telling comment demonstrates two things ;
1 ) She doesn't know the first thing about international law , because they could and they ( the Falklanders ) can
2 ) Argentina could break up as a sovereign state quite easily .The provinces have already had to print their own money on occasion , because central govt has stolen , sorry , “ borrowed” whatever was in the national treasury for their own use and to prop up a totally failed economy .
The oil rich south could quite easily break away and then the rest of the country would simply follow .
What argentine politicians fail to understand is that by keeping the vast majority of the people beneath the poverty line , they are having to subsidise them all the time , by controlling the price of oil , foodstuffs and public transport .This means that oil and farming are nowhere near as productive as they should be , which depresses Argentina's export earnings , and public transport is an enormous drain on public finances. Hence , the place is always broke .
Current political thinking in the country is totally against neo liberal policies as espoused by Menem in the 90's , preferring instead this ruinous socialist status quo . Soy bean exports have put a brake on the decline , but they haven't stopped it , and soy bean production has hit it's peak.
To take Argie minds off things , the govt of the day constantly brings up the great injustice of what the English ( never the British) did in deciding to occupy and keep the Falklands ( which they , or the Dutch , or the French found years before Argentina even existed ).
Jimmy Burns is absolutely right .Grow up and move on , it's nothing but a cancer eating at your insides.

I'd recommend reading Burn's book. It is a very good read - one of the better ones I've read on the conflict and different from the usual perspective.

One I can't recommend is Too Few Too Far by Malcolm Angel. It's about the initial defence of South Georgia. 200 pages about getting to the place and then a short firefight at the end. While interesting there wasn't enough material to turn it into an entire book.

Jose Malvinero ... Your “ transplanted ” argument is really the most ridiculous thing I have heard in ages .
If we move the clock back to 1833 , the native americans outnumbered then predominantly spanish settlers by 100 to 1 throughout what then became Argentina ( which didn't exist at the time ) .
The immigrants were not invited , they took the land by force , so I wouldn't push the transplant argument too far in the UN or the the rest of Lat Am .

@22: ”that the war (not caused by La Argentina)” Really? So you think invading a country isn't a cause?

Thanks for the replies. The difference still looks pretty slim to me and it really irks me that so many Argentines either do not know anything about the islanders or choose to ignore and distort the reality. Still, it's better than racist insults.

Hermes, all I'll say for now is, I am not sure why you think the islanders choose to remain British simply because they are of mostly British descent. The Spanish colonists in Argentina did not choose to remain Spanish. British colonists in New Zealand did not choose not to remain British. They all made a choice.

I do not usually make comments about other countries but I think that seeing that Argentina is always making trouble when it comes to commenting on the country that has elected me as Prime Minister I thought that I would make this comment the exception, and give Christina a timely word of advice.

Argentines bang pots and pans in protest against president.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18460099

If I may give a word of advice madam, President, when your people come out and protest like your people are doing then you have to sit up and listen and not bury your head in the sand. You do not make your country or any other country for that matter strong by letting inflation run away like your inflation is doing you have to get it under control. You have to deal with all corruption that you have by first finding and then prosecuting all perpetrators in your Government.

There is so much more advice that I give to you if only you would let me. Britain did not get to be what it is by being weak in both these departments.

Dave

Dear Dave

We feel humble that you have graced us with your presence.

Would you like a biscuit?

@33 You can do whatever you like in “your” Malvinas Islands. If you can find them. List all the people “expelled” in 1833. You may find their names in your military records. As they were all members of the illegal garrison. And no, England didn't abandon the Islands. Britain evacuated the settlement. A major difference. “Possidetis uti juris” isn't a “law”, it's a principle. And argieland doesn't “do” principles. The “Foreign Minister of Uruguay”. So? My Auntie Lil says OUR Falkland Islands are NOT a colonial enclave. Same relevance.
@35 On the day that the Falkland Islanders want to throw away their freedom, they will ask the UK to negotiate. And the UK will respect their wishes. Just how long do you think that's going to take?
@37 Really? So, in 1982, you stood up publicly and said that the invasion of the Falkland Islands was wrong. And you did that before 3 April. Proof?
@39 They have British nationality. WE say so.
@42 You need to do better. I NEVER follow your links.
@45 If you can't understand that a country whose official language is foreign to that of the continent on which it exists must be a transplanted population, you need some serious help. And don't forget that your “constitution” promotes immigration by a specific racial type.
@46 Why is it that people like you cannot see further back than around 1800? A few dates: 1690 First BRITISH landing. No sign of Spain. 1765 BRITISH sovereignty. No sign of Spain. 1770 Spain BUYS French settlement. Nothing else. Then tries to force BRITISH population off. By 1771 BRITAIN is back. Spain is returning everything seized and making restitution. So, in 1776, we popped out because we had something else to do. So what? If I pop around to your home, wait until you go out and then move in, is that OK with you?

46
So you agree Argentinians are an implanted population.
In that case are Argentinians entitled to a right of self determination?

65 Boovis : We the Brits caused the war of '82 by de-militarizing the islands . The Thatcher government announced it was going to scrap the Endurance , and the Argentine junta took that as a sign of weakness and attacked .
You see, you cannot reason with Argentines . If we reduce the garrison , we've lost interest and it's an excuse to invade. If you keep it at current levels , or send the Duke of cambridge down to drive helicopters on SAR missions , you are “ militarising the South Atlantic ”.
They condemn their past military dictatorships , but they are all equally fanatical nationalists who couldn't give a fig about other people's human rights .

70 Englander (#)
Jun 21st, 2012 - 11:08 am

As a matter of a fact the Argentine population does not have self determination, as long as the majority of the electorate lives below the poverty level and is dependent on government hand-outs the peronist demagogues, whether they be socialists or facists, will win all elections.

Right now Kretina was voted in by a real majority of 36%, meaning that 64% of the electorate has no self determination.

@23 Marcos Alejandro (#)
Jun 20th, 2012 - 10:26 pm

Malvinistas do not possess the level of patience required to see the day that Falkland Islanders so much as like you, let alone trust you and allow you to govern them. Big fat daddy patience would be centuries of building friendship, co-operation and trust. You don't have it in you.

It seems that you can never agree on things as long as we look at it from two differently written histories,

The fact is, whilst the British, and most of the world read from factual historical events, and documentation,

Most brainwashed people, know only what they have been taught from childhood,

To us the truth is very important, [but not always adhered to]

To CFK and her cohorts, the truth is an irrelevance and the bible of fools,
Is this not true,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As long as indoctrinated people, refuse to listen or learn the truth,
Then they will always be controlled and subjugated to government influences.

Argentina has no claims, now or ever,
And all this is to divert from the fact, her own country is collapsing from the inside out,
So all this anti British crap, is of her making, and her peoples will only suffer,

All she will give Argentina is a bad name bad reputation, no trust and no respect,
And until she is either removed by her government or the people, Argentina will sink into the abyss
Of self destruction.
Poor CFK she is melting fast than an ice cream,
mmmmmmm

.just a thought

@57 Idlehands (#)
Jun 21st, 2012 - 06:12 am

Allegedly. Gott denies it. EIther way, quoting a British anti establishmentarian is hardly the set that won the match.

It does remind me a bit of North Koreans who really do believe they live in the finest socialist utopia on Earth and that every other nation envys them.

With apologies for going totally off subject, I couldn't resist putting up this link:

http://www.rionegro.com.ar/diario/el-hombre-al-que-salvaron-dos-mochileros-ingleses-901393-9544-nota.aspx

This is for all the rabid anti-Brit malvinistas, and for anyone else who understands Spanish and is interested in the experiences of a man who was temporally “disapeared.”

I wonder what happened to Helen?

78 Idlehands (#)

I wondered the same thing, perhaps she and Malcolm are still together, but “Perico” Rodriguez forgot to mention her.

@69

Are you British or dummer than sawdust?

Do you find the Nazis execrable? Prove it! Show me pictures of YOU physically protesting on Kristallnacht. If you weren't there, you are a nazi sympathizer.

No, the only valid evidence is you being there at the book burning protesting.

Why does anyone need to show TIT and his fellow morons any evidence when they cant even read a history book ....or especially in Marcos case, cant respond to a simple question. No need to prove shite to any of you simians.....go hang from a tree TIT, and pick the fleas form your comrades anal hair! You aint getting falklands, and .......... i still believe you are a cowardly MF! Go on TIT spank me with your bullshit! Please please please come spank me grand master simian!!!!

@80

It's logic, Jim, but not as we know it.

Hey TIT, Marcos and Malv.....why arent you commenting on:

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/21/cristina-fernandez-forced-to-return-to-address-a-three-day-teamsters-strike#comments

You guys usually have something (shite to say) but funny how you are being

Personal attacks, refuge of the misanthropes. Gobs of them here.

It is not worth trying to discuss this issue with Argentines. They are brainwashed from Junior School onwards. If you discuss this individually you will find they can be sympathetic and understanding of the Islanders position - but not in public - too risky.

Watching current events, why would the civilized ,peace loving, prosperous,hard-working Falklanders, want to have anything to do with the unstable,failing,deluded, Republic of Argentina?

“... risks sinking back into a failed and mistrusted state”

Risks? It is a bit late worrying about risks when that 'risk' has long-since become a reality that leaves Argentina as a mistrusted and friendless fascist laughingstock.

@80 Sorry, dimmo. I hadn't been born. See? Me not responsible. In fact, under UK law, I am not responsible for anything before mid-1967. But ALL argies are responsible for EVERYTHING. Because there isn't one of you, well, maybe ONE, that doesn't persist in your attitudes.
@84 Yes. You do make a lot of personal attacks, don't you? Any shame yet?

@46 the Arana Southern Treaty was signed between Britain and an extra-constitutional dictator (who, curiously, when finally desposed fled to England - I
wonder why). If the 1982 invasion was illegal, because the actions of an extra-constitutional dictator carry no force of law, then the 1850 treaty is
equally devoid of law. Of course, nowadays Britain can't have such blatantly obvious political puppets, nor employ such egregious double standards
in its relations with Argentina (although it does try). But the fact that Britain made a deal with a criminal is of no import to the issue, and would be
as void as Spain entering into contract with John Bradshaw during interregnum and considering the same valid after Restoration. It works the same in Britain
as it does in Argentina: TREATIES SIGNED BY ILLEGITIMATE AUTHORITIES ARE NULL AND VOID.

@50 Brit - let's see you backing the aussie aborigenes's sovereignty and “self determination” with such passionate fervor! What about
the Chagos people, forgot about them already eh? A little royal decree, some sweeping under the carpet...oh no but us Argies are the real colonial
monsters here! Double standard, mate...

@56 you are woefully misinformed - if your point #2 Britain “shared” with Spain, very well I suggest you familiarize yourself with why and how
that came about and the LIMITED nature of British property on the islands as a result of that treaty - and the lack of any such limits upon Britain's
return in 1833.

@60 you are incredibly ignorant if you think Britain's own Nazi movement wasn't every bit as large as Argentina's - ever heard of the British Movement?
Does the November 9th Society ring a bell? NF? League of Saint George? Take the twig out of your own eye first before you criticize.

@65 the islands are NOT A COUNTRY. Not even under British law, you are now a commonwealth republic, you are not a commonwealth realm - you are an overseas territory under British Law. Be truthful!

@33 Thanks for your answer Jose - we'll just park that issue for a minute

Where do you stand on sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands? Which historical facts and legal principles do you use to support this?

The “continental shelf” argument (I'll stop you before you before you try use it) is going to be tenuous as the islands are about as far from Argentina as Morocco is from the UK. They are also not part of any recognised Antarctic Treaty - they are too far North

The Arana Southern Treaty is perfectly valid under international law.

@66 Steve, just what are we distorting?

It seems abundantly clear islanders have an intransigent cultural preference towards a British identity - that's a distortion? Spanish colonists in Argentina did not choose to remain Spanish, for obvious reasons - however, culturally, they continued Spanish customs, used Spanish language, etc, thereafter developing a cultural heritage and identity of their own. I don't think this has happened on the islands, rather, that the culture in the islands represents somewhat of a microcosm of what used to be a maintstream British culture devoid of foreigners and now long gone from Britain itself.

Certainly, I could see why you'd wish to protect that - however, I believe there are separate issues of territorial sovereignty on the one hand and self-determination on the other, for I am yet to find anything in the UN Charter that states self-determination implies the right to change history.

@67 David Cameron? “Bollocks”

@69 Ok Conqueror here's the list you asked for:

Joaquin Acuña
Juana Acuña
Mateo Gonzalez
Marica Gonzalez
Jose Viel
Juan Quedy
Francisco Ferreyra
Maria Rodríguez
Anastaria Romero
Encarnación Alvarez
Carmen Benítez
Transita Gonzalez and her son (unnamed in the records)

and of course, the deposed governor, Jose María Pinedo

(I guess their right to self-determination didn't count for shyte - but that's ok because they spoke Spanish, right?)

BY THE WAY, I can see much further back, in fact back to 1771 when BY TREATY Britain's possesion on the island was limited to ONLY the “port and fort of egmont”, with many an MP howling mad about that territorial limitation. Fast forward to 1833, Britain then claims its former possession includes the WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO!!

Why?? Because it left a plaque?? So did Spain!!

Was the British plaque of reservation somehow better, more special than its Spanish counterpart? Was this a a magical plaque??

Was it forged at Hogwart's???

Do tell - I've yet to hear a cogent answer.

@71 “they are all equally fanatical nationalists who couldn't give a fig about other people's human rights” funny, I am yet to see a single
British trooper on the ground in Haiti. MAJ Foremand doesn't count, he was on temporary assignment to Canada and was deployed from there, not
from MoD. Nice try.

@92 The Spanish claim was inherited from the French and, as I understand it, there were conditions imposed about what would happen if Spain no longer exercised its claim by leaving the islands - which, of course they did. This leaves the British claim as the only one left on the table.

As Gordo rightly points out the 1850 treaty draws a line under the discussion anyway

@94 If Spain's departure invalidates the exercise of its claim, this implies its plaque bears no force of exercise. So, again, in order for that to make sense such that the United Provinces cannot inherit this territory from the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, you must explain by what mechanism or concept the Spanish plaque fails to reserve sovereignty while the British one does.

And as I've pointed out before, the 1850 treaty was a treaty signed between Britain and an outlaw who ruled an extra-constitutional government. His every action is devoid of legal standing, as is every other action of every other illegitimate government both in Argentina and in Britain's history as well.

The 1850 treaty is, upon Rosas' defeat, devoid of any legal standing whatsoever, in EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER as any act or treaty by John Bradshaw, Oliver Cromwell, or the Rump Parliament, were after restoration. THE ACTIONS OF ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTS CARRY NO FORCE OF LAW - I KNOW THIS IS NOT A FOREIGN CONCEPT TO YOU. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

And I want to know why then in 1816 after United Provinces declare independence Britain sent letter of congratulations and, Britain KNEW the united provinces claimed inheritance over ALL territories before under the spanish viceroyalty AND united provinces had its citizens AND military people on the islands AND SAID NOTHING!!

No complaint, just congratulations on your independence, etc etc then comes 1833 and all of a sudden “it's ours, get out”. Bullcrap. Don't talk about 1850, talk about Britain's silence in 1816!!!

@95 Now that's just sophistry - you are basically saying that agreements have no validity if the regime changes. From the Argentine maps from the time and the lack of serious claims for 90 years - someone must have believed it held sway. In those days Argentina was more concerned at being a serious rival to the US than pursuing far-fetched territorial ambitions. Please explain to me how South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands are “Argentine”?

@92

Indeed, so you list is 12 people. Well, strangely my list is nearer 30. That is 26 people who arrived in October 1832 and 4 of the Vernet community who elected to go.

So, the evicted indigenous population amounted to between 12 and 26 people, 90% of whom had been there for only 3 months.

Pinedo was their governor you say, excellent. but he wasn't the captain of the ship that arrived in October 1832 was he? That was Esteban Mestivier. What happened to him? Was he murdered by the same people you list? Was his wife brutally raped in front of her children?

So, in the three months that the 12-26 Argentine folk (we now agree) were on the islands, they managed murder and rape. Quite an achievement, clearly worthy of sovereignty 180 years later...versus a 340 year claim of the British, with thousands of inhabitants happy to be so.

Thanks for you input.

3 months of murdering rapists versus 340 years of varying levels of community and sovereignty claim, the last 180 years of which unbroken...except for more Argentine violence.

Was it one of this 12 who planted CFKs turnip, sometime when they weren't raping or murdering?

I omitted military personnel from the list as they were not settlers, as their inclusion would not be fair. We're talking about civilians being kicked out, civilians being denied the very rights of self-determination now claimed by islanders of British origin or descent, which their Argentine predecessors and their progeny were denied under threat of overwhelming military force in 1833. These are islander civilians whose own descendants will be EXCLUDED from next year's referendum, islander civilians whose own wish didn't count.

That's the issue, is it not?

“Elected to go”?? That's funny. A military force invades, lays claim to territories not its own (according to Britain's own historical records), implies use of overwhelming military force if opposed...oh but the islanders “elected” to go. I should wonder, if Argentina presented such an “election” to islanders today, if they would call it that. Your euphemisms are quite amusing!

Mestevier wasn't murdered by the same people I list, but by members of his own crew. It's called “mutiny” and the sort of historical event not limited to vessels of the Argentine Navy. Does HMS Bounty ring a bell?

Besides, you want to talk about sovereignty derived from periods of murder and rape? Australia, South Africa, India....take your pick!! CFK is irrelevant, as were the actions of anyone BUT the returning British in 1833.

The ONLY British property on the islands when the British left in 1776 (as documented by contemporary records including Commons sessions) were the

“PORT AND FORT OF EGMONT”

and when Britain returned it claimed sovereignty over the whole archipelago.

SO AGAIN - by what magical process does this happen?? How do you explain that the British position implies that a British plaque reserves sovereignty while a Spanish one does not??

I have NEVER, EVER received a straight answer to this, and I never will - because your entire endeavour is to defend the indefensible: theft.

@99
Your entire country is built on the same principle though isn't it Mr Hermes? Theft?

in fact back to 1771 when BY TREATY Britain's possesion on the island was limited

[there was NO treaty in 1771]

@92 hermes1967
These names are described in various documentation, but residents were not evicted, Vernet logged those involved in his financial ventures and none of those people were removed.

@99
And at the same time spainish envoys and diplomats stayed in the falklands for 6 weeks before visiting argentina. It was recognition all round.
The plaque - briton discovered and first set foot on the islands (no one had previousily). Britain mapped and claimed the islands and as was the way of things at the time (I bet i would be the same even now if the world were a much much much bigger place with new discoveries to be made... and they are in other fields of endeavour). It was not spanish, it was not french, or dutch, it was british and it still is.
Theft. what are you talking about, the whole of south america was stolen from the amerindians, don't think that just because you are nolonger spanish that the sins of your ancestors no longer count. The spanish conquistadors were a bloodthirsty lot. Your argument is weaker that a Lipton teabag after 11 uses.

@97 sophistry, I don't think so. Look at British history, the concept is just as sound. I suggest you inform yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/Restoration-Charles-Kingdoms-1660-1685-ebook/dp/B002RI9EU0, pp47:

“Constitutionally, it was as if the last nineteen years had never happened”.

Both in Britain and in Argentina, the same holds true: no action of any extra-constitutional government holds any force of law whatsoever. The reason why Anglicanism, not Puritanism, is Britain's religion today, is the exact same reason why Argentina (or the United Provinces) never ceded an inch of Malvinas territory.

Don't mistake: we didn't give - you simply took.

@101 “[there was NO treaty in 1771]”

Really? Then what's this?

http://www.amazon.com/Restoration-Charles-Kingdoms-1660-1685-ebook/dp/B002RI9EU0,

read it yourself, pp 329-330:

“...his Catholick Majesty shallk give orders...to one of his Officers, to deliver...the Port and Fort of Egmont, as also all his Britannick Majesti's
artillery, stores, and effects, as well as those of his subjects, according to the inventory which has been made of them...”

What's more, MP William Dowdeswell clearly states the contemporary BRITISH interpretation of this joint declaration and its LIMITING implication for British possessions on the archipelago:

http://www.amazon.com/Restoration-Charles-Kingdoms-1660-1685-ebook/dp/B002RI9EU0,

pp. 279

“...you have been graciously pleased to accept a PART: you take Port and Fort Egmont, reserving to the Spaniards the rest of the island...”

THIS IS THE WHOLE OF BRITISH POSSESSION ON THE ARCHIPELAGO, FROM 1771 TO ITS DEPARTURE IN 1776, with a plaque left in reservation of these rights.

So, again - by what magical process does Britain EXPAND this possession to include the WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO upon its return in 1833????

@102 - wrong, Francisco de Ribera discovered them on 4 Feb. 1540. Both our ancestors have sinned, lipton teabag?? Let not the pot call the kettle black.

@102 “what are you talking about, the whole of south america was stolen from the amerindians” oh yes you mean like Australia like Canada like South Africa right?

No, no - I get it the logic: when you do it it's ok, because you're British - but when anyone else does it, f*ck them. Good point!

Perhaps we're getting a bit off topic.

The truth is that there has been a long and well-documented history of violence both by Britain as well as by Argentina (and Spain). To me, the primary difference between the British/Islander and Argentine position is that Argentina accepts history for what it is in the acknowledgement that we are powerless to change it, while the British and Islander positions seek to either change history as it sees fit (Britain discovered, they were always British, there was no 1771 treaty, etc etc as we have just seen a few comments above) to bolster its point of view.

I am yet to find a passage of the UN Charter which states the right to self-determination equals the right to change history. If upon Britain's return in 1833 they had limited themselves to their former property in the “port and fort of Egmont” there would be no problem today. Instead it chose to usurp the whole archipelago, offering no explanation and implying the use of military power.

To defend that unconscionable act is to defend the violent ways of our ancestors. Argentina has chosen a more civilized and noble path, one of peaceful negotiation through proper diplomatic channels. Islanders who oppose this process, in my personal opinion, are complicit in that unjust act of usurpation so many years ago (it would be quite another thing to just simply say ”this happened long before I came along, and my only interest is that justice is carried out).

Negotiation can lead to a leaseback arrangement. It could lead to territorial partition on the basis of the 1771 treaty (i.e. ”Argentina could never inherit that part which Spain didn't own). It could even lead to cession by Argentina following restitution, or the islands' own declaration of independence, or a free associated state.

There's a THOUSAND ways it could be resolved amicably with all 3 parties coming away satisfied - none involve islanders speaking Spanish or driving on the right - all involve negotiation.

91 Gordo1 “The Arana Southern Treaty is perfectly valid under international law”
The English invasions of 1806/1807/1833 and 1845 are not.

@105 “There's a THOUSAND ways it could be resolved amicably with all 3 parties coming away satisfied - none involve islanders speaking Spanish or driving on the right - all involve negotiation.”

But the '82 invasion and CFK's antics have poisoned the well for the foreseeable future - there is now no trust in Argentina by the Islanders - as one commentator prosaically noted, “it's like someone who raped your wife 30 years ago being asked if they can do it again” - lest we forget what the islanders went through, I would refer you to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFs7TXIQRag.

Some kind of agreement as you suggest possibly might have happened in the '60's - mainly motivated by practical considerations - but now Argentina has enshrined its territorial claim into its constitution and Britain insists that the present occupants of the islands have the final say on how they're governed so the negotiations are going to be quite short - you could say that the G20 encounter is pretty much it. Any British PM who reneges on the Falklands will be signing his defeat at the next general election.

@103/105
I love the way you came up with unreasoned and inaccurate arguments for Mr Musky and Mr Briton, yet you had nothing to say about Argentine being a colonially created country in my comment. You have no right to insult the UK's colonial past when your country was created by colonialism Mr Hermes1967.

@108 Ok Conor so where's your criticism of Australia? Of Canada? Of South Africa? It's your blatant double standard that makes your position unjust. I don't insult the UK's colonial past, I only call it out for what it is - I freely ACCEPT the past in the knowledge that it cannot be, nor should be changed, as I acknowledge that Spain's actions were equally brutal, as were Portugal's and most every other european crown.

My criticism is, if you had read my comments, not of colonialism in general but of the British usurpation of territories in 1833 that went beyond the ONLY property Britain had on the islands when it withdrew in 1776: the “port and fort of Egmont” (see link to text above).

What is unreasoned? What is innacurate? Your comment is heavy in accusation and light on specifics, while I provided primary sources - records of Commons, no less.

@107 I would agree, and don't blame them - but likewise would remind them that the perpetrators formed part of an extra-constitutional government. Still, Ireland's hate for Cromwell persists to this day so I wouldn't expect much understanding form them, I would only say those criminals are now either dead or in jail. Indeed, such an agreement was very close to completion as Richard Gott recently pointed out

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands

“...An item in the Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document of 1940 entitled ”Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina and to agree to a lease-back“. Though its title survives, the document itself has been embargoed until 2015...”

However, it's clear by now that both parties have become absolutely intransigent beyond all reason. Capitulation on the issue would be tantamount to political suicide for either executive, what is needed is a pair of strong executives on both sides of the pond. Nonetheless, the RG constitutional mandate is “restitution” - not “permanent restitution”.

@109
I hold no regrets for what my countries empire did nor to I hold regrets for what any other country did, my point is that it is incredible that you can complain and you leaders in LatAm, about colonialism and how Britain allegedly stole “las Malvinas” when Argentine and all of South America is stolen. See my point? A country created by colonialism has no right to complain about it.

So we should cease to acknowledge historical fact then?

Should we then abandon a moral viewpoint and declare ourselves to adhere to your policy that “might makes right”? Is that what you would prefer, an attempt of Argentine military action once or twice every generation until it finally takes?

No, Conor - wrong is wrong, no matter who does it, us or you. And while both our histories are certainly dark, I will remind you that British history is a lot darker for a lot longer. So YES I WILL complain about the wrongs done to Argentina, just as forcefully as the wrongs done to the Chagos people. If a country created by colonialism has no right to complain about it, this means the world does not change - it does not move forward; no one can regret the mistakes of the past, or more importantly, take steps to make amends.

This is not a vision of the world I share, and I will oppose it everywhere I see it. See my point?

@11 Conor, war is not the answer. I can be critical of Argentina's own colonialist history with just as much force as I can be critical of any other colonial power or brutality.

If one can't recognize the mistakes made by others in the past, how can one make things right? How can you ensure justice and a lasting peace? You can't. I am very sorry to say, I respect your viewpoint but we obviously have two very different ways of looking at the world, in that you are very aggressive and militaristic when the truth is all that is being asked of you is that you right a longstanding wrong, amicably and through the proper diplomatic channels - and yes, without detriment to the islanders or their way of life, which could be secured through terms.

Of course, no terms can be reached without negotiation, and no negotiation is needed when you think it's better to point a gun at someone. I don't know why but there are people all over the world who think just like you, they all learn that when you point a gun at someone they usually end up pointing one back at you (and usually you learn the lesson too late to make a difference in life).

Argentina rejects this militarism, maybe this makes us weak but it does make us civilized. We regret the violence of the past and move towards making amends - you do not.

@112
Mr Malvinas with all due respect as a gentleman but, Don't pull that innocent shite with a Scots-Irishmen like me! Im not militaristic! I made the point that I hold no regrets because the modern world wouldn't exist. You want to right some wrongs regarding the Falklands and their “takeover”? Pack your bags and give up your land to the nearest native and come home to Europe were you belong, after all your implanted aren't you?

Gun point? You invaded the island and held children at gun point in 82, your the ones who dragged my country into a war for no bloody reason. Other then to live up to some indoctrinated form a young age nationalist crap. Why do you think the Islanders don't want to talk to you? You play the innocent card and then you forget history.
“all that is being asked of you is that you right a longstanding wrong, amicably and through the proper diplomatic channels” we have explained time and time again the history of the islands and you lot can seem to understand.

Put it this way; Even if Britain’s claims were unjustified, and we allegedly “stole” the islands how can Argentine complain? If Argentina steals a whole house and then Britain allegedly steals the bench outside who is the real thief? Especially when the bench never belonged to anyone while the house did, (cough natives cough-cough). You have no rights, you have no claim, you have nothing to take them with. You are a colonially created people complaining about colonialism, Irony?????

You still don't seem to get it. If Argentina steals a whole house and then Britain steals the bench outside it, BOTH ARE THIEVES!! Let Argentina return what it stole and let Britian do the same. So let's use your analogy:

You claim the bench “never belonged to anyone” when you know full well there were PEOPLE SITTING ON THAT BENCH WHEN YOU SHOWED UP AND FLASHED YOUR PISTOL. Plus the treaty referenced above certainly documents that only PART of the bench belonged to Britain when it left, when Britain returned it claimed the WHOLE BENCH as its own. So tell me another one!

Now as far as the larger argument is concerned, saying “no regrets because the modern world wouldn't exist otherwise” is not your only point, because that point bears implications. I can refer to a historical event as someone who lived in a future time and say “I accept” what happened as true, likewise I can say it would be unfair to jugde those people back then by a modern or more evolved moral standard. But this is not what you're saying.

What you are doing is assigning a specific outcome a moral equivalence that justifies it. By your own standard, had the nazis won WW2, Germans today could also look back at the holocaust and say “I hold no regrets because the modern world wouldn't exist.”

Yes, we invaded the island in 1982, and you invaded in 1833 (and children were present as well). The bloody reason is because you had 149 bloody years to resolve the issue peacefully and you decided the way of the gun was the better way. And when they got a chance, a few of the worst elements of our society decided they liked the way of the gun too, and they did what they did.

@113 Conor,

You say “we have explained time and time again the history of the islands and you lot can seem to understand” ok then HUMOR ME MATE and explain HOW IS IT POSSIBLE...

.....when the ONLY British property on the islands when it withdrew in 1776 was the “PORT AND FORT OF EGMONT”....

....does Britain return in 1833 and claim sovereignty over THE WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO.

SHOULD BE REALLY SIMPLE!! Read my post #103 above, look at the BRITISH SOURCES if you don't believe me, and explain (apparently once again?) how a SINGLE British possession on the islands, understood by British contemporary sources to be limited to Egmont, SUDDENLY AND MIRACULOUSLY EXPANDS TO INCLUDE THE WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO when you return in 1833.

I await to hear the ridiculousness that will ensue. Britain left a plaque asserting its rights when it withdrew. So did Spain. In order for Britain to take over Spain's territory, it would mean the British plaque reserved sovereignty while the Spanish one did not.

And here again we come to the question of this magical plaque forged in Hogwarts, that miraculously expands your territories while rendering your neighbour's possessions dead to rights by virtue of you having bigger guns (otherwise known as “territorial usurpation”).

BUT I'M SURE you must have a much more cogent and reasonable explanation as to why, when Britain returned in 1833, it laid claim to the whole archipelago instead of simply taking charge of the last property it held before its withdrawal (Egmont).

Do tell!

Yet again another implanted european colonial who thinks he is something else.
You sir are ignorant, in 1833 Britain returned to the islands that it had claimed as far back as the 1690's, long before Argentine's existence. We removed a penal colony that your newly found Independent country set up without permission, however we let many of the implanted Argentines stay, this info can be found online for more detail, you lot fail to except it. As I said before you have no right to complain about colonialism when you were created by it!
Arg: “WE HATE COLONIALISM, UK OUT OF MALVINAS!!”
Uk: You were created by colonialism.
ARG: “THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!”

“Plus the treaty referenced above certainly documents that only PART of the bench belonged to Britain when it left, when Britain returned it claimed the WHOLE BENCH as its own. So tell me another one!” and “You still don't seem to get it. If Argentina steals a whole house and then Britain steals the bench outside it, BOTH ARE THIEVES!!”-----You stole an entire continent, the house has previous ownership moron! The Bench did not, uninhabited, the UK set up a small civilisation there that is the best place to live in all of the South America/Atlantic area.

“The bloody reason is because you had 149 bloody years to resolve the issue peacefully and you decided the way of the gun was the better way.” I think you will find it was a fascist dictatorship who killed 30,000 of your on people, to distract the amount of anguish and opposition to it.

“By your own standard, had the nazis won WW2, Germans today could also look back at the holocaust and say “I hold no regrets because the modern world wouldn't exist.”” Colonialism and genocide are to fundamentally different things, European Imperialism created entire countries on every corner of the Globe, The Nazis exterminated 6 million people for racial prejudice.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, “You are a colonially created people complaining about colonialism, Irony??”

NO SIR IT IS NOT I THAT IS IGNORANT OF BRITISH HISTORY IT IS YOU.

THE RECORD IS QUITE CLEAR. READ MY POST 103 AND CRITICIZE THE SOURCES IF YOU WISH, BUT THE DOCUMENTS ARE THERE, THEY ARE PART OF BRITISH HISTORY IN BLACK AND WHITE AND AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE HISTORY, YOU CANNOT.

I WILL REPOST BELOW FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE:

books.google.com/books?id=Ab8sAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

pp 329-330

“...his Catholick Majesty shallk give orders...to one of his Officers, to deliver...the Port and Fort of Egmont, as also all his Britannick Majesti's
artillery, stores, and effects, as well as those of his subjects, according to the inventory which has been made of them...”

What's more, MP William Dowdeswell clearly states the contemporary 1771 BRITISH interpretation of this joint declaration and its LIMITING implication for British possessions on the archipelago:

books.google.com/books?id=VxsyAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

pp. 279

“...you have been graciously pleased to accept a PART: you take Port and Fort Egmont, reserving to the Spaniards the rest of the island...”

MAKE NO MISTAKE - EGMONT IS THE WHOLE OF BRITISH POSSESSION ON THE ARCHIPELAGO, FROM 1771 TO ITS DEPARTURE IN 1776, with a plaque left in reservation of these LIMITED rights.

THIS IS A HISTORICAL FACT, EASILY VERIFIABLE THROUGH BRITISH SOURCES LIKE THE ONES I LINKED TO. DO YOU DENY THIS????

So, again - by what MAGICAL process does Britain EXPAND its 1776 EGMONT possession to include the WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO upon its return in 1833????

Again, I await your answer.

@117
Mr Hermes it's 2:30am in the morning I'm Tired and I don't feel well, This is my last comment I hope that you and Mr Malvinas will pay attention. Your points on early Falklands history I will admit I'm not familiar with, however as I have said time and time again--- ”Even if Britain’s claims were unjustified, and we allegedly “stole” the islands how can Argentine complain? If Argentina steals a whole house and then Britain allegedly steals the bench outside who is the real thief? Especially when the bench never belonged to anyone while the house did, (cough natives cough-cough). You have no rights, you have no claim, you have nothing to take them with. You are a colonially created people complaining about colonialism, Irony?????” Please I beg of you to understand if I murder someone and you then point fingers at me accusing and branding me, you are a hypocrite as you have committed murder in the past.
Argentine= Created by colonialism at an early stage.
Falkands=Created by colonialism at a later stage.
Both are in the same boat and neither can point fingers.
Good night Mr Hermes and Mr Malvinas.

Ok, good night and thanks for the chat! I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree...

@119
Thank you Mr Malvinas it's nice to find people with different opinions who can be friendly. Noche Buena.

I understand your point of view and I respect it, I only think if we are two murderers we should not only accept that fact but also make every effort to make amends to the people that we hurt for the wrongs that we did, us to the native americans and you to us.

I don't want to take your property, I only want you not to take away mine. If you think it rightly belongs to you and you can prove it then I say fine, but if the historical record shows you did something wrong to us then I would hope in the interest of peace you would endeavor to solve it in peace with just as much fervor as you would want us to right the wrongs we've done to others, and the similar wrongs that other people under the union jack are perpetrating right now to victims like Aborigenes and Chaggossians.

For any people, only with uniformly applied standards can hypocrisy be avoided - and only because I denounce the immorality of my predecessors can I denounce the analogue actions of yours.

Understand, this is not about a colonially-created people complaining about colonialism; rather, for me, this is about a people who want to live under rule of law complaining about a foreign country not following the rule of law (in the form of the 1771 treaty that defines what is or isn't British property on the islands). We are not pointing fingers - we simply ask you to sit down and talk, where each party can examine themselves and take responsibility for their actions, understand how the other party feels aggrieved and why, and mutually find a way forward. Good night.

Ok feel better, good night!

Hermes, I'm going to quote some of your comments in an effort to address the main misconceptions that you have.

“the culture in the islands represents somewhat of a microcosm of what used to be a maintstream British culture devoid of foreigners and now long gone from Britain itself.”
Are you saying the islands are culturally different from Britain? In truth, it's so far from reality that I can only say: you obviously do not have the slightest idea about the islands. Visit (you are allowed).

“There's a THOUSAND ways it could be resolved amicably with all 3 parties coming away satisfied - none involve islanders speaking Spanish or driving on the right - all involve negotiation.”
How can you conduct meaningful negotiations without talking to the people with the highest stake in the dispute? Argentina knows full well that Britain will not negotiate unless the islanders wish it. That's the only way to solve the dispute that has any chance of satisfying all parties. Argentina must involve the islanders. It will take many years to repair the distrust they have of you but will be quicker in the long run than the the current path.
Actually, there is another way. Send boatloads of beautiful women to the islands. Problem solved in a couple of generations. No need for expensive wars or negotiations.

Perhaps the Falklands were stolen from Argentina. Perhaps it was wrong. Perhaps the pro-British arguments are biased. But if you stand by your comments, don't forget that today it is Argentina, not Britain or the Islanders, that seeks to change the status quo, the last 180 years of history. Don't twist it by saying Britain IS an aggressive colonial power, that the islanders ARE an implanted colonial population, that Britain CONTROLS immigration to the islands. Replace those words with WAS, WERE and CONTROLLED. We've all accepted the past. It can't be changed, nor should it be, so why are you trying?

@117

All that proves is that Argentina knows it is stealing at least some territory belonging to somebody else.

We were still there before you anyway.

Joaquin Acuña
Juana Acuña
Mateo Gonzalez
Marica Gonzalez
Jose Viel
Juan Quedy
Francisco Ferreyra
Maria Rodríguez (with 3 children)
Anastaria Romero
Encarnación Alvarez
Carmen Benítez
Transita Gonzalez and her son (unnamed in the records)

92 Hermes1967 (#)

Your list above is actually:

Individuos de la Isla (no pertenecientes a la Comandancia militar):
Joaquín Acuña, su mujer Juana
Mateo González, su mujer Marica

4 people part of the settled population

Extranjeros: José Viel, Juan Quedy, Francisco Ferreyra

That is foreigners not part of the settled population

1 preso: Máximo Vbarnes (Warnes), que fué destinado

Mujeres pertenecientes a los militares que vienen presos en la goleta inglesa “Rapid” y que vienen en dicha “Sarandí”

María Rodríguez, con tres hijos; Anastasia Romero; Encarnación Álvarez; Carmen Benítez; Tránsita González, con un hijo

That is the wives and children of soldiers aboard the Rapid under arrest for murdering Mestivier, part of the garrison, not of the settled population.

Hermes 1967

At last we are getting somewhere. Thank you.

Your list of 12 civilians, my list is four (all part of the Vernet community). For the purposes of this debate, we can agree to disagree. I am more likely to agree with poster 125, but it doesn't matter.

We also seem to agree that the mutiny and murder of Mestevier, and the group led by Pinedo, were only there three months and were a “military outfit”.

You also seem to suggest that Sovereignty plaques left by Spain and Britain in 1771 and 1811 are of no value if not backed up hby a civilian population. I happen to agree with you there.

You go on to suggest that, the reason that the 4 or 12 people left is because they didn't want to be under British rule, (interesting that Vernet himself had no issue with this, and his deputy remained after 1833)...possibly true, equally plausible is that they we sick of what are relatively harsh condtions and wanted to take the opportunity to leave.

However, it seems the entire crux of the your argument, is that in 1833, either 4( or 12) people were evicted (or chose to leave) the islands.

please could you let malvinero1 and Marcos know this, as they would have the forum believe that an entire population (1500+) of wealthy and fully sustained Argentines were living an Utopian existance were evicted in some sort of convoy in 1833...turnips and all.

So, we are agreed about the history finally...

British claims on the Falklands go back to 1680
Argentine presence is limited to a military garrison (no civilians) who mutinied
A small number of the vernet community (4-12) left in 1833.

Now, on the weight of this evidence, given that the majority of the Vernet community stayed including his deputy, and they were still there when Darwin arrived on the beagle, there was no wholesale eviction...excellent.

No wholesale eviction, Vernet community was not Argentine, but a private enterpise, only 4 or 12 civilians actually left...NO CASE TO ANSWER.

Thanks for the input.

@117

A nice try and an impressive piece of research. But it's a canny example of selective quotation divorced from its context, and as such it won't wash.

“...you have been graciously pleased to accept a PART: you take Port and Fort Egmont, reserving to the Spaniards the rest of the island...”

First off, let's by clear that what you are quoting is a record of a debate, and in a debate varying views are expressed. It doesn't mean ipso facto that any are accepted or justified. So WIllliam Dowdeswell is not expressing THE British interpretation, he is expressing HIS interpretation. And he is complaining that according to his reading of the Spanish declaration, Britian is only getting Port Egmont from Spain. Note that the he is not just complaining, he is accusing the Spanish of chicanery through retroactive manipulation of an original text, the government of incompetence, and proposing to go to war over it.

Which may or may not be true that's just his interpretation. And what you don't quote is the reply he then gets from the Government which is :

“... since possession had been taken of one of his Majesty's settlements, what other satisfaction could be expected than the restitution of it? Surely Sir, if that be not sufficient, by this declaration the Crown of Spain arraigns, condemns, and annuls it, marking to the whole world that it means to give us satisfaction”.

Or in short what he is saying is that the Declaration only mentions Port Egmont because it was only Port Egmont that was taken.

So when you ask :

“by what MAGICAL process does Britain EXPAND its 1776 EGMONT possession to include the WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO upon its return in 1833????”

It's really quite simple: the possession was never limited to Port Egmont in the first place, only the Spanish theft.

Why is Argentina so insistent on taking these islands when they are so manifestly incapable of managing what they already have ?
If Argentina had been settled by the Dutch , British , Danes or Germans , the present population would be so wealthy and content , they wouldn't care two hoots about the Falklands .
Instead the predominantly latin settlers of Argentina have made a monumental f*ck up of the place and want to drag everyone else down with them .
Sort yourselves out , mature politically and economically and then the Falklanders will be begging you to become part of Argentina.
Till then , shut the f*ck up and stop your constant whining .

@ 13 Hektor

“the invasion was taken by an unconstitutional government ” & “Therefore, “it is not our fault” argument.”

According to your logic, Germany can use the same argument about WW2 and deny any responsibility.

121 Hermes1967
“the culture in the islands represents somewhat of a microcosm of what used to be a maintstream British culture devoid of foreigners and now long gone from Britain itself.”

Did you really say this? If so, you are not doing yourself or your argument any favours.
Falkland Islands culture is very different from any kind of mainstream British culture that ever existed, and has been ever since the first South American Gauchos and British shepherds worked together in the 1800s. Do not be fooled by the language and the red telephone boxes and Eastenders on the television.
It is now enriched by elements of St Helenian and Chilean culture, and continues to evolve into its own distinct identity.
One things for sure, it isn't anything like Argentina. And that is the crucial point.

does it really matter,
the islands have been administered by the british for over 150 years,
and that surley is the end of it,
the islanders today are intitled to the same rights as everybody else,
they choose to remain british, and should be left alone , full stop.

either we live in a democracy and in peace,
or a dictatership and with violence,
.

@ 46 Hermes1967

you must be new to this debate, or else you would have read over and over again, that Argentina ceded the Falkland Islands to Britain by ratifying the peace treaty in May 1850, and you would have seen that ample documentation has been given in the form of precise references to Argentine sources available in Argentine libraries.

After the ratification, two Argentine presidents (Mitre 1865 and Sarmiento 1869) and an Argentine vice president (Paz 1866) acknowledged that Argentina and Britain no longer had a any territorial disputes, three official Argentine maps showed the Falklands as not belonging to Argentina resp. didn't show them at all.

Before the ratification, from 1833 to 1849 Argentina protested repeatedly against British sovereignty over the islands. After the ratification, the Argentine protests ceased for 91 years, only to start again when most of the world thought Britain would loose WW2, in which case it would be easy to grab the Falkland Islands.

@127 HansNiesund (#)
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 08:32 am

LIAR! PIRATE! TURNIP! MIGRATING BIRDS! POTATOES!

HANDS KNEES AND BUMPS-A-DAISY!!!!!!!!

WIBBLE! SPLIT! PTING! A WANDERING MINSTREL I............!!!!!!!!

Ahem. Sorry.

Agreed,

You just cant have it both ways

If one demands that others give you back what [you] consider they owe you,

Then you must give back to others, what others consider you owe them
Is this not fair,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This then may well get you the Falklands,

But in return you would most probably lose approximately 65% of argentina.

Just a thought.

@ 89 Hermes1967

“the islands are NOT A COUNTRY.”

Precisely. And this is where Argentina has made one of its greatest blunders in the recent dispute over the Falkland Islands.

According to the Argentine government, the Falkland Islands is a colony - and as such under the C24 charter and principles.

C24 Charter:

“1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”

C24 Principles:

”Principle VI
A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association with an independent State; or
(c) Integration with an independent State.

Principle VII
(a) Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent State the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes.”

Best discussion yet on Mercopress:

What is sovereignty? We have established that it isn't:

1) the first people to land on the islands (as that would make them British
2) the first people to settle on the islands (as that would make them French or British
3) cannot be maintained if you voluntarily remove your population (as that would make them British)
4) cannot be maintained if you leave a plaque claiming sovereignty (as that would make them British)
5) Can only be supported by a civilian population, and if a civilian population is removed by force then sovereignty rights are maintained.

All good.

French settlement voluntarily left...no sovereignty
British settlement voluntarily left...no sovereignty
Spanish settlement voluntarily left...no sovereignty
jewitt...no civilian population...no sovereignty
Pinedo/Mestevier ...no civilian population...no sovereignty

Clearly, the British have a sovereignty claim from 1833, civilian population etc.

So it all comes down to whether the Luis Vernet settlement was an “argentine civilian population” and whether it was “removed by force”.

All other claims are irrelevant, for the reasons stated above, no Papal Bulls, no plaques, nothing.

so taking the two points in turn:

Was the Vernet community Argentine?

Aware of the sovereignty dispute Vernet (a German) received permission for his settlement from bOth Buenos Aires and London.his deputy Matthew Brisbane was British. Certainly some of his community were Hispanic. Does this constitute an Argentine community...dubious at best.

Were they evicted? Records suggest four chose to leave. Reports from the Lexington (American neutral source) in 1831 suggests conditions were bad, the Malvinistas suggest, the four chose to leave rather than be subjected to British rule. Clearly, however, the majority of the Vernet community were not evicted and elected to stay. So, therefore their share of sovereignty was not usurped.

Based on the Malvinistas own rules...it seems clear..!

Just what are the Falkland Islanders doing that is detrimental to Argentina? Those of us with knowledge of Argentina and the Argentinian people know well that it is unlikely that the islands would attract immigrants from the mainland - as an Argentine friend once said to me “No hay boliches y hace demasiado frio” (There are no decent bars and it is far too cold!)

Also, under no existing international law can the islands be deemed ever to have been territory of Argentine - it is too far away! Furthermore, there can be no doubt that in 1850 the Arana-Southern Treaty - the Treaty of Perfect Friendship - made it clear that there were no pending matters between the Confederación Argentina and the United Kingdom. It is quite clear that had the Confederación considered the Falklands/Malvinas to be an “impediment” then the treaty would have been drawn up to reflect this. It wasn't!

So let all the rhetoric go away and let's resume our friendship with Argentina.

Its because Priiate Guardsmen use their military base and its secret Radar base at goose green to beam mindcontrol rays at argentina.
Causing train crashes the oli company not to dig for oile. Strikes inflation and stupidity amongst elected people.
Its not Argetninas fault its evil british mindcontrol rays.

It's irrelevant from now on, some twat called Hermes 1967 has finally admitted the truth, between 4 (my number) and 12 (his number) of civilians left in 1833. This is from an arch Malvinista.

Surely if it was a usurpation or military occupation...All of the Vernet community would have left? Why was Matthew Brisbane (who ironically was British) and the vast majority of the Vernet group still there when the Beagle arrived with Weddell and Charles Darwin.

Is it possible that no “eviction” took place, nobody left “against their will”.

These four people, were they Argentine? did they consider themselves on Argentine soil? Or were they (like Vernet himself) fully aware of the dispute over sovereignty? Were they (as stated in the log of the US Lexington) living in extremely tough conditions and happy to take the opportunity to go.

So, as our Argentine friends tell us. In their view 1500-3000 islanders are spoiling potentially good relations and creating a “global issue”.

It would seem not. The Argentine issue is in fact caused by four people who lived 180 years ago, who nobody knows their motives for leaving the Falklands, when the vast majority of their community stayed, who were quite happy to live under the command of a German and a Brit at the time.

In 1982 nearly 1000 people died for the unknown thoughts these people had in January 1833. Enough. The truth is out...finally a Malvinista admits it.

139 Monkeymagic (#)

As I understand, the 4 people who left asked to be dropped off in Montevideo, not Buenos Aires, this supports the theory that they wer either Uruguayans or Brazillians.

@140 Simon68 (#)
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 03:45 pm

Argentinian territorial claims on Uruguay and Brazil not withstanding of course.

Too me it seems fairly clear that 180 years of successful settlement give the islands to us (or the Falklanders) anyway.

If we asked the Germans for Heligoland back they would tell us to get lost.

If the situation in the Falklands were reversed and we were asking for them back, we would be told get lost and the international community would criticise us for it, we would be “the evil empire”, again trying to grab someone elses land.

Argentina perversely gets away with it's antics by playing that self same “Britain is an evil empire” card.

Time to let the past rest - especially one based on lies and distortion by Argentina.

It is a strange obsession that Argentina has over the Falkland Islands, of course it started really in 1941, and from that year until 1982, a total of 41 years, the Argentines could have emigrated to the Falklands with no impediment and would now be the predominant voting population.

Unfortunately we didn't take advantage of our oportunity, so now we just have to accept that we lost out.

Of course it is entirely possible that if we had taken advantage of those 41 years our migrants might vote to be British rather than return to a land of 30% inflation, insecurity, corrupt politicians, total lack of human rights, etc.

@123 to 139 Well, people, you've all made some very good and compelling points. In fact, there are so many good and, in my view, unanswerable points that our “usual suspects” might be pressed. But please don't feel complacent. In the first place, it would seem that either an electricity cut, a fuel shortage leading to cold conditions in which fingers can't work OR a homosexual convention at which attendance is mandatory has inhibited their input. Secondly, you don't seem to have accounted for certain events. For instance, some argie on here has said that the United Provinces drafted its declaration of independence in 1810 but it didn't actually make the declaration until 1816. In the light of the (fairly recent) bicentennial, explain THAT! Then there are the events of 1820. One David Jewett arrived at the Islands claiming to be representative of the United Provinces and producing a letter claiming the Islands on behalf of the said UP. However, no-one appears to be able to produce the original of this letter from the argie archives. In addition, it seems to me that any “government” would hesitate to entrust such a mission to a privateer (later pirate) but would fete such an individual if he established a claim. There doesn't seem to be any record of Jewett being rewarded. It does seem strange to me that a rebel colony, whilst trying to establish itself, would send a vessel so far away to claim some islands. Have any of you thought of THAT?

But I must be critical of War Monkey at 133. You missed out AAAHHHHHRRRRRGGGGG! and AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
I also think that all of you are guilty of not maintaining balance. Where are the views of a biologist (failed)? Where are Maxie's unintelligible, but no doubt profound, one-liners? What about the nonsense bigotry of johnfarrell? What about, oh sorry, Forgotit? Better known as “Forge tit”. Couldn't anybody impersonate Suxxie? Come on now!

142 shb

Argentina aren't getting away with anything, perversely or otherwise. Nobody in the wider international community is taking the slightest bit of notice of their BS and whining. The world's REAL problems (including some that are Argentina's) are in a different league to the one of the dispute over the Falklands.

Don't worry, everything will be fine. We're not worried down here, it's just that we're not prepared to sit back and put up with CFK's crap any more.

John Strong did NOT discover the archipelago nor was he first to claim it. That inaccuracy, burned into the minds of all who support British sovereignty over the islands, replaces the archipelago's true discovery decades earlier by Francisco de Ribera, who both landed and claimed the islands for Spain in 1540.

An equally significant British misconception regards the Arana-Southern Treaty as valid, when it is not. And as I've pointed out before, the 1850 treaty was a treaty signed between Britain and an outlaw who ruled an extra-constitutional government. His every action is devoid of legal standing, as is every other action of every other illegitimate government both in Argentina and in Britain's history as well.

The 1850 treaty is, upon Rosas' defeat, devoid of any legal standing whatsoever, in EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER as any act or treaty by John Bradshaw, Oliver Cromwell, or the Rump Parliament, were after restoration. It works the same in Britian and in Argentina: the actions of illegitimate governments have no force of law. Read up, this has been explained before.

why do you keep thinking that repeating the same lies over and over again will make your position correct? don't you think we wouldn't post something if it already has not been documented and researched to death??

Or do you simply think Argentine people pull Francisco de Ribera's 1540 claim out of their arse?? But you keep repeating, John Strong, John Strong, without even realizing that Ribera's claim predates his by many, many years!

Also….I am aware the quote from Commons records is the personal interpretation of the treaty by MP William Dowdeswell. However, my point was to demonstrate that contemporary understanding of the treaty was that the ONLY British possession on the islands was the “port and fort of egmont”. Clearly, although Mr. Dowdeswell does not necessarily represent the official position of the government, and further in light of the response he received, Mr. Dowdeswell's interpretation seems to be absolutely correct given the fact that there simply were no other British settlements on the islands at that time. Thus, restitution of the whole of British property was made to Britain, for it was the whole of British property that was destroyed (wrongfully) by Spain.

The plaque left to reserve British rights upon its property upon withdrawal just a few years later can therefore only reserve rights upon that part of the archipelago which Britain rightly owned - that which was restored: EGMONT. Upon British return in 1833, Britain asserted sovereignty not simply over Egmont but over the entire archipelago - magically?

And yes, the most important question here is, what is sovereignty? Monkey states 5 points in #136 above except that nothing he lists happens to have any basis in international law. He points to prescription, which is invalid in this case given that prescription requires a lack of objection from other governments. The argument then reverts to another way under international law that countries can aquire sovereignty, that of military conquest, which is illegal.

That's what this is about people - RULE OF LAW - the fact that Britain came in and took what did not belong to it with and implication of force. It doesn't matter whether in 1833 there were 4 Argentines or 1500 or NONE, because the basis for the British return was justified in the plaque left before, and that plaque could NEVER secure rights over lands it did not own when it withdrew.

This is about LAW.

Hermes

And on what basis did Argentina get sovereignty...none whatsoever...and that's the point.

The Falklands even by your argument were not acquired by military conquest.

You are very clear in your view that a plaque does not give sovereignty, I agree. So by 1811, both Spain and Britain had walked away from the previous rights. great!!

By your argument, neith Jewitt nor Mestevier can claim sovereignty as they we only military personnel.

The only civilians on the islands between 1811 and 1833 were the Vernet community between 1828 and 1833.

It is far from clear that:

1) Vernet ever wanted, tried to, or ever claimed sovereignty
2) whether he preferred or represented either Argentina or Britain

It is absolutely clear that the Vernet community existed long after 1833 and so were not evicted..perhaps four left in 1833.

It is VERY far from clear whether these four people were evicted against their will, or chose to leave. Given the remainder of the community stayed,it is fair to assume it was voluntary.

So, the Argentine claim is defunct. They have never had a civilian population, therefore never had a civilian population evicted, and therefore no land was stolen.

Hoisted on your own petard.

147

1540 is indeed earlier than John Strong's dates but as far as the modern day situation is concerned, both are irrelevant. We've had control of the islands now for nearly 200 years and that's the way it's going to stay.

We've got the island and the Argentines haven't and never will so you can shove 1540, or whatever else you've dreamt of, up your arse.

Chuckle chuckle.

Ps. How many of you Argentines are using multiple log-ins on here now? My guess is that quite a few of you have two or more accounts? Also, I understand that a few of you are sitting right here amongst us in Stanley. You are playing a risky game my friends. I suggest you don't get found out. There are already rumblings about who a couple of you are. I'd think about that carefully if I were you.

@148

”However, my point was to demonstrate that contemporary understanding of the treaty was that the ONLY British possession on the islands was the “port and fort of egmont”.

Your point in that case is flatly contradicted by the sources you quote in support of it, and the only smoking gun here is the one you have shot yourself in the foot with.

But be that as it may, have you considered just how bizarre it is to be digging about in 250 year-old records in a desperate search for arguments over what, in the great scheme of things, was no more than a minor colonial skirmish?

Consider for a moment all the other Pirate Outrages, Horrendous Crimes, and Unspeakable Atrocities you accuse the Brits of. And here we have barely so much as a dog kicked. Yet it is the only case I am aware of, in the long history of the British Empire, which was resurrected 100 years after it was forgotten, after God Only Knows how many wars, revolutions, rebellions, rise and fall of empires all over the globe, to be transformed into a national neurosis deemed worthy of the loss of 1000 lives.

Just what the fuck is going on here, really? It has more to do with the insides of heads than it does with islands, that's for sure.

THE CIRCUS OF MEDIOCRE JOURNALISTS LIKE JIMMY BURNS.
As usuall he only criticises the argentine posture, and doesn't recognize that his side is not acting correctly either.
Firstly, i have always thought that our government should dialogue with the islanders respecting the sovereignty, there is a contradiction in c. f. k's actions, she says that the islands are argentine, but she doesn't dialogue with the government from the malvinas. Anyway, i agree with some of the decisions that she took regarding this dispute. On the other hand, it's very easy to say that most us supported the invasion of 1982, because plaza de mayo was full of people, but burns omits that during the dictatorship, there was not any freedom of press, the four chanels that we had were under the control of the junta, all the time it was said to us that we were wining, beside the day after the invasion, galtieri had said to all the country that arg. had recovered the malvinas without any rencour, which was absolutly false. On the other hand, if burns lived that moment, he must know that the same day that galtieri spoke to the whole country, there was huge march made by the workers, which lemma was, malvinas si, proceso no (yes to malvinas, no to the process), however he omits that too. Beside, he claims for self determination, but omits that the u. n has never applied that right for this cause, like it did for others colonial situations, on the other hand, like a tipical ignorant person, he compares this cause, with paraguay and others, which are absolutly different. Beside, he doesn't say a word about the fact that the u. k rejects sistematicly all the resolutions that call the two countries to resume the negotiations and find a peaceful solution, and he omits also the fact that the decolonization commitee has always considered this cause like a particular colonial situation. Like all the mediocre journalists, he just tells the half. There is a lot more to say about all this, and i'll do it.

@149 ok Monkey - “none whatsoever” is a very broad statement. What exactly do you mean by it?

You misunderstand me, I don't say that a plaque “does not give sovereignty”!

What I'm trying to say is that IF a plaque that “reserves” sovereignty, it can only “reserve” sovereignty of something that is ALREADY OWNED when the plaque is being laid!! If you own ONLY Egmont then your plaque can only reserve sovereignty over Egmont!!

In other words: Britain asserts the plaque it left in 1776 as a reservation of the exercise of its sovereignty over its possesion on the islands. Fine by me!! But Spain left a plaque too, and if Britain's plaque works to reserve sovereignty, SO DOES SPAIN'S!!

Do you see what I am saying now? I am objecting to the idea that Britain's plaque works and Spain's doesn't. I am ALSO objecting to the idea that Britain's plaque can reserve sovereignty over MORE territory than what was actually in the possession of Britain when the plaque was left.

Which is to say that if Britain, per the 1771 treaty, had a sole property defined territorially as “The Port and Fort of Egmont”, then any plaque that was left in 1776 on British departure could ONLY secure Egmont and not another inch beyond it!

Instead, when Britain returned, it claimed the whole archipelago, as if the 1771
treaty gave it such a right - it did not, per the text. The ONLY British property on withdrawal was Egmont, THAT should have been the object of re-assertion of the exercise of British sovereignty on its return.

Never mind who said what or who was evicted. The question is: what was yours when you LEFT, and what did you claim was yours when you CAME BACK??

It is the answer to THAT which determines sovereignty, and the amount of territory which islanders today can JUSTLY claim self-determination over, because in truth, that which validates the Argentine claim also serves to validate the British claim.

It all comes down to the plaques, for both sides, and what they represent.

@149 On what basis did Argentina get sovereignty? The islands were controlled by SPAIN from BUENOS AIRES - the Viceroyalty of the River Plate.
When the Viceroyalty declared its independence as the “United Provinces of the River Plate”, the territory of each province entered into the union.
Buenos Aires' territory INCLUDES THE ISLANDS.

It was Buenos Aires' property before independence from Spain, it remained Buenos Aires' property afterwards. Britain RECOGNIZED this status of independence and raised NOT ONE SINGLE OBJECTION, knowing full well about Argentina's inheritance of the Spanish Viceroyalty's claim. The story changes only in 1833.

@151 Hans, have you considered that “minor colonial skirmish” was the reason for a war??

What does it matter that acts from 250 years ago are being considered today? Are you familiar with the concept of causality? Have you any idea the importance of history?

There's only one side to this dispute that chooses to ignore or distort history as it sees fit, and that's the British side.

You say “history doesn't matter”, I say history determines where we come from and helps us understand who we are today and how to behave in the future. Those nations not willing to learn history's lessons are by their willful ignorance forced to repeat those mistakes.

You tell me where in the UN charter it says the right to self determination equals the right to change or ignore history. I must have missed that one.

@153 Hermes1967 (#)
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 07:48 pm

Of course Spains plaque is as good and as relevant as the British plaque. But since then, Spain has relinquished her claim.

@146 Francisco de Ribera. Another “made-up” name? Evidence? Not from “argie” records.

As for the Arana-Southern Treaty, nice one. Saying that it only applied to a particular action doesn't work, so now Rosas' defeat makes it “of no legal standing”. Sorry, it had legal standing at the time. And it stands.
@147 Why not? In 2 years, it's the first time he's been mentioned. Proof, boy, proof! By the way, is it your turn for the electricity?
@148 You're talking rubbish. British settlements covered more than Port Egmont. In any event, Britain returned, Spain didn't. And, by the way, the acquisition of sovereignty by military action was not illegal in the 19th century. Stop trying to apply 20th century laws to the past. The fact is that Britain acquired the territory peacefully and declared sovereignty in accordance with accepted procedures at the time. It is proven that Spain did not dare a dispute with Britain. Britain still had sovereignty when it returned, note that, returned, in 1833. Argies were illegal squatters, and the military garrison was legally required to leave. And Spain had already tacitly admitted Britain's rights. Argies had, and have, no rights. And argies wouldn't know the LAW if it stood up and smacked them in the face.
@152 STFU.
@153 You're talking semantic bullsh*te and you know it!
@154 The right to self-determination overrides history. As you well know. Otherwise, you would all be on trial for genocide.

148 Hermes1967

What is this 'Rule of Law'? Seriously, which LAW are you talking about? Whose law?
Are you saying that Britain legally posessed Port Egmont? In which case who posessed West Falkland? It's closer to Port Egmont than anything that was ever under Spanish control. I know how you Argentines do love an argument about proximity and territorial integrity.

I wish you'd all get it into your thick skulls that no-one cares about 1833 or the plaque or the four people who left on the ship or the murdering thugs that passed as an 'Argentine Population'. It's ancient history.

I doubt very much whether you really want to wind back your borders to where they were in 1833. And that's fine. We're quite happy to allow you to keep all the territory you aquired by whatever dubious means since 1833. We're even happy to overlook your illegal invasion of the islands in 1982, as long as you get lost and leave us in peace.

Now we are getting to it again then....it doesn't matter who was evicted or who left. Excellent, then we can stop talking about usurpation..because as you say it doesn't matter who left.

Now your claim shifts to the fact it was inherited from the Spanish, as the usurpation/eviction holds no water.

Good, there is no injured party, no usurpation, nobodies self determination violated, therefore no claim.

fan-fucking-tastic

We finally got there. Thank you.

148 Hermes1967
Let be absolutely fair here,
You say the 5 points made by 136 Monkeymagic
Is totally wrong,
We are wrong, the British are wrong,

You state it, now you prove it your way
[Please tell us then, in your very own words]
Why you think Argentina should have sovereignty over the Falkland islands,
[That's what this is about people - RULE OF LAW] you explain.
And we would very much appreciate a reply
With the anti bit,,
Thank you.
p/s
You keep quoting the TREATY OF 1771 .
You found in a book,
The following [it states]
Is a list of all treaties,
Web page provided, and a copy bit of the list,
As you see it is not shown,
So either it is another date, the list is wrong , or the book is wrong .















1776 Treaty of Watertown
Alliance between the State of Massachusetts Bay and the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.
1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix In North America, the boundary established by the Proclamation of 1763 is moved west.
Treaty of Masulipatam Confirms the conquest of the state of Hyderabad by the British.
1770 Treaty of Lochaber The Cherokee relinquish territories to the British Empire.
1774 Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji Ends Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774).
1776 Treaty of Watertown Alliance between the State of Massachusetts Bay and the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.
Treaty of Purandar[66] Between the peshwa of the Maratha people and the British East India Company.
1777 First Treaty of San Ildefonso Ends disputes between Portugal and Spain over the territories of The Seven Missions and of Colonia del Sacramento

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties
thank you
.ll

@155 - “But since then, Spain has relinquished her claim.”

How? When?

If by the act of withdrawal, then Britain's own act of withdrawal in 1771 has the same effect and both plaques have no lawful force. OR, If by recognizing the independence of the United Provinces, it cedes the territory to the new entity that replaced the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. So neither of the two
are possibilities, which means in order for your statement to be true, the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate must have ceded its territories on the islands to Britain between the period 1771 and 1816.

So again - how? When?

@156 - 1. No, from SPANISH records. YOU look them up, I'm not here to placate your ignorance nor service your laziness. Besides, you'd criticize anything I provide, so better if you do the research yourself.

2. Sure, it had legal standing at the time. So did the actions of the Rump Parliament, at the time. Guess what? The royalists came back, and now the entire 19 year period are constitutionally considered to have never happened. NO STANDING BEFORE THE LAW FOR ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTS - NOT IN BRITAIN, NOT IN ARGENTINA, THEIR EVERY ACTION ISA NULL AND VOID.

3. I mentioned it before, I'm sure.

4. If it's rubbish THEN WHY DID THE BRITISH CROWN AGREE TO IT??? I'm not trying to apply 20th century laws to 19th century actions - I AM saying that the corresponsing LAW that defined the extent of British territory was in that treaty, and it was EGMONT. Spain “respected” the mutually agreed borders, which Britain “forgot” existed upon their 1833 return.

@156 Ok then Conqueror tell me this, if you think we're talking “semantic BS” then do some actual research and PROVE IT WITH YOUR OWN SOURCES!!

The least you could to is SHOW ME WHERE IN THE UN CHARTER IT STATES THAT “THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION OVERRIDES HISTORY”

WHERE?????? Just show me that, and I'll shut up. You're talking out your arse mate!!!

Please please.

[On a light hearted note]
Please show me where the UN charter, states that history, overrides the right of self determination.

1, the UN is fast becoming an irrelevance
2, the islanders will decide
3, that’s the be all to end all,
Is this not true,,,, .

@158 you are misunderstanding me entirely - and you contradict yourself when you say things like “it doesn't matter who was evicted or who left. Excellent, then we can stop talking about usurpation”

THERE ARE TWO STATEMENTS THERE:

The first statement (Britain, or Spain, withdrawing) speaks to the fulfillment of a legal requirement, or lack of it, for a country to acquire sovereignty over a territory.

The second statement (Britain returning to Egmont and usurping the rest) concerns the actions of a country suddenly asserting sovereignty over a territory to which it did not previously aquire sovereignty.

Also “your claim shifts to the fact it was inherited from the Spanish” excuse me “SHIFT”???

That's the very CRUX of the matter!!

How do you figure the United Provinces can claim ANY territory as their own if such territory did not first become independent from the Viceroyalty of the River Plate?? No, no...any Argentine reasoning for sovereignty MUST flow from Viceroyalty's own sovereignty.

You don't seem to understand - the islands were DEMARCATED in 1771. There was a BORDER. Spain had a part. Britain had a part. Britain then withdrew, left a plaque to reserve its rights. Spain later withdrew, left a plaque to reserve its rights.

Britain then returned and assessed sovereignty claiming rights not over its own part but over the WHOLE, offering no explanation and implying use of force if resisted. This is historical FACT, verifiable in British sources.

Clear now?

@154

You're still banging on with your Port Egmont theory when it's shown to be bollox by your own references?

As for history, you misunderstand my point. Anywhere else in the world, this would be regarded as such a trivial episode it would have long been forgotten. Why is this case so different? 100 years after it happened, resurrected, distorted, and manipulated into a national neurosis without parallel in the Western hemisphere.

Where else would one be debating how many plaques could be mounted on the head of a pin in the mid-18th Century, when a full-scale invasion of only 30 years ago is apparently regarded as a minor aberration, nuffink to do with us, guv, anyway, time you forgot about it? Rationality and any realistic sense of proportion has long since departed.

163 Hermes1967

No. Britain didn't 'suddenly assert sovereignty' over the whole islands.

The plaque they left behind clearly stated that they reserved their rights over the whole of 'Falklands Islands'. There was no 'border'. You made that up.

@165 - I did not make it up: read the treaty text. “Port and Fort of Egmont”, that's it - no more.

@154 - it has NOT shown to be bollox because the text EXISTS, you must therefore explain the discrepancy between the British territory on departure and the much larger British territory claimed on arrival, which you have not yet done.

Simply saying it's bollox doesn't make it so. You guys didn't even list a single reference to prove it's bollox, so put up or shut up.

@159 I don't say the British are wrong.

I say the British are PARTLY wrong, and Argentina too is PARTLY wrong.

Specifically, that:

Britain cannot return in 1833 and claim, on the basis that it reserved rights of sovereignty, any more territory than it actually possessed when it MADE THE RESERVATION IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! How do we find out what was British territory before it withdrew? We look at the LAW, and international law back then was made in the form of TREATIES, and the treaty that Britain made with Spain 5 years before withdrawing said that British territory was in Egmont.

By the same token, Argentina (or, the United Provinces) cannot expect to inherit any territories that Spain, by virtue of the same treaty, Spain had affirmed were British property.

WHAT'S IN THE CONTRACT - THAT'S WHAT DEFINES WHAT BELONGS TO WHOM.

The question today is what parts of that treaty were violated, when, by whom, and what restitution can be made to make amends and MOVE FORWARD IN PEACE.

This is EXACTLY why negotiation is necessary.

(btw wikipedia doesn't list it because this treaty is in British records with a title as “joint declaration” although it is considered to be a law by both British and Spanish crowns, it therefore has full force of treaty. The terms “treaty”, “joint declaration”, “concord”, “accord”, etc are synonyms.)

Hans,

“Anywhere else in the world, this would be regarded as such a trivial episode it would have long been forgotten.”

Tell it to the families of those who died in 1982!! I'm sure their losses were very “trivial”, yet the fact is that had previous generations showed the werewithall to tackle and peacefully solve this problem, that war would never have happened.

And sadly today, politicians on both sides seem unable to learn the lessons of the past. I certainly don't think 1982 was a minor aberration but rather another crime added to a long list of crimes perpetrated by a few criminals, all of whom are now either dead or imprisoned.

@159 ok: “[Please tell us then, in your very own words]
Why you think Argentina should have sovereignty over the Falkland islands,
[That's what this is about people - RULE OF LAW] you explain.”

Very simple - 5 points.

1. Spain and Britain shared the island since the 1771 with clear boundaries as to what territories on the island belong to whom.

2. I believe Spain administered its territory on the islands not directly from Madrid, but from Buenos Aires through the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, such that the part of the islands which were Spanish were a territory OF Buenos Aires (administratively speaking, for clearly, had the islands been administered directly from Spain, Argentina could claim nothing).

3. I believe the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, and all territories under it INCLUDING SPANISH TERRITORY ON THE ISLANDS, became independent from the Spanish crown on July 9th, 1816, thereafter known as the “United Provinces of the River Plate”.

4. I believe an independent Buenos Aires could only inherit the part of that territory on the islands that belonged to the Viceroyalty, which means Egmont is, has been (since 1771) and should therefore remain British.

5. I believe when the British returned in 1833 they asserted sovereignty not only over their possesion of Egmont, but over the entire archipelago, without justification of previous sovereignty as defined by British law (the word of the King in the 1771 treaty).

Why is that so hard to understand?

so if what you say is true,
is the treaty of 1850 relivent,
did this treaty overrite previose treatys
yes or no.

Absolutely not - and here's why:

1. No treaty signed by an illegitimate government is relevant or has power to override previous treaties. The actions of an illegitimate government in BOTH Argentine and British law, are devoid of any force of law.

Just the same as the acts of the Rump Parliament were devoid of force of law after restoration and are currently considered to, constitutionally, never have happened in regards to British law.

Just the same as every single act of the last dictatorship - including the 1982 war - was devoid of any legal standing.

Acts by illegitimate, extra-constitutional governments are as illegal as the governments that promulgate them, and they are equally null and void. This is equally true in British law after the restoration of the monarchy and then end of the civil war, and in Argentine law after the restoration of constitutional democracy and the end of our own civil war.

HOWEVER - Had the Rosas government been legitimate, yes, surely the 1850 treaty would override the 1771 treaty with Spain and put the matter to rest for good and all. There is some interpretation that Rosas signed the treaty as “insurance” due to British military expeditions in South America in neighboring countries - but, to my mind, the wording is very precise. Britain, however, knew full well that Rosas was illegitimate and that he was only one side of a civil war, which could lose - and that's a chance Britain took.

But I cannot accept any action of Rosas as any more legitimate than the British crown could today accept as legitimate the actions of Cromwell or any other interregnum/commonwealth period leader. The crown was restored in Britain; constitutional democracy was restored in Argentina, and the actions of both nations' illegitimate government are equally null and void.

So if you are saying that this illegitimate government,
No matter what it did or signed or conquered, and treated after wards,
Are thus illegal in your eyes,

Would this then not suggest that all conquered lands and treaties signed by that illegitimate government is nun and void,

That is of course if that illegitimate government did indeed conquer and or signed other treaties, as long as they were in power,

.

@160 Hermes1967 (#)
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 09:32 pm

Are you suggesting that Spain never gave up her claim? If they did not then the Malvinista claim that Spain 'gifted' their claim to Argentina is by default incorrect and the issue is then between the FI, the UK and Spain. Argentina is just an observer.

A question. By 'gifted' do you mean like the way a majority stake in YPF was 'gifted' to Argentina.

Just the same as every single act of the last dictatorship - including the 1982 war - was devoid of any legal standing.

Does this not then imply?
That the war of 1982, is in fact, still in force, and we are still at war,
As the illegal government signed the treaty, that in your own words, he cannot sign, as the government was illegitimate .
.

Correct - we're talking about a country's constitutional government being toppled by force through revolution, then being restored to its constitutional state.

Of course, should that revolution be successful, then one could make the point that such treaties carry force of law. But this outcome was neither the case in Britain nor in Argentina after civil war, and generally this holds true everywhere...the “Confederacy” in the United States, the Batista regime in Cuba, etc, and I suppose it will continue to be so in current nations undergoing political restorations such as Egypt or Myanmar.

wait, so you're agreeing that we're still at war????

We think
That perhaps for the sake of sanity and peace
Accept that the Falkland islanders, whom have been living there for over 150 years,
Should be allowed to determine who they wish to be,
In this case British,
Surely this should be your opinion, as in the 21st century we live in and follow the rules of democracy,

Is this not the fair? Way of preceding,
And we can all go home in peace,
As to be fair ,the alternative may well be to ??? to even contemplate .

.

NO NO....I was just responding to his earlier comment....sorry.

So to 173....there were two actions, the “start” of the war and the “end” of the war.

Constitutionally speaking...neither happened, as both acts were devoid of force of law.

Besides, for Argentina to be at war Congress must declare it.

@172

I am suggesting that Spain never gave up her claim to Britain (i.e. ceded Spanish territories on the islands to Britain). I haven't seen any treaty or act of cession by Spain to Britain (and I've looked hard for it) that would justify, upon Britain returning in 1833, British sovereignty over the whole archipelago instead of just the British property of Egmont at the time of withdrawal.

Meaning that, if when Britain left in 1776 and its only property was Egmont, and when it returned that property had ballooned to the whole archipelago, then in order for British sovereignty to be legal SOMETHING had to happen by way of cession, treaty, etc, such that Spain granted Britain sovereignty over the Spain's possessions on the islands.

I can't find any record of this ever happening, which only bolsters Argentina's “1833 usurpation” claim.

I am also suggesting that Spain, having granted recognition of independence to the United Provinces, in doing so, CEDED to the “United Provinces” all of its territories formerly administered by the Spanish Viceroyalty - and one of those provinces is Buenos Aires, and one of the territories of that province are the part of the islands that by treaty with Britain belonged to Spain.

no no
sorry
you just cant have it both ways
[ I haven't seen any treaty or act of cession by Spain to Britain (and I've looked hard for it)
can you then show as documentation of a treaty or cession, from spain to argentina, mentioning the falklands,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
and as [175]
just stated, are we then still at war.

174 Hermes1967

You're just making this up as you go along. Many of the countries undergoing 'political restorations' have never had funtioning democratic governments. England didn't have anything we would recognise as a democracy before the Civil War, and it didn't have much of one afterwards. And the restoration didn't nullify everything that went on during the protectorate. We never did give Jamaica back to the Spanish, did we?
You don't recognise the treaty of 1850 because you don't agree with it and it doesn't fit your ideas.
And since the first Argentine Constitution was written in 1853, how can it have been restored by the overthrow of Rosas in 1852?

You think you're clever, but you're not.

@176 Maybe a lot of Argentine people wouldn't agree with me, but I think in theory that's fair, but it's important for many Argentines that Britain admit it did us wrong and make amends.

That will require negotiation. I don't want the lives of islanders to change, I want to protect their culture and their way of life, but the status quo is unacceptable to Argentina and always will be. I really do think that a framework that will leave islanders alone and self-governed is possible through negotiation (which should include all 3 parties IMHO).

This is all speculation,
Eye was always taught, that history is a great guide and learning curve, to change your future, so that you don’t repeat the errors of the past, like arguing over legitimacy of things that cannot be positively proved, [i.e. exact wording]

As we were not there at the time, we have no idea what was said, or what was actually meant, in terms of any agreement,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So in the 21st century to stop us making more errors again, it would be fair as I stated,
That all nations today should have given up territorial claims, regardless,
And thus for everybody here,
The Falkland islanders should be, and will be, allowed to choose whom they wish to be,
Which is at this time, British,
If in the future they decide to be independent, and be Falklanders,
And not British or Argentinean, then this choice should be respected by the British and argentine governments,
We know that the British government accepts this,

We ask you,
Do you/will you accept the Falklands peoples choice, of being British at this time, and independent in the future, without threats or hinder,
It’s as simple as that.

180,
there is no need for a soverienty agreement, as the people freely wish to be left alone and in peace,
any agreement on fishing ect ect ,
is of course bwtween them and you,
but the right to be british now, and indipendent falklaners later, is purley their right,
but thank you anyway .

night night .

Yes or no.
Im off see the reply tomorrow.

@179 “Many of the countries undergoing 'political restorations' have never had funtioning democratic governments.”

Obviously I'm referring to the ones that did, but the general distinction regards an overthrown constitutional framework (whic

The fact that England didn't have anything like democracy before the English Civil War does not negate the fact that there was a constitutional system (Charles I), which was overthrown (protectorate), and then the constitutional system was restored (Charles II).

“And the restoration didn't nullify everything that went on during the protectorate. ”

Really? Read up:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Restoration.html?id=41RnAAAAMAAJ

pp. 47, on the Protectorate

“”Constitutionally, it was as if the last nineteen years had never happened”.

It seems to be British historians would disagree with your interpretation. And the first Argentine constitution was not written in 1853, it was written in 1819.

You thing you're paying attention, but you're not.

You THINK you're spelling correctly, but you're not.

@180 MalvinasArgentinas (#)
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 11:50 pm

Please elaborate exactly what Britain did to Arentina that Britain must recognise and make amends for?

As for your second point, it is up to the islanders what they do next, not Britain and not Argentina. Whatever they choose to do, Britain, Argentina and the rest of the world must respect and support them.

It returned in 1833 and claimed sovereignty over former territories of the Spanish Viceroyalty, which passed to the United Provinces, when no previous treaty between Spain and Britain ceded those territories to Britain (such that the UP couldn't inherit them).

As for my second point, I would be happy to let islanders choose all by themselves what to do next, as soon as anyone shows me where in the UN charter it says that “self-determination overrides history”.

So, either show us how Spain's possession on the islands became British, or accept the fact that those territories were STOLEN, get out of Stanley, move every islander back to Egmont, shut down RAF Mt. Pleasant, and self-detemine to your heart's content until the earth crashes into the sun.

And if that's too inconvenient, let's sit down and negotiate a solution that you'll be happy with! But if you think you'll have a tranquil life with the status quo, think again. We have pending matters, and we urge they be solved peacefully and through the proper diplomatic channels (although I think islanders should take part as well, that's Argentina's mistake).

I will pose a question:

Suppose a foreign country had the military resources needed to invade and hold onto the isle of mann for 180-odd years.

Suppose, upon invasion, they gave an ultimatum to residents, “accept life under our sovereignty or get on a boat and leave”

Suppose, those islanders, culturally foreign to Britain, prospered and did well for themselves.

Suppose, after 140 years of this, Britain attempted to regain control of the Isle of Mann by force, but was expelled by an invading task force.

Suppose, 30 years after that, the descendents of those original residents - and the ones that arrived along the way - said “we want self-determination” and claimed rights to remain associated with that other government.

Suppose, to that end, those islanders held a referendum - a referendum that was not offered to the residents of the Isle of Mann upon invasion, nor to those desdendents who chose to depart.

HOW WOULD BRITAIN REACT??

Would Britain say “ok ok UN council allows it, oh well...”???

Or would Britain say...

“BOLLOX!!! THIS COUNTRY KICKED OUT THE ORIGINAL RESIDENTS!! THEN IT SENT ITS OWN TO REPLACE OUR POPULATION!!

AND NOW THEY PRETEND TO USE A REFERENDUM, CLAIMING FOR THEMSELVES THE VERY VOICE THEY DENIED TO BRITISH RESIDENTS WHEN THEY INVADED!!!”

Honestly, would Britain not shove so many Trident subs up the invader's arse such that it would look more like a cave??!?!?!?!!??!?

It's not hard to put yourselves in our shoes, if you first admit what you did to us.

But if you think you're right, no matter what, and we are wrong, no matter what, then you get into a mindset that historical facts don't matter (which is exactly what we see above time and again in responses to Hermes).

182 Hermes1967

Cromwell established the Upper House in the final years of the protectorate, and it's still there. We actually didn't decide to ignore everything Cromwell did because we didn't like the cut of his jib.

This is all crap anyway. If your illegal regime had succeeded in its illegal invasion of the Falklands in 1982, you'd all still be cheering now and you know it.

186 MalvinasArgentinas
Britain and Spain and every other colonial nation behaved like that throughout the colonial era. They invaded places, they changed the make-up of the local population, and then they left, whenever the time was right for the local population to either win or claim the future of its choice.
What you are failing to understand is that the only thing that makes this situation different is your inflated idea of your own national pride and what it's worth, weighed against the lives of present day Falkland Islanders.

You weren't the original population of the Falkland Islands; you were temporary colonisers, and pretty rubbish ones at that. You failed. Get over it.

Your analogy is rubbish anyway, because the British wouldn't have lost the Isle of Man to a bunch of no-hopers like you in the first place. And if they had, they would have taken it on the chin and not still be crying about it now.

@166

Your entire premise is false. The “joint declaration” mentions specifically Port Egmont because it resolves a dispute concerning specifically Port Egmont. This is perfectly clear in the records you yourself quote. The burden of proof otherwise is on you.

The same applies to your repudiation of the 1850 Treaty. If what you are stating is true, then surely the logical course of action would have been to repudiate or renegotiate the Treaty in 1851, not 150 years later.

@167
You are making my point for me. There is no other country I can think of which would have undertaken anything like the 1982 adventure on such a flimsy and neurotic basis as this.

Good old Monty, rude as usual. Let's see:

“Britain and Spain and every other colonial nation behaved like that throughout the colonial era.”

So that makes it right?

Look at Diego Garcia, Britian is still doing it TODAY, because of arguments like these that seek to be apologetic of past mistakes instead of taking responsibility and making amends. Well mate, what goes around
comes around.

“What you are failing to understand is that the only thing that makes this situation different is your inflated idea of your own national pride and what it's worth, weighed against the lives of present day Falkland Islanders.”

I could stay the same about your own inflated idea of British national pride weighed against the permanent, peaceful, self-governing prosperity of present-day islanders (and certainly those of 1982) for had Britain put the issue to rest properly in the 19th century, that war would not have happened and we would not be having this discussion.

“You weren't the original population of the Falkland Islands”

NEITHER WERE YOU!!!

So, then, how'd YOU like it if someone came along, displaced you, and then used the same argument against you?? I don't think you would.

FURTHER STILL, what if the task force was unsuccessful (and history shows it very nearly was), would YOU accept ME now telling you “You failed. Get over it.”??

No, of course you wouldn't. But it's far easier to treat people with a different standard than that which you hold for yourself....certainly placates the ego much more efficiently.

AND SEE HOW YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION, I NEVER MENTIONED ARGENTINA IN MY ANALOGY!!!

You run yourself ragged filling in the blanks for yourself instead of looking at the FACTS, then you wonder why people oppose you and call you names. Read some history, I assure you, Britain has taken it on the chin and up the arse many many times over the span of its history.

Shall I endulge your ignorance with particulars, or would you be content to take my word for it?

@166 Responding to Hans,

The “joint declaration” mentions specifically Port Egmont because the only British property on the islands at the time Egmont!!

Note, further, that the Spanish Crown's 1768 order was not simply to evict Egmont, but “all English establishments”, with further communications that the order was carried out.

Every historical record I can find on this event, both Spanish and English, shows the ONLY British posession on the island was established by Byron, at the former Poil de la Croisade (now Egmont), in January of 1765 - and this was the ONLY one the Spanish executed an eviction of, and therefore the ONLY one that was restored to Britain BECAUSE BRITAIN HAD NO OTHER!!

Whether you like it or not, history records NO OTHER BRITISH SETTLEMENT ON THE ISLANDS!!!

So, if YOU allege one, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

Similarly, as far as the 1850 treaty is concerned, how can a government repudiate that which never happened in the eyes of the law?

How can a treaty NEVER negotiated be RE negotiated?

Finally it occurs to me that if YOU were the aggrieved party, you wouldn't find this one bit trivial, nor would you see your most conservative countrymen's actions as neurotic.

189 MalvinasArgentinas

It doesn't make it right. It makes it history. It already happened and you can't undo it. And especially not by doing us over. We are not responsible for something that happened two hundred years ago, any more than you are.

If the task force had been unsuccessful and my descendents were sitting in Southampton in the year 2192 still crying about it, I'd be very disappointed in them and wish they would get a life.

And I never said we were the original population. There's no need to shout old chap.

And I don't approve of what Britain did in Diego Garcia one bit. So that comparison is completely wasted on me.

Allright then I'm sorry I lost my nerve.

But I don't agree that it should end at “It doesn't make it right. It makes it history”. An open society, a truly free society, has an obligation to learn from history so as to not repeat the same mistakes.

You or I might not be responsible for a wrong done 200 years ago - but we are very much responsible for what we do right now. If wrongs were commited by our predecessors, let us endeavour to right them as far as we can!

This certainly does not mean “doing you over” in regards to the Falklands, anymore than it means “doing us over” in regards to Patagonia, or “doing Australia over” in regards to the aborigenes, or “doing the yanks over” in regards to Diego Garcia.

This simply means, at least, all parties meeting and coming to terms whereby all parties compromise but walk away with something they can live with, in order for the issue to be put to bed.

If the task force had been unsuccessful, I am quite sure that the issue would still be pending from the British point of view, because there is simply no military solution to this problem - the impetus for maintaining, or overcoming, the status quo would simply shift from one party to the other and it would go on like that forever!

Only by negotiation can a true, lasting peace be achieved, and it's easy for Britons and Islanders to say “get a life” then they're not the aggrieved party.

By the way....@187 you say:

“Cromwell established the Upper House in the final years of the protectorate, and it's still there. ”

Seriously? Are you confusing Cromwell's “Upper House” (i.e. the very much dissolved “House of Peers”, dissolved on 22 April 1659) with the House of Lords, the body descended from the Magnum Concilium and separated into its own house during the reign of Edward III, about 300 years before the protectorate??

You know, it occurs to me that if you people knew your own history better, these conversations would be a whole lot smoother.

Why is it that making things right automatically implies “doing you over”???

We do not want you to be our colony.

We do not want you to speak Spanish.

We do not want you to drive on the right.

We do not want you to observe our national holidays.

We do not want to control your economy.

We simply want you to make amends for past mistakes, as we would, and reach an agreement where every party can go home happy. Your culture, your customs, your laws and form of government to remain unchanged. Simply to allow Argentines, whomever wishes so, to live and work on the islands; to SHARE in the bounties of the waters that surround them and below the continent which supports it.

Such a negotiation would require both British and Argentine sides to admit their wrongs and make amends, to ensure a future in absolute peace and cooperation. And yet you fight it like the plague! That speaks a lot about your character as a people, I think.

No need to be judgemental like that - they have their reasons, we have ours.

@194
Mr Malvinas I noticed in you previous comment number 189 you said--“Look at Diego Garcia, Britian is still doing it TODAY, because of arguments like these that seek to be apologetic of past mistakes instead of taking responsibility and making amends. Well mate, what goes around ?comes around.” You are obviously referring to colonialism and Britain displacing the population, so what about the displaced Native South American population? were are their rights? Why can't we make amends here? After all us Europeans displaced them and Put you lot there didn't we?

You then continued on with comments on colonialism and Displacement of he Falklands etc. However I will refer you to this example I left in another post:

“As I have explained to your fellow Argentine commentator's Mr Axel, your are the one's who are being hypocritical about Colonialism. You were created by it and so you are in no position to complain. Don't like colonialism?, pack your bags and return to your continent of origin i.e. Europe, Asia, middle east etc. As you are on stolen lands were as the Falkland Islanders aren't.
Arg: “WE HATE COLONIALISM, UK OUT OF MALVINAS!!!”
UK: “You were created by colonialism.”
ARG “THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!”
LatAm natives: Colonials out of South America!!!
Arg: What?Who?
UK/natives: You!!!”

Does this answer your points on colonialism or are you going to rant on sir like Galtieir?

Ok Conor and again the same hypocritical criticism can be made about YOU.

Where is your criticism for Diego Garcia? Where is your criticism for Australia's aborigines?

You criticize Argentina for failing to right a wrong made over 100 years ago yet you won't speak out against wrongs being perpetrated RIGHT NOW?? Why, because those territories fly a union jack?? Please.

And by the way, who said we can't make things right with the indigenous peoples of South America? I think more than there not being a will to do so, there isn't the governmental capability to carry out such a project to completion. I for one would support it - and if you read up, I'm not the only one who calls for an all-around righting of wrongs. So you demand we make things right with native americans, well so do I - SO WHERE'S THE BEEF???

Because I want you to make things right with Argentina as well??

READ UP and answer on what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN, not on what you THINK I or anyone else wrote. Almost every single post from the Argentine side has been about a question of Britain BREAKING THE LAW when it returned in 1833 and its implications today, NOT about colonialism.

Or are you reading another comment thread and posting on this one instead???

Yeah I don't really see the logic of the “you're formed by colonialism too!!” argument that Conor presents.

Argentina is acutely aware that their origins were in colonialism. However, lest we forget - the Argentine people decided to do something about that colonialism and overthrew it.

So to say that the Argentine criticism of neo-colonialism is hypocritical in nature is at best misinformed, given that Argentina wouldn't even exist as a country were it not for a deeply-rooted attitude of anti-colonialism.

THAT BEING SAID, I acknowledge throughout history there have been terrible acts of brutality perpetrated against native americans, first by Spain and later by independent Argentina.

And I think Argentina should take steps to right those wrongs inasmuch as it can, in the same manner that Argentina expects Britain and Islanders to right the wrongs done to Argentina.

So, in response, no, “THAT'S NOT DIFFERENT”, and wrong by you - or wrong by us - wrong is wrong, and there should be efforts made to make amends, both from Argentina to natives and by Britain to Argentina (and by Britain to the Chagossians....and by Britain to the aborigenes...and by Britain to thoh screw it I'll be here all night if I list them all!)

Good night.

@196
What happened in Garcia/Australia was sad I hold no regrets for colonialism, and I support Argentina's right to be a nation happy? I was merely making an argument with you attitudes to colonialism as my example do you see?

“And by the way, who said we can't make things right with the indigenous peoples of South America?” Eh because they're all dead? Or subsumed-aka assimilated and lost with time?

“READ UP and answer on what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN, not on what you THINK I or anyone else wrote. Almost every single post from the Argentine side has been about a question of Britain BREAKING THE LAW when it returned in 1833 and its implications today, NOT about colonialism.” As said before Britain was on the island first long before Argentine even came into existence?

“Breaking the law/not colonialism?” So Britain taking back a set of barren islands form an Argentine/Spanish penal colony is bad, but Argentina being built on stolen lands is OK-is that not breaking the law? And I don't want to have a debate on this whole 1833 crap because it is tiresome and eve if Britain did allegedly “steal” the islands, as I have said before- “You are a colonially created people complaining about colonialism, Irony?????”

Yeah fine but we haven't been complaining about colonialism, we've been complaining that when Britain left the islands in 1776 its only posession was Egmont, and when it returned in 1833 it laid claim over the WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO, not just Egmont, and offered no explanation.

The treaty with Spain was clear: PART of the islands belonged to Spain, PART of the islands belonged to Britain, and there were DEMARCATED BORDERS which Britain ignored when it returned, claiming all as if it had always been hers.

That is the heart of the dispute, right there - Britain came and took what didn't belong to it, and now islanders want to just forget about it.

No, no...fix it - sit down, negotiate, ask the HARD QUESTIONS, study the documents and figure out once and for all what part is YOURS, what part is OURS.

Then, AFTER you return what you wrongly took, you can go back to YOUR PART and self-determine all you want, and leave us to what territory was rightly ours since our country was founded. As was said ealier, this is not a question of neo-colonialism, but of LAW - Britain signed a treaty in 1771 that said “X is the boundary of British property” and then in 1833 BROKE IT.

We only demand what justice demands: that it be fixed.

They most certainly are NOT all dead:

http://www.desarrollosocial.gob.ar/Uploads/i1/Institucional/6.InformacionEstadistica.pdf

Something CAN and SHOULD be done for them.

“So Britain taking back a set of barren islands...”

See?? Right there, you did it again! Britain didn't take them BACK, you just took them! Your part was Egmont. You took the WHOLE. Big difference.

“As said before Britain was on the island first long before Argentine even came into existence?”

As were Spain and France before a Briton ever set foot on the islands. So what's your point? You still came in 1833 and claimed you had reserved sovereignty over land that you didn't reserve sovereignty over, because it didn't belong to you at the time of your plaque's “reservation”.

Again - is this a magical plaque, that expands your territory beyond it's borders while you're gone, while simultaneously taking away Spain's, so that you leave a port and fort and return to an entire archipelago?

Please, explain, how exactly does that work??

“And I don't want to have a debate on this whole 1833 crap because it is tiresome”

Of course it's tiresome - just as tiresome as emptying the ocean, one bucket at a time. The simple fact is that what occurred in 1833 was theft, plain and simple. You left, you didn't have title, and when you came back you claimed you did (when you really didn't), and you've populated the islands with your own people ever since.

“You are a colonially created people complaining about colonialism, Irony?????”

We are not complaining about colonialism.

We are complaining about Britain breaking the terms of its treaty and summarily expanding its dominion from the “port and fort of Egmont” to the entire archipelago.

It had no right to do so, it signed a treaty demarcating its property, and then it went back on that treaty. To deny that injustice, to ignore its implications, is to be complicit in that injustice, and merits bearing the consequences of refusing to negotiate.

@199
Once again you and Mr Hermes are circling back to old arguments when I corner you over colonialism.
You have made all these points about Egmont and the treaty of Spain and in reality no one gives a flying fuck, grow up, you are not going to get the islands and you no this.

“Britain came and took what didn't belong to it, and now islanders want to just forget about it.” So did modern day Argentina only while Birtain arrived on a set of uninhabited islands you lot have set up a country on an entire continent you, “took what didn't belong to you”. neo-colonialism, but of LAW- both of these are the same as regards Argentina's position-created by colonialism which is a violation of Law.

“We only demand what justice demands: that it be fixed.” Ok then pack your bags and return your land to what few actual Native South American's you can find, until you do this you can not call the shot's on colonialism. Also you do realise that the Falklands Status Quo will remain forever right?
Good Day Sir.

How can you “corner” us on an objection we never made in the first place??

You're not cornering anyone, just putting words in my mouth and then criticizing me for saying what you said in my stead! You're responding to objections I never raised and then trying to bash me for raising them, when I never did!

Are you serious?? I never said anything about colonialism!

In any case Britain most certainly did not arrive on a set of uninhabited islands, there's another distortion of yours.

And forever is a long time. Many a Roman thought their empire would last forever.

Remind me, how'd that turn out again?? Oh, right.

@ 146 Hermes1967

“The argument then reverts to another way under international law that countries can aquire sovereignty, that of military conquest, which is illegal.”

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you are right.

How did Argentina acquire most of the provinces Formosa and Misiones?

The Paraguayan ruler, Francisco Solano López, inherited the country from his father and was de facto dictator.

He started 'Guerra de la Triple Alianza' in which Argentina conquered Formosa and Misiones.

Is Argentina going to return the conquered land to Paraguay?

@185 Hermes1967 (#)
Jun 23rd, 2012 - 12:15 am

Point one is the merry-go-round that we are on though isn't it? Nothing for the UK to apologise for. From our point of view backed up by all available sources says that the FI was our territory then as it is now. A private venture broke the rules of an agreement it made with the British by putting a small military force on the islands along with a penal colony. They were not even Argentinian.

Along with point one point two is simply your selective understanding of the UN charter. It doesn't have to say that the right to self determination trumps history at all. All it needs to do is confirm, which it does, that the right to self determination applies to everybody. Not just everybody except people who live on land that Argentina wants. And even if history did override the right to self determination, which it does not, the Malvinista claim would still be, at the very least contested by the FI and the UK because our understanding of it opposes yours.

Hermes/Malvinas

You two need to get you stories straight. Firstly you say that the fact that the “Argentine” population was forcibly removed, is the crux of the matter. When it is proven to you (using your own information), that in the balance of probability, no civilian was forcibly removed, the four that left probably chose to, and chances are they weren't Argentine....the argument swings to Spanish succession. I am happy with that...please can you arrange for no Argentine to ever mention the “forced removal of a population” again, including Hector Timmerman and Crisitna Kirchner, as it is proven to be a lie.

So, you want to talk about inheriting the land from the Spanish. This is indeed murky waters.

The Spanish are of course colonialist pirates, a strange bedfellow for the peace loving Argentines.

As correctly stated, the Viceroy of River plate became the united provinces of River Plate in 1816. However there are a number of points here:

1) the Spanish left the Falklands in 1811 and were not replaced with any other population
2) the united province of River plate contains what are today Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina, but not Patagonia. What makes the Falklands part of Argentina? Why is it not part of Uruguay or an independent state within the united Provinces. Certainly it is closer to what was then Chile rather than what was then Argentina.
3) the Argentine claim is therefore based on a plaque left by Spain in 1811 claiming sovereignty for Spain, and a rule of succession that made no explicit mention of them in 1816, least of all directly to Argentina, the claim is further weakened in that even by 1833, Argentina either in it's United Provinces guise or it's independent guise NEVER put a civilian population on the islands.

So, there we go. I am delighted that we never have to talk about evicted Argentine civilians again, as you have admitted that lie.

I am delighted, that the entire Arg claim is based on a Spanish plaque from 1811.

@ 146 Hermes1967

“An equally significant British misconception regards the Arana-Southern Treaty as valid, when it is not. And as I've pointed out before, the 1850 treaty was a treaty signed between Britain and an outlaw who ruled an extra-constitutional government. His every action is devoid of legal standing, as is every other action of every other illegitimate government both in Argentina and in Britain's history as well. ”

The Arana-Southern Treaty is a peace treaty.

1. You do realise that your above arguments implies, that Argentina and Great Britain have been at war since the date when the treaty is supposed to be invalid?

2. The treaty to end the 1982 war was signed by the dictatorship and is equally illegal, thus Argentina and Great Britain are still at war.

3. The actions of germany 1933-1945 were instigated by a dictatorship. Do you recognise that Germany after 1945 was not responsible for any of the dictatorship's actions?

Speaking of Argentina, which government's actions and statements are not null and void, if they contradict your opinion?

4. Are president Bartolomé Mitre's and his vice-president Marcos Paz's Messages to Congress null and void?

5. Are president president Domingo Faustino Sarmiento Messages to Congress null and void?

@203 As you point out, the war was started by Paraguay. Although perhaps some territory should be returned, for in my estimation the spoils were excessive and that was has had severe consequences that unfortunately persist all the way to today's debacle. Argentina is certainly 1/3 responsible for that.

@204

“From our point of view backed up by all available sources says that the FI was our territory then as it is now.”

No, from the British point of view backed up by a British-signed treaty the only British FI possession was Egmont. You then returned and took the whole.

If that is wrong - where are these “available sources” you speak of that document how Britain, while absent, lawfully obtained sovereignty over the entire archipelago, which it didn't have (based on British sources) upon its withdrawal?

“A private venture broke the rules of an agreement it made with the British by putting a small military force on the islands along with a penal colony. They were not even Argentinian.”

Then what do I care? Take it up with the private venturer. All I know is, you left and your part was Egmont, you came back and you claimed the whole, and to this day show nothing for it.

“It doesn't have to say that the right to self determination trumps history at all. All it needs to do is confirm, which it does, that the right to self determination applies to everybody.”

Very well then! Go back to Egmont (historically British) and self-determine yourselves to your heart's content - and leave the former Spanish territories to us so that we may do the same.

@205

“Firstly you say that the fact that the “Argentine” population was forcibly removed, is the crux of the matter.”

Nope. I referred to one and one thing only as the “crux of the matter”, in #163, and it wasn't the population issue. Don't put words in my mouth please.

Patagonia or proximity doesn't enter into it. The islands were a territory of Buenos Aires, pre and post 1816 independence, then asserted in 1820.

@ 146 Hermes1967 and 207 Hermes1967

Is Argentina going to return the conquered land to Paraguay, Yes or No?

We both know the answer: Not a chance it will be returned.

Hermes

You don't get it. The ONE hope that Argentina had was the myth that the nasty British evicted a peaceful Argentine population in 1833. That there were descendants of these folk who had been done a terrible wrong.

You have conceded, indirectly, that no such thing EVER happened, as I say, it should be dropped by CFK and HT and all the silly Malvinistas on the message boards. Quite simply, it never happened.

So, your case is exactly as you describe. I agree with you 100%.

Did the Argentines, inherit the islands from Spain. Islands that Spain voluntarily left in 1811, BEFORE the independence of Argentina, and were NEVER depopulated by an Argentine civilian population.

Excellent. I am very happy with that being the debate. My response to it, is Bollocks, you can whistle for them. The islands were not “taken” by military force as no civilian was evicted. We now agree.

So, Britain arrived at an evacuated former Spanish colony, evicted no civilian, and claimed them for themselves. There is no injured party.

Great. Similar events occurred in 1000s of places all around the world, and today's boundaries are maintained.

Now we have established there is no injured party, and it is a sole territorial dispute between the former Spanish Empire and British Empire...there is no case to answer.

@ Hermes1967 (1)

1. During the years 1833-1849 Argentina regularly protested British ownership of the Falkland Islands.

2. After the 1850 treaty the protests ceased until 1941, with the exeption of one diplomatic letter 1888.

3. President Bartolomé Mitre in 1865 implicitly accepted that the islands were British.

4. Vice-president Marcos Paz in 1866 implicitly accepted that the islands were British.

5. President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento in 1869 implicitly accepted that the islands were British.

6. Official Argentine map 'Limites Australes de la Republica Argentina' 1881, does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.

7. Official Argentine map 'Mapa Geográfico de la República Argentina ..., Buenos Aires 1882, uses one colour for Argentina and another for other countries' possessions - the Falkland Islands are of a different colour than that of Argentina.

8. The map of Argentina’s military regions from 1905 doesn't even show the Falkland Islands.

All of this converges on Argentine acceptance of British sovereignity over the Falkland Islands.

Because of the 2000 char limit, expansion on the subject and documentation will have to wait a little.

@209 Monkeymagic (#)
Jun 23rd, 2012 - 08:39 am

Arguing with Malvinistas is like playing whack-a-mole on a merry-go-round. They have a box of arguments and each and every time an argument is successfully countered they will put it back in the box and fish out another one. This goes on ad infinitum. When every argument is exhausted, the Malvinista SoP is to start again from scratch, passing it of as new and original.

The point is, if you enjoy this game fair play to you, go for it, give 'em sh1t. If it frustrates you, ignore them and concentrate on more practical things like gardening or some such. Nothing you say and nothing they say will change anything.

@ Hermes1967 (2)

Argentina protested in 1833 to Britain at the actions of Captain Onslow and from 1834 to 1849 Argentina protested regularly against British possession. There were two kinds of protests: three campaigns by diplomatic letters, in 1833-34, 1841-42 and in December 1849. A brief protest was made in the “Message to Congress” every year 1833-1849. These protests by letter are printed Alfredo Becerra, “Protestas por Malvinas”, Buenos Aires, 1998.

After the above peace treaty was ratified, the Argentine protests ceased. The Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress before 1941. The Messages to Congress were official addresses at the highest level, made each year at the ceremonial opening of the Argentine Congress. They were of international significance, because they were made in a top-level diplomatic forum that sometimes dealt in detail with Argentina’s territorial disputes with other countries (Chile and Brazil), but the Falkland Islands were no longer mentioned after May 1850.

All of the Messages, dated 1810 to 1910 inclusive, were reprinted in full in Spanish in “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, by Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910.

Except for one diplomatic letter 20 January 1888 from Argentine Foreign Minister Norberto Quirno Costa - the first Argentine protest since December 1849. Then the subject was dropped again. No more diplomatic protest by Argentina to Britain for the rest of the 19th century and until 1941.

The Argentine government did not even mention the islands in official communications to Britain before 1884, when it was intended to include the Falklands Islands as an Argentine possession in an Argentine map. This inclusion was objected to by Britain 26 December 1884 and Argentina abided by this protest, thus demonstrated that the Argentine government had accepted British possession. (3) to follow.

@212

@213 Leiard (#)
Jun 23rd, 2012 - 09:04 am

Did your keyboard stop working?

@114
I was just giving St.John a chance to continue !

@215 Leiard (#)
Jun 23rd, 2012 - 09:08 am

Sorry.

Thanks, Leiard :-)

@ Hermes1967 (3)

1. President Bartolomé Mitre's message at the opening of the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1865. Mitre said that Argentina had fulfilled undertakings with Britain and France “… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.”

“there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those governments [France and Britain].”

2. Vice-president Marcos Paz's opening speach to Congress 1 May 1866:

“Este mismo gobierno [= el gobierno británico] aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.”

“... damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled.”

3. President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento's Message to the Congress, 1 May 1869:

“El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.”

“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, ...”

Sources:
Argentine: Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, pp. 227, 238, 286.

British and Foreign State Papers (BFSP), 1865-1866 (London 1870), p. 1174, BFSP 1866-1867, (London 1871), p. 1009, BFSP 1870-1871 (London 1877), pp. 1227-1228.

(4) to follow.

@217

Thanks again :-)

@ Hermes1967 (4)

Three official Argentina maps from the 19th century do not show the Falkland Islands as an Argentine possession:

The Latzina Map, Mapa Geográfico de la República Argentina ..., Buenos Aires 1882, based on the treaty of 23 July 1881 and financed by the Argentine Foreign Ministry and published in 120,000 copies, distributed to Argentine consulates all over the world can be seen here:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4146/5040513492_334ddaa1ac_b.jpg and here:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4146/5040513492_334ddaa1ac_b.jpg

This map uses one colour for Argentina and another for other countries' possessions (the red lines are average temperatures) - the Falkland Islands are of a different colour than that of Argentina.

The same is implicit in that the map 'Limites Australes de la Republica Argentina' ( http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4146/5040513492_334ddaa1ac_b.jpg ) dated 1881 does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.

The map of Argentina’s military regions from 1905 ( http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4146/5040513492_334ddaa1ac_b.jpg ) doesn't even show the Falkland Islands.

All of this converge on Argentina's acceptance of British sovereignity over the Falkland Islands after the peace treaty of 1850.
- - - - - -
Let me finish with stating that - in spite of my username, I am not British, but after studying the dispute for a long time, I have come to the conclusion, that the British case is stronger than the Argentine.

If it was up to me, I would like to see the dispute settled by arbitration where the parties each selected a number of arbitrators and a judge as the chairman.

@219 Good post

As it looks like the islanders are going to be able to sleep peacefully in their beds for the foreseeable future, it would be interesting to hear from the Malvinistas what they would do in the first 100 days in the (hypothetical) instance that the ICJ awarded them sovereignty (again hypothetical - “you've got to be in it to win it”)

@220 - Steveu

In the hypothetical instance of them legally gaining sovereignty, the Argentinians would immediately celebrate, then realise that the country is fecked (with no more smoke screen to distract them).

Then the RG government would nationalise everything on the Falklands, rob them blind, and leave them in a right mess.

Like a child with a new toy, they've been begging for it for months, and when they finally get it, they play with it for 5 minutes, then toss it in a corner and forget about it.

The real truth is that the Argentine government doesn't really want the Falklands, they just want to use it as an excuse to distract the people from the fact the successive Argentine governments are corrupt and inept.

And they will continue to do so until the people of Argentina grow up, or one of their neighbours gets fed up of them and invades, retaking some of the land that the Argentinians have stolen from them in the past.

@Mr Malvinas/Mr Hermes
OH GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!!!!
“They most certainly are NOT all dead:” They are dead the vast majority have been exterminated and the rest who survived might as well be dead because they have lost everything else. “Something CAN and SHOULD be done for them” Like what? the only morally righteous thing would be to return their land, oh no wait Argentina is exempted from this but the Falklands aren’t.

“We are not complaining about colonialism” Oh-no not at all!
.http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/14/give-peace-a-chance-writes-cristina-fernandez-in-world-media-display
.http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/14/give-peace-a-chance-writes-cristina-fernandez-in-world-media-display
.http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/14/give-peace-a-chance-writes-cristina-fernandez-in-world-media-display
.http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/14/give-peace-a-chance-writes-cristina-fernandez-in-world-media-display

“We are complaining about Britain breaking the terms of its treaty and summarily expanding its dominion from the “port and fort of Egmont” to the entire archipelago.” No one cares!! Nothing will change the status quo! Expanding its dominion, your whole country was founded and built on the same principal, leave the Islands alone. “It had no right to do so”-Much like you had no right to ‘steal’ the lands you currently reside on.

If you come back with the same statements on the islands/colonialism then I’m not going to reply, if you can’t understand that you country and your leaders complaining about British colonialism when Argentina was created by it, is pathetic and hypocritical then your nationalist indoctrinated crap really has been drummed in well hasn't it?

Oh and one final question, do you really believe that the status quo will change, really? And how will it change?
Good Day Gentlemen

Many responses...much ignorance. Now that the match is over, I'll address:

You seem to underestimate the amount of lies, misinformation and deceit coming from the British side. If we employed a horizontal, merry-go-round,
whack-a-mole type of system to select when to use which argument, the diameter of that merry-go-round would be larger that the solar system!

Thus, to counter, the only thing we can do is stack our arguments into a vertical higherarchy, to address the several layers of BS whenever you choose to call up on of your many irrationalities.

The foundation for our arguments, of course, is the absolutely illegal and unjustified usurpation of our territories in 1833 by Britain. And we build up from there.

Further up, we find other arguments on moral or ethical grounds, such as “implanted population”, “neo-colonialism”, “theft of natural and energy resources”, “militarization of the south atlantic”, etc etc.

OF COURSE neo-colonialism is a current argument employed by us. But this, and the others I listed above, are predominantly moral arguments. I will let others address the immorality of Britain's actions. What concerns me is:

1 - WHAT DID BRITAIN RESERVE SOVEREIGNTY OVER WHEN IT LEFT IN 1776?

2 - WHAT DID BRITAIN CLAIM SOVEREIGNTY OVER WHEN IT RETURNED IN 1833??

No other aspect is more important here - NONE.

@ST JOHN

You have posted an impressive body of research, but I will offer the following points, followed by my own rebuttal and its sources which I'll outline here and post later due to the character limit. To wit:

1. You have not addressed my main objection - despite the lengthy response.

My main objection was that when Britain left in 1776, the British crown recognized its only propery on the islands to be the “port and fort of Egmont”;
when it returned in 1833, it claimed it was re-establishing a reserved sovereignty over the whole archipelago.

So - USURPATION, 1833 - Objection #1, unanswered.

(to be continued)

dale!

gracias.

(continued)

2. You have not addressed the fact that the 1850 treaty was signed by an extra-constitutional government!

Your ENTIRE argument, every single quote, depends on the 1850 treaty having full force of law - YET ROSAS' GOVERNMENT WAS ILLEGITIMATE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As I pointed out before with specific examples, the laws, acts, and treaties of illegitimate governments BOTH in Argentine AND in British law are NULL and VOID. Rosas' treaty is JUST AS VOID as any act of the Rump Parliament before Restoration.

Moreover, as I pointed out before, if the 1982 war was illegal because it was the act of an illegitimate government (as are all such acts), it follows the same principle applies for the action of any other illegitimate government is EQUALLY VOID OF LEGAL STANDING!!

You're trying to apply a very obvious double standard. I repeat - the concept is the SAME in BRITISH LAW and ARGENTINE LAW: ACTS OF ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT CARRY NO FORCE OF LAW.

You signed your treaty with an OUTLAW - that's YOUR problem.

So - TREATY BY ILLEGITIMATE, INCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT - Objection #2, unanswered.

3. I've read your sources. They seem quite interesting and convincing, until you realize that those people in those instances NEVER ONCE referred
to the issue of the islands specifically.

It is therefore YOUR INTERPRETATION that what they said applies to Argentina's views on the islands. But guess what, I'll even oblige you!
SUPPOSE, for every quote you provided, you could prove the speaker was specifically referring to Malvinas.

Are you then saying that the words of a specific government official are to be interpreted as the “official position” of the state???

Very well then! Let's just take a look at some words from some BRITISH government officials who - if your case for sovereignty is as rock-solid as you claim - should not deviate in the slightest from the current British position.

(to be continued)

Fact one: Argentina only wants the Falkland because of the potential wealth around them
Fact Two: Britain never deployed people to make a claim to the islands.
Fact three: Pioneering travellers were the first people to settle the Falkland Islands. It just happens that many were of English , Scottish and Welsh origin but many others came from other Countries.
Fact Four: The settlers of that period did not remove any indigenous people because none existed.
Fact Five: Argentines on the other hand killed or removed an entire population of indigenous people from land that today is known as Argentina.
Fact Six: Argentine Politicians are the only ones wanting to claim the Falkland Islands.
Fact Seven: The majority of Argentine ordinary citizens are not interested in the Falklands Islands but are forced to publically state they are by their governing dictators .
Fact Eight: There are several Argentine families living on the Islands and some have a history of living here for a very long time.
Fact Nine: That South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands were never claimed , Owned or challenged by France or Spain but was added by the Greedy Argentines.
Fact Ten: These Islands were discovered by an Englishman Captain John Davis in 1592 and was settled by the British at Port Egmont before the French settled at Port Louis.
Fact eleven: The people of the Falkland Islands will always have the right to determine their own future as laid down in the united nations charter.
Fact Twelve: We wish to remain British period.
Get used to it Argentina. One Day the rest of the world will see your Country for what it really is .

Ok Kelperabout, but St. John had like 7 posts to lay out his argument - let Hermes respond. You'll be next.

Ok then - St. John asserts that quotes by government officials are tantamount to an official position. He submitted several quotes of Argentine officials to prove that the official position of Argentina was that Malvinas did not belong to her.

Using the same reasoning, I happen to be able to provide quotes by BRITISH officials, and can conclude that the official British position was that Britain did not have sovereignty over the Falklands.

QUOTE #1

“it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Goverment's attitude
is not altogether unjustified, and that our action has been somewhat high-handed”

-Gerald Spicer, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1910

QUOTE #2

“I assumed that our right to the Falkland Islands was unassailable. This is very far from being the case.”

-Sir Malcom Robinson, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO ARGENTINA, 1920

QUOTE #3

“The difficulty of our position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possesion without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”

-John Troutbeck, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1936.

WOW, INTERNATIONAL BANDITS!!! Yeah, a rock-solid British claim, indeed.

Is it any wonder then that, after this, the British abandoned “prior claim” in favor of “acquisitive prescription”.

Tell me something - if Britain's claim was SOOOO SURE, why then did it find it necessary to CHANGE THE BASIS FOR ITS SOVEREIGNTY????

The answer is simple: because it was BOLLOX from the go, and they needed another lie to maintain the status quo.

And that's why we Argentines have to stack up our arguments higherarchically - because the British point of view can be summarized as lie, on top of lie, on top of lie.

And when you can't lie your way out of it - such as the incredibly OBVIOUS act of usurpation in 1833 when Britain claimed it had reserved sovereignty over territories IT NEVER HELD - you choose to ignore the truth.

Byron on 22 January 1765 formally claimed the Falklands in the name of George 111.
Regarding Port Egmont.
When this was restored to the British the agreement in part was:
cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the qustion of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands otherwise called the Falkland Islands.
There both countries rights over the Islands were the same as before the dispute. Which occured when Spain attacked Port Egmont on 10th June 1770

Just what does Argentina hope to gain by taking control of the falklands? I ahve asked the question before about how the Falklanders would be treated.

What if they refused to cooperate with the Argentine govt of occupation (because thats' what it would be)?

You may just end up looking like a bunch of ham- fisted tin pot dictators lording it over the islanders.

180 years is a looooonnnggg time after your supposed usurpation (despite the fact that we set up shop before you anyway).

If everyone in the world carried on over milk spilt centuries ago, like Argentina does, the world would be a far more chaotic and violent place, remicisent of the world of 1984 by George Orwell - with nations locked into perpetual conflict over ideological terroitorial claims.

You lot like to keep banging on about Scotland going independent - you seem to like the idea- so why cant you accept the fact that the falklanders want NOTHING to do with you.

The Spanish invaded the Falkland in 1771 to expel the British colony- do we still try to gain revenge or have we expanded our demands to include other Spanish islands?

225 Hermes1967

You missed out the Duke of Wellington.
Seriously, I happen to think that what a Prime Minister of the 1800s who fought at the Battle of Waterloo thought about the Falklands is every bit as relevant today as what Gerald Spicer of the Foreign Office thought in 1910.

Can I just say that this quote from you is one of the scariest things I have read on here for a long time, and expresses just why we cannot under any circumstances have anything to do with you or your regime:

''Very well then! Let's just take a look at some words from some BRITISH government officials who - if your case for sovereignty is as rock-solid as you claim - should not deviate in the slightest from the current British position.''

The day I hear any kind of deviation from the party line coming out of Argentine politics is the day I might (only might) think you have grown up enough as a country, society and democracy to have anything worth listening to.

@226 Kelperabout - one by one:

Fact one: “Argentina only wants the Falkland because of the potential wealth around them” (and underneath them, which happens to be Argentina's continental platform). No, steal it all as we sit and watch you get rich! Please...

Fact Two: “Britain never deployed...” WRONG - Britain deployed HMS Clio.

Fact three: Agreed.

Fact Four: Agreed.

Fact Five: Agreed. “ Argentines on the other hand killed or removed...” Agreed - as did Britain in Canada. And Australia. And even in the 20th century in Diego Garcia. Your outrage seems very selective! Let not the pot call the kettle black.

Fact Six: Agreed - but how is this relevant?

Fact Seven: “The majority of Argentine ordinary citizens are not interested” absolutely incorrect - you'll find a HIGH DEGREE of self-motivated interest.

Fact Eight: “ There are several Argentine families living on the Islands...” Agreed - but how is this relevant? There are many British, Welsh, Scottish families living throughout Argentina...

Fact Nine: “South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands were never claimed...” Agreed - but the greedy British returned in 1833 and claimed to resume sovereignty over more territory that they had when they withdrew in 1776. There would have been no reason for US to be greedy had YOU not been greedy before. So, we we're greedy all around, and one good turn deserves another.

Fact Ten: WRONG - the islands were discovered, landed on and claimed by Francisco de Ribera, for Spain, on February 4, 1540. FIFTY TWO YEARS BEFORE DAVIS, which discovered too little, too late. THAT is British misinformation.

Fact eleven: Agreed - in BRITISH territory in the Falklands: Egmont (per Treaty, see #153 above). The rest belongs rightly to Argentina, and Argentine people demand the same rights of self-degermination over their own territory that you would deny them while usurping for yourselves.

Fact Twelve: “We wish to remain British, period” GREAT! Do it in Egmont, where you BELONG.

@229

CLAIM - Ribera for Spain in 1540, Byron for England in 1765. Which came earlier?

RESTITUTION - Attack in 1790, treaty in 1791. Which came earlier?

Can you add????

“both countries rights over the Islands were the same as before the dispute. ”

CORRECT! The territory was PARTITIONED!! There was a BORDER!!! Part was British, part was Spanish.

And, when Britain returned - ALL was British?? How?? MAGICALLY???

No, not magically: “usurpation”. History doesn't lie.

233 MalvinasArgentinas

''History doesn't lie.''

Yes it does, you poor naive fool. Why do you think we teach even 10 year olds to consider a range of sources and find out where they came from, before deciding if they are worth anything.

@231 Yes I did miss Wellington. Do not that I didn't start with the irrelevant quotes, I was only responding to St. John above. At least my quotes are from the 20th century, his are from the 19th! Frankly I didn't want to bring it up.

Scariest thing I've yet written?? Why, yes, it is scary! That's what happens when you realize your position is built on lies and your perception of the world was mistaken. For over 100 years you keep maintaining that your right to sovereignty is based on “prior discovery”, then one day all of a sudden “POOF” you change your minds, “sorry mates, it was something else”.

How convenient!! Not very credible, though.

As for Argentina, I for one do hope the party line will change. Ms. Castro already hinted at constitutional changes as a result of negotiations so I believe there is some room to maneouvre. HOWEVER - that depends on wether the British disposition to intransigence is altered.

Intransigence on your side will only lead to stiffen intransigence on ours.

@234 I disagree - SOURCES may lie, but true history does not.

Boy
We aint still at it are we,

Gentlemen ,

The future is what matters now,
In this day and age, with a lot of other countries killing each other,
You should learn the lesson I gave yesterday,
Sadly some never learn until blood is spilt,

The Falkland islanders have a right to freely decide who governs them,
[No one can oppose this right]
The Falklands choose to be British, at this point in time,
[Again you cannot oppose this decision,

In time the Falklanders, may well decide to become independent,
And again, this right should be respected, by all nations, that believe in democracy, [we expect some dictatorships, to oppose independence,]

The islands people, have the same rights as argentine people had many decades ago, when they threw of the colonial yoke of Spain, and become independent, so please don’t deny the right to others, the you demanded and got, as that is hypercritical ,

This will go on until you get a more civilised government who will accept this,,
Unless you wish more blood to be spilled.
….dot ..
.

“The future is what matters now”

Will you define the future by ignoring your past? Or parts of the past that don't suit your point of view?

“In this day and age, with a lot of other countries killing each other,
You should learn the lesson I gave yesterday,”

Which essentially requires us to shut up and take it up the arse. I wonder, then, why there are so many other countries killing each other.

“The Falkland islanders have a right to freely decide who governs them,”

GREAT! So go govern yourselves - in YOUR territory, that territory which Britain had ownership over when it left in 1776, that SAME territory to which it had ownership when it returned in 1833: “EGMONT”, and return what does not belong to you.

“The Falklands choose to be British, at this point in time”

Again - BRILLIANT! Go back to Egmont, and choose for yourselves to your heart's content.

“...In time the Falklanders, may well decide to become independent...have the same rights as argentine people had many decades ago, when they threw of the colonial yoke of Spain...”

If the islands are restored to Argentina, and thereafter the islands choose to become independent from Argentina, I will cheer it.

But any attempt to seek independence from Britain will never be accepted by Argentina. You cannot become independent from a country to which you were never legitimately linked in the first place (with the exception of Egmont, of course).

We are the ones calling for negotiation. You decline it.

We are the ones calling for an examination of history. You ignore it.

Seems to me the only party that is taking steps to make sure no more blood is spilled is Argentina, for you are content to hide behind British guns and maintain the status quo.

@ 223 Hermes1967 + 225 Hermes1967 (1)

You treat the events one by one, as if the others did not exist, and you absolutely fail to realise that they must been seen as a conglomerate of events, as in:

(Argentina protested in 1833-1849 to Britain + peace treaty + protests ceases for 91 years + President Bartolomé Mitre (official Message to the Congress) sees nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations + vice-president Marcos Paz (official Message to the Congress) says “esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.” + President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento (official Message to the Congress) says “Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas” + official 'Mapa Geográfico de la República Argentina' shows the Falkland Islands in the same colour as e.g. Chile and of a different colour than Argentina + official 'Limites Australes de la Republica Argentina' does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina + official map of Argentina’s military regions does not show the Falkland Islands as part of anay of the military regions).

Each event, seen separately, can be interpretated as you do, but as a series of events and a time line they converge on Argentina's acceptance of British sovereignity over the Falkland Islands after the peace treaty of 1850, whether the treaty was legitimate or not.

(2) to follow.

ok I'll wait

238 Hermes1967
“Will you define the future by ignoring your past? Or parts of the past that don't suit your point of view?

You arte the first to moan of others,

Please read what I said, and stand by yesterday,
The past, is your future,
And only today, can you stop the errors of the past repeating its self today, and tomorrow,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Accept that the islanders have a right to self determination and the rights of choice and freedom,
Or oppose it, but if in the end blood is once again spilled, then you have learned nothing from the past, and are destined to repeat it,
Leave em alone, and you will see I am correct, and peace will descend on the southa Atlantic.

In plain English, sir, you are a fool,
You preach peace, but yearn for war,
For this seems to be the only thing you understand,
To you and the other indocronoughts, its Britain that is in the wrong, in the past , now , and in the future,
And Argentina can claim the victim, until you force, [yes force] a people to sucome to your demands,
If you are not willing to change your opinion, [your choice]
Then there is nothing to talk about,
.
.

@230 shb

“Just what does Argentina hope to gain...”
-Restoration and recognition of sovereignty over territories that justly belonged to the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, and now to independent Argentina.

“how the Falklanders would be treated...”
-Maintain your own autonomous government, your internal laws, your language, your customs, your institutions, national holidays. Continue to drive your cars on the left. Allow international flights to and from the islands including Argentina. Allow any Argentine who wishes to live and work in the islands to do so, and to buy property with no impediments, as long as they're willing to speak English. Allow any islander to do the same in Argentina, as long as they're willing to speak Spanish. Reach an equitable agreement over fisheries, conservation, and energy resources that respect islanders' wishes and Argentina's interests EQUALLY. Keep British sovereignty over Egmont as per the 1771 treaty, return the rest to Argentina with leaseback to Britain, and
operate RAF Mt. Pleasant as a joint base.

“If everyone in the world carried on over milk spilt centuries ago...”
-OH BUT IT DOES! Look at Afghanistan, look at Paraguay, look at Iraq, look at ISRAEL!!!

“Why can't you accept...”
-We can't accept the idea that Falklanders want nothing to do with us because Falklanders themselves can't accept the idea they're living (well) on stolen territory.

It's not JUST about your self-determination, it's about WHERE you're wanting to apply that self-determination.

Go back to Egmont - which was RESTORED to Britainin 1771 as LEGITIMATE British territorry - and return that land which did not belong to you in 1833 nor thereafter...

....THEN, if you want nothing to do with us THAT'LL BE JUST FINE! We demand you return what you stole, nothing more, nothing less.

Borders???????????????? Partinioned????????

Ribera was blown only 60 miles out to sea when he reached Cape Virgin.
The British had claimed the Islands before the Spanish.
Spain had shown no interest in the Falklands until the 1760's. Until then they did not have a Spanish name.

@241 Briton

“You arte the first to moan of others”

You do plenty of moaning about us.

“The past, is your future,
And only today, can you stop the errors of the past repeating its self today, and tomorrow”

...and what prevents you from doing the same? I read what you posted. You haven't answered me.

“Accept that the islanders have a right to self determination and the rights of choice and freedom”

I DO!!! I only oppose WHERE they say they can assert those rights, as British citizens. I am happy for them to exercise those rights, ON BRITISH SOIL - EGMONT, PER THE 1771 TERMS! I don't reject Islanders' right to self-determination, I only reject the 1833 act of USURPATION which islanders today wish to ignore.

“Or oppose it, but if in the end blood is once again spilled, then you have learned nothing from the past, and are destined to repeat it,”

The same could be said of Britain.

In plain English sir you are a hypocrite,
You preach self-defense but act only in aggression,
Force seem to be the only thing you understand,
To you and all the other indocronoughts, its Argentina which has no rights in the past, now, and in the future,
While Islanders quite clearly ARE claiming to be victims, while they themselves continue to usurp and steal [yes, steal] resources in, below, and around territories to which Britain NEVER obtained lafwul, legitimate sovereignty, with the exception of Egmont.

If you are not willing to ACCEPT HISTORICAL FACT and RIGHT THE WRONGS YOU HAVE CAUSED US,

then indeed there is nothing to talk about.

But we are civilized, and our cause is both moral and just - and we shall keep at it no matter what you say.

.The rights of the innocent
Will always out weigh
The greed
Of the guilty,

And good will always prevail
Over evil.

the 1771 did not state that from the argentine government,
This is your bit, and this bit is mine,
It has been totally interpreted out of proportion ,

The fact remains, yet you Argies deny it,
Argentina did not exist in 1771,
And their has not been a treaty that gives the Falkland Islands to the argentine people,

You just cant interpret that, you get everything that the Spanish owned,, or you would today have a claim on Florida and Gibraltar,
Your theories just don’t add up, and your facts are not facts,
The treaty of 1850 out supersedes all other treaties before that date, between the UK and Argentina,
You signed it, we signed it,
So either get over it, or totally ignore it,
that’s your choice,
But the islands will remain British, until the islanders state otherwise..

@ 223 Hermes1967 + 225 Hermes1967 (2)

“1. Main objection was that when Britain left in 1776 ... USURPATION, 1833 ”
“2. You have not addressed the fact that the 1850 treaty was signed by an extra-constitutional government!”

1.+2. If later constitutional governments/presidents acknowledge the “usurpation” and ratification, then it is valid by their acknowledgement/acquiescence. Any later government can reverse or acknowledge a previous government's decisions, laws, etc. as far as this is not forbidden by the country's constitution - this happens and has happened for millennia over and over again in every country in the world.

Besides: According to your logic, Germany should be able to use the same argument about WW2 and deny any responsibility afterwards because Adolf had taken extra-constitutional dictatorial powers - did they get away with that?

“3. I've read your sources. They seem quite interesting and convincing, until you realize that those people in those instances NEVER ONCE referred
to the issue of the islands specifically.”

3. Of course not, and neither do they list every other non-existing conflict, or the speech would have lasted for several months - or even years should the list be complete.

Do you see any mention of Argentina not having a conflict with Sweden, Germany, Italy, ... or a list over Japanese islands which are not disputed? In statements of that kind only actual conflicts are mentioned, as can be seen elsewhere in Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, re. e.g. Chile and Brasil.

What does “esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.” mean?

(3) to follow.

You say
If you are not willing to ACCEPT HISTORICAL FACT and RIGHT THE WRONGS YOU HAVE CAUSED US,

Eye say,
Tell me what wrongs the islanders have done to you,

You say
We hide behind the guns of the British,
Eye say,
Argentina illegally and without provocation invaded an innocent unarmed defenceless tiny little island
Without cause or justification,
And as a direct consequence of this action,
Hundreds of innocent people died, who would otherwise be alive with there families today,
Argentina is therefore guilty of this atrocious crime ,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
And you sit there and demand we say sorry to you.

.

@243 You are wrong, Ribera WINTERED on the islands in 1540, and his claim predates Britain by several decades. Your choosing to repeat it lie does not make it true.

“Borders???????????????? Partinioned????????”

YES. BORDERS. PARTITIONED. PP329-330

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ab8sAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

“...his Catholick Majesty shallk give orders...to one of his Officers, to deliver...the Port and Fort of Egmont, as also all his Britannick Majesti's
artillery, stores, and effects, as well as those of his subjects, according to the inventory which has been made of them...”

CONTEMPORARY REACTION BY FUMING MAD TORYS, pp. 279

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ab8sAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

“...you have been graciously pleased to accept a PART: you take Port and Fort Egmont, reserving to the Spaniards the rest of the island...”

SO YES, THAT'S RIGHT. BORDERS. PARTITIONED.

EGMONT IS BRITISH. THE REST IS SPANISH. THERE'S YOUR BORDER, THERE'S YOUR PARTITION.

That was true in 1771 when you signed the treaty into LAW.

That was true in 1776 when you withdrew and left a plaque to reserve your property rights.

That was true in 1833 when you returned and LIED saying that you reserved sovereignty over the WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO, which you did not have sovereignty over when you left.

@245
“The rights of the innocent
Will always out weigh
The greed
Of the guilty,

And good will always prevail
Over evil.”

Which is exactly why you are absolutely wrong in your position - for you are the greedy who are guilty of usurping - and as for good? Ask the Chagossians.

“you get everything that the Spanish owned” NO!!! ARE YOU DAFT??? OBVIOUSLY NOT!!!

Your ignorance is astounding!! Read up on the Viceroyalty of the River Plate and its independence.

“Your theories just don’t add up, and your facts are not facts,”

No, you choose to ignore facts - that's different.

“The treaty of 1850” is AS ILLEGAL AS THE RUMP PARLIAMENT.

You did not reply to your hiding behind the British guns,,
If one treaty is illegal, then all treaties are illegal,

We feel that you have interpreted it wrongly,

And even if not,
Then it does not in any way mean that Argentina inherits all that was Spanish,
A lot of land acquired by argentina was won by war,
If you keep these lands, then that to is illegal is it not, why not give it back to them,
Or was this treaty with a defeated enemy under threat, legal .

@ 223 Hermes1967 + 225 Hermes1967 (3)

4. “... a specific government official ...”

- two president and a vice president. If they are not able to speak for the country, then who is?

5. “Gerald Spicer, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1910” + “Sir Malcom Robinson, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO ARGENTINA, 1920” + “John Troutbeck, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1936.”

Which of these persons were prime ministers (equal to president in Argentina) or even with the authority of Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs?

Secretaries (FCO): 1910 Sir Edward Grey, 1936 Anthony Eden.

Answer: None of them.

They had no authority to speak on behalf of the British government except by specific instruction from the said government.

As public servants they may give their personal evaluation of validity, etc. but this is as unofficial as can be, input to the decisionmakers.

BTW: You are overinterpreting the 1771 declaration and the British letter of acceptance (they do not constitute a treaty!) - I shall come to that at a some later time, need to peruse the the opinion of The House of Lords .

No, it's not that if one treaty is illegal then all treaties are illegal.

I've explained this already.

All acts of illegitimate governments are illegal. Have you heard of the English Civil War?? Have you heard of Restoration?? There is a reason why England today is Anglican and not Puritan. I'll say it again:

THE ACTIONS OF ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT ARE NULL AND VOID IN THE EYES OF THE LAW - THIS IS THE CASE BOTH IN BRITAIN AND IN ARGENTINA.

“Then it does not in any way mean that Argentina inherits all that was Spanish”

OF COURSE NOT!! But the United Provinces DOES inherit those territories under control, SPECIFICALLY, of the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate.

“If you keep these lands, then that to is illegal is it not, why not give it back to them”

Paraguay started it, not Argentina. Paraguay gambled and lost. I agree ancestral lands should be given back to native american communities.

@ Briton you are responding without first reading. This makes for difficult discussion.

@251
Mr Hermes, as I can not show you that you have no rights to the islands without bombarding me with a load of links, I will simply ask why can't you give up the claim? The Islanders don't won't you and to be honest you Argentines don't really want them either do you? Despite all the indoctrination, the biased media and the opportunistic politicians, the majority of you people simply won't go anywhere near the islands, even if you did take them I bet that the migration levels from Argentina to the Islands won't change at all.

Deep down you people don't care and this claim is only skin deep, and since I can't convince you with solid evidence I will simply say that; you do realise that you are never going to get the islands right? Give up nothing will change the Status Quo will remain forever, you had a chance before 82 and you blow it, the islanders most certainly won't want you now, and there is nothing you can do about it, so forget them, get on with your life and worry about Argentina, not the islands of a people who don't want you.

We also feel, that if you are going to condemn one country on her past acquisitions, that to be fair you must first put your own house in order,

Was not the original people almost whipped out,
Argentina who inherited that tiny bit of land from the Spanish, should have immediately return them to the people, and thus you should return to wherever you descend from,
Is this not fair,

Argentina should also return all conquered lands that you forcibly took from your enemies, that you had no right to.

Do you happen to know all the countries TODAY that is run by a people or group, that seized power from the legitimate government,

And who’s treaties that have since been made with argentina, should then be made illegal,
Is this not true.

And lastly,
Is the war with the Falklands officially over,
And was the government at the time, actually allowed to signed the peace agreement, if that government was illegal.
Trust me,
The Falklands are British, and will remain so,
And that is a fact.

.of course im reading,
but again one just cant interpret what one assumes to be true,
only if a documant states=
i/we the spannish, ect ect, give all our lands including all the falklands islands to argentina , ect ect ,
there was and is no such document,

the fact today is, the UN states that self determination is ok.
and thus argentina should respect the rights and desisions made by the islanders .

@ 251 Hermes1967

“the United Provinces DOES inherit those territories under control, SPECIFICALLY, of the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate.”

No it does not.

El Virreinato del Río de la Plata consisted 1810/1816 of Argentina limited to the south through present provincia Buenos Aires (about 1/10 of the present province) toward west a line south of San Luis and including provincia Mendoza + Uruguay + parts of Paraguay + most of Bolivia + part of present day Brasil.

If we are to accept inheritance, then all of these should own the Falkland Islands, in common or divided.

Then we will just have to agree to disagree.

But,
After the deaths of over 250 brits who died for the islands,
No British prime minister will ever negotiate, without the islanders say so,
That’s for sure.

See you tomorrow.
.

@St. John, 255

“El Virreinato del Río de la Plata consisted 1810/1816 of...”

Quite correct! Those territories with seceded from the Union - modern day Uruguay, Bolivia, etc - are no longer part of modern-day Argentina - BUT this
does not mean they did not break away from Spain with it.

The fact is, the entire Vireynato del Rio de la Plata became the independent Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata. One of those provinces was Buenos Aires.
One of the territories of Buenos Aires was Islas Malvinas. It was so before independence from Spain, and it was so afterward as well.

@St. John 239,

“You treat the events one by one”

I certainly do see them as a conglomerate. It seems you fail to understand the concept of causality!

If an event in 1850 is the basis for other events thereafter, and the event of 1850 is legally null and void, all that follows and is built
upon that illegitimate 1850 event is equally null and void.

“as a series of events and a time line they converge on Argentina's acceptance of British sovereignity”

I could easily claim the same with my own citations,

(1771 Joint Declaration + British congratulatory letter of independence + Statement by Troutbeck + Statement by Spicer + Statement by Robinson +
Statement by Wellington all converge on Britain's acceptance of Argentine sovereignty)

See?

That is YOUR INTERPRETATION, as the above would be mine, by YOUR REASONING equally valid. However, instead of dealing with semantics, let us deal
with the LAW.

There are specific ways in which a country can acquire or dispatch sovereignty over a territory. You can't just throw a bunch of quotes from a bunch
of people and think that will aggregate or converge into an action by the state.

(to be continued...)

236 MalvinasArgentinas

Err...if you weren't actually there, where are you going to get 'history' from apart from sources.
And generally, you'll pick the sources that correspond to what you think already. Everyone does.

Which is why we've presented British sources. Will you dispute their accurace?

Would you like us to use Argie sources instead??

@St. John, 246

“If later constitutional governments...then it is valid by their acknowledgement/acquiescence.”

- HALF-TRUTH! The 1850 treaty was never ratified during any of the constitutional governments that followed.
- Not true of the acquiescence factor - action must be taken to ratify an event which, constitutionally, never took place.

“Germany should be able to use the same argument about WW2 and deny any responsibility afterwards because Adolf had taken extra-constitutional dictatorial powers”

-FALSE: Hitler was duly elected Chancellor in full accordance to the republic's constitution at the time; his later powers came by legitimate constitutionally-established means, even as over-reaching as they were, but which in German law were come by legitimately.

@St. John, 250

“two president and a vice president. If they are not able to speak for the country, then who is?”

- In a constitutional republican democracy, such as Argentina, that would be the legislative branch, thereafter signed into law by the executive.

“They had no authority to speak on behalf of the British government...”

-In this context, I believe they were -- with special emphasis on Ambassador Robinson, for that was the very definition of his position!! (Not to mention the
fact that the people I've quoted are specifically referring to the Falklands, while the people you have quoted are not).

“As public servants they may give their personal evaluation of validity, etc. but this is as unofficial as can be, input to the decisionmakers.”

- Very well then! The same goes for the quotes you've provided.

”You are overinterpreting the 1771 declaration and the British letter of acceptance (they do not constitute a treaty!) - I shall come to that at a some later time, need to peruse the the opinion of The House of Lords.”

- I don't believe I'm overinterpreting it, I think it's quite clear in determining what's British and what's Spanish.

I look forward to your next post on Lords' opinion.

@ 257 Hermes1967

“If an event in 1850 is the basis for other events thereafter, and the event of 1850 is legally null and void, all that follows and is built
upon that illegitimate 1850 event is equally null and void.”

Not at all, if later constitutional government(s) acknowledge the treaty as de facto, then it is valid, even if it originally was ratified by an unconstitutional government.

I have to repeat myself:

If later constitutional governments/presidents acknowledge the “usurpation” and ratification, then it is valid by their acknowledgement/acquiescence. Any later government can reverse or acknowledge a previous government's decisions, laws, etc. as far as this is not forbidden by the country's constitution.

RIDICULOUS!!

No, no - the law is quite clear in that an act by an extra-constitutional government must be RATIFIED by ACT of congress, then signed into law by the executive, rather than gaining legitimacy simply by passively being acknowledged as de facto by a subsequent constitutional government.

By your reasoning, one could conclude the Kirchner administration - in acknowledging the last dictatorship as de facto, has legitimized the dicatorship.

RI-DI-CU-LOUS.

As a matter of fact, several laws and decrees from the last dictatorship have had to be legitimized by the process I outlined above, in order for post-dictatorship constitutional government to both acknowledge the changes made in infrastructure and “take ownership” of projects that, constitutionally speaking, never happened.

Simple, passive acknowledgement of de facto circumstances is not enough to legitimize the action of an illegitimate, extra-constitutional government. There must be action by BOTH legislative AND executive branches. The law is clear, and the jurisprudence reflects that legal process.

Constitución Argentina de 1853
...

The Executive Power

Articles 71 to 90 contained the stipulations related to the executive power. Its control would be relay on one single person with the title of “President of the Argentine Confederation”. It had also a vice-president elected together with the president...

According to the first incise of the 90th article, the president was the supreme authority of the Confederation in what was called a presidentialist regime: the president need not answer for his/her actions to any superior authority, inside the mark given by the constitution, and did not require of the Congress approval for the exercise of the competent attributions.

The president had also co-legislative powers: besides the promulgationand sanction of laws dictated by the Congress, including the faculty of veto, the president was in charge of the expedition of appropriate regulations for the application of the law, called decrees, though respecting the spirit of originality of the law. The signature of treaties with other states was subscribed exclusively to the president, as well as the decision of following or not the documents emitted by the Supreme Catholic Pontiff.
...
The constitution established as five ministries, for which the president could elect its ministers; this ministries were of Domestic Affairs, Foreign Relationships, Economy, Justice, Cult and Public Instruction (Education), and War and Navy. The ministerial referendum was necessary for the government decrees. Ministers were also obligated to give reports to the Congress at the opening of the sessions, of which they could also take part, though without the right of vote in order to avoid the incompatibility with the exercise of the legislative power.

Sorry, chaps, I'm going to have to bow out of this one.
You're welcome to carry on banging on about something the British government said to someone who wasn't Argentina in 1771 for as long as you like.
You can also carry on disclaiming all responsibility for anything Argentina did that you don't quite like by imagining that it was someone else. Seriously, if you discounted everything that ever happened in Argentina under a dodgy government, you wouldn't have much left would you?
It's pathetic. Just listen to yourselves.
Anyway, you've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a .....

And yes, Troutbeck of the Foreign Office in 1930- whatever is a British source. The problem for you is that something a civil servant said 80 years ago is just an opinion. It's not government policy, or law, or a treaty. It's nothing. As someone once said, opinions are like arseholes; everyone's got one.
And for every opinion like that you can wheel out, we can find 15 that say something else. Or at least we could if we could be bothered and didn't have anything better to do. Like running our country properly and getting on with life.

OK - Monty first:

“The problem for you is that something a civil servant said 80 years ago is just an opinion.”

No, that's St. John's problem above. I was only responding to him. You keep responding to something I never asserted, except in response to his own quotes, which he holds with the same regard (and which you fail to criticize according to your reasoning that opinions are like arseholes, with which I happen to agree).

Ok, St.John...you're misreading the constitution...first off, you say

“Articles 71 to 90 contained the stipulations related to the executive power.”

when in fact if you examine the 1853 constitution's text, you'll find:

-Articles 71-73 deal with the process of forming and sanctioning legislation
-Articles 74-80 with the executive's nature and term
-Articles 81-85 regards electoral law
-Article 86 deals with specific attributions of the executive branch, and
-Articles 87-90 regard the ministers of the executive.

Now, to your observations:

-Indeed, under Rosas' presidentialist regime, the president was the supreme authority, and had co-legislative powers.

-The president need not answer for his/her actions to any superior authority, just as you say, INSIDE THE MARK GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION - which decidedly did NOT include powers attributed to the legislative branch.

-The president does indeed have the power to issue regulationary decrees. This
is not the same as the power to issue legislation.

In short, nothing which you've listed demonstrates that, after the defeat
of Rosas and the restoration to constitutional democracy, any Argentine
law allowed for the legitimization of the acts of a non-constitutional government by any other means of Act of Congress, thereafter being signed into law by the President.

“no passive defacto legitimization = 1850 treaty is null and void”

El presidente gozaba de facultades colegislativas: ... La firma de tratados con otros estados estaba a su exclusivo cargo

Coincido - pero vos citas la constitución de 1853 para legitimizar un acontecimiento de 1850, cuando no estaba aun en vigencia la carta magna que estas citando y, ademas, mientras se encontraba a cargo un gobierno inconstitucional.

Time flows forward in our universe, not backward.

30 years ago argentina invaded killed uk forces and now expects the uk to hand over islands it failed to win by force.
Never going to happen.

@267 -Hermes

You say, “Time flows forward in our universe, not backward.”

I agree. The people of the Falklands have lived continuously on the islands for 180 years and more. It is their land. Not Argentina's, certainly not based on a failed illegal military penal colony that was othe islands for 3 months.

I am curious though. You say that the Argentine government who ratified the 1850 treaty with the UK was not legal, and that only a legal government existed from 1853 onwards.

Doesn't that mean that all governments prior to 1853 were also illegal? So if an 'illegal' government can't sign a treaty, how can an illegal government claim territory?

The FACTS are this.

In 1832 the United Provinces tried a land grab, nothing wrong with that, except to failed spectacularly because the UP troops mutinied and were removed by the British. That act was completely legal by the laws of the 19th century.

The Argentine government signed at treaty in 1850 stating there were no outstanding differences between Argentina and the UK. You say this government was illegal, and there was no legal government until 1853.

So why didn't the government of 1853 bring this up? Why did they honour this treaty?

Then for nigh on 90 years not a peep out of Argentina regarding the Falklands.

Face it, you never had sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, Spain didn't leave them to you in their will (how could they when they'd already dropped their sovereignty claims prior to recognising any of their former colonies), you couldn't hold them in 1833, not due to the British but due to your own undisciplined troops, and trying to usurp the rightful owners of the land today is colonialism of the worst kind.

The reason Argentina has refused to take this 'sovereignty, issue to the ICJ, is because you know that you don't have a leg to stand on over it.

Argentina try sorting out your own problems first, then grow up.

The only people here who keep trying to turn back the clock are you Argentines.

At Last we are starting to get somewhere. Argentines actually admitting to a part of the Falklands bieng British. That could be th echink in their armour that finally opens the door to reality of just where we belong. Port egmont was the seat of the British government over the whole of the Falland Islands so by their own admission the Falklands is a British territory.

The Argentines keep rattling on about Britain steeling land particularily the Falklands. Yet they never make notes of the very fact that every square inch of what is Argentina today was stolen from an indigenous people. I would like to know why this is.

For the sake of world peace drop these stupid claims to what at the end of the day actually belongs to the people who live on the Islands. The ones who at every level the Argentines have refused to recognise exist just as they did to the indigineous peopl of that country.

Honesty and truth always prevail and as history shows Falkland Islanders are truthful and peaceful to the whole world including their bullying neighbour.
The hard fact of life is that when this issue is finally put to bed. Argentina will still have to live with her past and our people will live on through the passage of time period.

This is all just Malvinista mindfuckology. What Hermes is effectively saying is that there has never been a continuous line of legitimate Argentine administration. Flicking through Argentina's history Hermes appears to be cherry picking the best bits, or at least the bits that seem to lend credence to his version of events and how his argument is constructed.

But his attitude does demonstrate how Argentina, potentially one of the most powerful and progressive countries on earth is in fact a relatively weak and backward bully. There is no consistency. There is no continuous line of government. No smooth transition of power from one administration to the next. Those that are in power try to turn back the clock, reset time to when the work of the previous administration can be 'undone'. Any inconvenient agreements can be made null and void and any investors with an ounce of common sense will stay well clear.

KFC is a reflection of Argentina. Argentina is neurotic, bipolar. Hard work for investors and foreign partners and dangerous to nearby countries who are smaller and less powerful than they are. In the end they will either grow up and cure the neurosis or they will implode and take as many of their chosen enemies' with them as they can.

Does anyome but me think that this discussion - now at 272 postings - is like being trapped in a revolving door or the Magic Roundabout.
We need Dougal to express his world weary opinion and then Zebedee to bounce in with“ time for bed” !!!!!!

@242 MalvinasArgentinas

Thanks for your reply, it is unusual to communicate with an Argentine who does'nt rant or resort to insult at the first sign of resistance.

My point was that at some time you have to let the past go, otherwise you are condemned to an endless circle of violence - the examples you quoted were exactly the people I was thinking of. Do you want to be locked in such a cycle with us?

There is no point entering into negotiations with Argentina, as the only outcome your govt will accept is a humiliating and utter capitulation from our govt. This would render utterly worthless the sacrifice of our servicemen to free the Falklanders from the facist occupation that your Junta imposed on them.

Frankly it would turn my stomach to hand the islands over to Argentina, as it would reward aggression. Any country that cravenly abrogates its' defence and surrenders in that way is going to be food for the wolves in short order.

It would also mean allowing Argentina to de-facto occupy a British community against their will. Any govt over here that did that would be committing political suicide.

I simply don't trust your personal assurances about what would happen to the Falklanders, in 82 the plan was to deport them, you can't gaurantee that this would'nt happen.

If you want to talk about usurpation - what about the Spanish invasion of the British colony 1771? If that event had not occured it is possible that our colony would never have been withdrawn. I could argue that if this was the case the land would have been indisputibly ours as the colony would have grown to encompass the islands anyway.

Being as we settled 1st I still believe our claim is stronger than yours. The fact that Vernot asked our permission to found a settlement reinforces that view.

@MalvinasArgentinas/Hermes 1967/Argerich.
Triple act now?
Whatever,
Pretty prolific smooth & silky words, but.....................well, they mean nothing.
What a pity they're all based on lies.
M.Hermes, lf you want to confine us to Egmont, then you should be confined to BsAs, as Argentina didn't extend into Patagonia then.
Just hand TDF back to Chile & we'll take Sta Cruz, thank you.
Turn the lights out before you leave.
Oh, of course, they probably ARE out by now.

Hermes

I like you argument and I actually think we are in agreement.

Britain civilians voluntarily left the Falklands in 1771 and left a plaque claiming Egmont.
Spainish civilians left voluntarily left the Falklands in 1811 and left a plaque claiming everything else?

The islands were left without a civilian population for 17 years.

During that 17 years the viceroy of River Plate became the United Provinces, and eventually Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay etc.

We now also seem to agree that when HMS Clio arrived in 1833, the penal colony of Pinedo/Mestevier was evicted, and the Vernet community was welcome to stay and only four choose not to. Therefore the Argentine lie of a civilian population being expelled is a complete FALSEHOOD.

This is progress on this discussion.

So, for you new argument to hold any water the following needs to work:

1) the Spanish plaque is an acceptable “placeholder”
2) automatically the Spanish right passes to Argentina, as opposed to Uruguay, Paraguay or as an independent issue.
3) without a civilian population present, the claim is enforceable.

Given we are in the 1830s, I find all three of those assumptions unacceptable. There is scant evidence to suggest Argentina believed it was true even at the time, otherwise why is the Jewitt case relevant...why claim something that you assume is yours?

When the Clio arrived, I feel that the British were in their rights to expel the Argentine penal colony, to welcome the Vernet community to stay (90% did), and to claim the unpopulated territory as theirs.

As I said previously, for a modern day case to be relevant, there needs to be an injured party. The Amerindians, the aborigines of Australia, even those relocated from Diego Garcia.

As soon as you admit the truth that no civilian population was expelled, therefore no injured party, and therefore only a patchy assumed inheritance from Spain...the entire case falls apart.

Good case put forward...more honest than nearly all the others.

The lord said it once, and thus he says it again.

the islands are british, and will remain so,
untill the people decide differently.

@275 Monkey,

I find we are in agreement over most things, but...

“welcome to stay” seems a rude euphemism, no doubt if an Argentine military force were successful and the current islanders were “welcome to stay” under what they perceive to be an Argentine yoke, they would be fuming mad.

Think about that situation for a minute.

Whether it is Argentina or Britain that does it, we're talking about a civilian population who may or may not have the means to simply “pack up and leave”. Even if only four civilians left (which I disagree per my earlier list), one must consider that other civilians, under the circumstances, may have wanted to leave but were unable to.

Further, it may be the case that the civilians who did choose to leave did so out of fear through British intimidation, as the presence and firepower of HMS Clio would not have gone unnoticed. Therefore it may be said that those who did leave sensed that there was going to be trouble soon and didn't want to stick around. Sure enough, there was, in what I know to be the Gaucho Revolt and Britain egregiously mischaracterizes as the “Gaucho Murders” (a brilliant piece of propaganda BTW).

But this is digression from the main question, which is, how did Britain return to “re-establish” a reserved sovereignty over territories that it could not have reserved anything over when it left? Therein lies the question of usurpation, the very heart of the matter.

Indeed, your three conditions are correct, but your reasoning is flawed, and I'd like to hear your objections:

1. the Spanish plaque is an acceptable “placeholder” - you assume not?

What then makes the British plaque an acceptable “placeholder” while rendering the Spanish plaque worthless? Further, what grants the territories reserved by the Spanish plaque to Britain in reservation along with its own? That is the single most important question of this whole dispute.

2. “automatically the Spanish right passes to Argentina”, no - to Buenos Aires.

TBC..

@277

TY.

3. that “without a civilian population present, the claim is enforceable”

Again, this is a question similar to that of the plaque - remember Britain didn't have a population present, and we could ask the same of its claim being enforceable.

I find you'll have a tough time coming up with any kind of de jure demonstration for why a situation that is EXACTLY THE SAME for both Spain and Britain (plaque, population) supports a British claim while undermines the Spanish one.

The other, #2, is an issue of understanding the administrative composition of the United Provinces and its later secesions and coalescing into modern-day Argentina. Naturally, the province of Buenos Aires remained with Argentina and does so to the present day; had it not, sovereignty might have belong to another nation. Likewise, had Spain administered the islands directly from Madrid, instead of through the Viceroyalty as a territory of Buenos Aires, then modern day Argentina would have no claim and this would be a Spanish/British dispute today.

Give me some time so I can answer some of the “bestialidades” that have been posted overnight...

@279 - Hermes

This argument trumps all of the ones you have put forwards.

The Falkland Islanders have been living continuously on these Islands for more than 180 years. In fact some of the present day islanders can trace their ancestors back to Vernet's colony, thus disproving Argentina's claim that the colonists were forcibly removed. There were no indigenous populations displaced, so by 19th century law the islands belonged to whichever country could maintain a claim.

Since the only claim Argentina ever had was the illegal military penal colony, which mutinied less than 3 months after arriving, thus a failure, I'm sure you'll appreciate that everything else you've spouted is pure nonsense.

This means that the Falkland Islands belong to the Falkland Islanders, and 21st century law accepts this, thus the UN charter giving them the right to self determination, which they are going to exercise next year in a referendum. Once this is done, I fervently hope they petition the UNGA to remove them from the C24 list, and Argentina can go cry itself to sleep.

After 180 years Argentina has NO legal, biological, historical or moral claims to these islands. And in 1982 Argentina completely destroyed any hope that the Falklanders would join you voluntarily. And don't say is was the Junta's fault, because I remember the people celebrating in the Plaza de Mayo on 2 April 1982, and I also remember them calling your soldiers cowards and demanding that they return to the islands and fight to the death on the 14 June 1982.

One day, the Islanders may choose complete independence from the UK, and become a nation in their own right, but that doesn't mean Argentina can claim sovereignty.

If Argentina wants to be taken seriously on the world stage, it better start abiding by all those treaties and charters it signed up to, and not cherry picking which bits it wants to follow and which bits it will just ignore because it's to the current government.

@269 LEPRcon

1. “The people of the Falklands have lived continuously on the islands for 180 years and more. It is their land.”

Why, because they've lived there? Never mind how they got it?

Let me steal your car, drive it for 80 years, pass it to my son, who'll pass it to my grandson, and they'll drive it altogether for 180 years until it's a very valuable antique. Does the car belong to my grandson...because he drives it?? Bollox.

2. “You say that the Argentine government who ratified the 1850 treaty with the UK was not legal, and that only a legal government existed from 1853 onwards.”

Where did you get that????

I said an EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. Get it?? It's simple, just follow the arrows:

LIGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT->ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT->LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTORED

it works exactly the same as it does in England:

MONARCHY->PROTECTORATE->MONARCHY RESTORED

3. Your facts are bollox:

“That act was completely legal by the laws of the 19th century.”

WRONG - Britain had a SPECIFIC law in regards to its property on the islands, in the form of the 1771 treaty which delineated what was British and what was Spanish.

THE HAND OF THE KING WAS ON THAT DOCUMENT, IT IS THE LAW!!!

And later in 1833 it was ignored and you usurped the rest of the archipelago. That is a FACT.

4. “So why didn't the government of 1853 bring this up? Why did they honour this treaty? Then for nigh on 90 years not a peep out of Argentina regarding the Falklands.”

THEY DIDN'T! That's British misinformation and propaganda at work, and mate have they done a job on you!!

The next protest was in 1888. 1849 to 1888 = 39 years - NOT 90 - and far short of the 60 required by international law for unobjected prescription of territory to be considered legitimate.

Your conclusions are as incorrect as the so-called “facts” you base them on.

otra?

Como no...

@270 Kelperabout

“At Last we are starting to get somewhere. Argentines actually admitting to a part of the Falklands bieng British.”

I'm not unreasonable. I could argue the 1771 treaty had a “secret clause” that invalidates the British claim...but dislike secrecy.

“Port egmont was the seat of the British government over the whole of the Falland Islands so by their own admission the Falklands is a British territory.”

DON'T GET AHEAD OF YOURSELF. Egmont is the seat of the British possesion, which is EGMONT - nothing more.

“The Argentines keep rattling on about Britain steeling land particularily the Falklands. Yet they never make notes...”

And YOU never make notes of the equal British acts in India, South Africa, Canada, Australia...only a hypocrite would criticize
that about Argentina when you yourselves are so guilty of it in so many places over so many centuries. Bollox.

“For the sake of world peace drop these stupid claims...”

FOR THE SAKE OF WORLD PEACE PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPONS AND COME TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE. You started it.

“Honesty and truth always prevail...”

Which is exactly why you'll fail in the end! It is YOU who are being dishonest, it is YOU who ignore or distort historical facts (and the UN charter) to bolster your position, and it is YOU who, because of your ongoing stubborn greed, maintain a position of absolute intransigence with no regards to facts or rights other than the ones you consider “valid”, i.e., your own.

Your cause is UNJUST - and for that you will fail in the end, make no mistake. I cannot say how, but I am certain you will fail.

@271 as opposed to british & islander mindfuckology??

What hermes is saying, that there hasn't been a continuous line of legitimate Argentine administration, IS TRUE OF BRITAIN AS WELL!!!

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WERE GIVEN to that effect, which you haven't responded to. It is not Argentina that bullies in demanding a return of what justly belongs to her, but Britain who bully in continuing to usurp territories and resources which do not belong to it.

Hard work for investors?? 3rd largest reserve of shale oil IN THE WORLD. Good things require hard work, and may I remind you that Argentina has been severely f*cked in the past by foreign investors. I didn't hear any whining from them when Menem sold everything but the kitchen sink, and Argentine infrastructure has paid the price. So one good turn deserves another.

Ho-hum, more noise from the malvinistas, trying to convince themselves that they really own OUR land.
WE are NOT convinced & as we own the lslands, we don't care what you think or say.
But, feel free to rave on, Hermes.
lts mildly entertaining.
NO Negotiations, though. Just run along.

@273 shb, thank you, I find no need to rant or insult as there's strength enough in facts.

I agree with you that at some point in time the past must be let go, but you fail to realize the set of continuing insults and encroachments suffered by Argentina at the hands of the British prevent us. Expropriation of continental energy resources is only the tip of the iceberg. Start with millions of square kilometers of south atlantic waters simply annexed into British control, not simply the waters adjacent to the islands. These British actions all serve to keep the issue alive, we cannot allow Britain to exploit every resource and simply hand the archipelago back when there's nothing left to take. Many of us equally believe to fail to address British encroachments and usurpation would reward aggression.

I don't agree that the only possible outcome we'll accept is a humiliating British capitulation. As ambassador Castro has stated, the Argentine constitution and laws may be changed as a result of negotiations. Even if it remains as is, the constitution does not call for a permanent restoration, which opens the possibilities of leaseback, independence, or cession in the interests of world peace AFTER restoration. Conceivably, it could all happen within the same day, with absolutely no notable change in the everyday lives of islanders beyond the expected ceremonials and treaty signings.

It need not result in an Argentine occupation or colony, not in a British community being occupied against their own will. I believe it would not be unjustified that Egmont's British sovereignty be recognized by Argentina as a result of negotiations, followed by a land transfer which would move that British sovereignty from relatively unpopulated Egmont to populated Stanley.

Yes, in 82 the plan was to deport the islanders, but I remind you those who made said plans acted illegally and are now either dead or imprisoned.

And the Spanish invasion was equally wrong - but was RIGHTED.

We are still on the magic roundabout 11111

If I were an islander I would be distrustful too.

Then again, entering negotiation does not necessarily mean agreeing to any terms. A good measure of detente would do well for the situation all around.

Yes we are, but these roundabouts are bloody hard to get out of once you're in. Eventually mercopress will close the thread and we can all go home.

@Hermes

At the risk of perpetuating this past its sell by date, but I cannot resist :

> What then makes the British plaque an acceptable “placeholder” while rendering the Spanish plaque worthless?

The Spanish plaque is far from worthless. It demonstrates that the Spanish were in breach of their treaty obligation to the French to maintain a settlement in Port Louis in order to keep the Brits out. Presumably, this means that the Spanish claim reverts to France rather than the United Provinces. Maybe someone should ask them.

> Further, what grants the territories reserved by the Spanish plaque to Britain in reservation along with its own?

The British claim predates the Spanish plaque by a long way. The Joint declaration did not in any way delineate that claim, it quite simply reinstated the status que ante before the Spanish expulsion of the British settlement.

> A good measure of detente would do well for the situation all around.

I entirely agree with this. Unfortunately your President and government apparently do not. The present strategy of getting up the British nose at every conceivable opportunity might well have been designed to ensure that no negotiation can or will take place. The interesting question is whether this is deliberate or not.

In that respect, until I watched CFK's at the C24, I would have said that it was all a charade for purely domestic consumption. But at the C24 she gave every impression of believing everything that she said, Turnip Test, migrating birds, granny's diary and all. That's really quite scary.

@281 - Hermes

You say “Why, because they've lived there? Never mind how they got it?”

But as I already stated, the people of the Falklands are descended from the Vernet colonies inhabitants, so there completely legally. And your sentence should read, because they live there, have lived there and continue to live there generation after generation.

Remind me, just how did Argentina gets its land? Oh, that's right you massacred the indigenous population and STOLE their land! So unlike the British, you MURDERED people to get the land and resources, the people of the Falklands killed no-one. In fact in 1833 the only people to kill anyone were the United Provinces troops, and they killed their own commander.

You are a hipocrite, Hermes. Plain and simple.

Tell you what, remove all colonials (that is non-indigenous people) from Argentina, and then the islanders might consider removing themselves from the islands. Of course, Argentina will then only have a population of just over half a million people. Where did the other 39 and a half million people come from, Hermes?

In regards to this statement:

“WRONG - Britain had a SPECIFIC law in regards to its property on the islands, in the form of the 1771 treaty which delineated what was British and what was Spanish.”

Spain dropped its claim to the islands in 1843, but didn't formally recognise Argentina's existence until 1853, and in 1863 the Spanish acknowledged British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

So no you are wrong, once Spain let its claim slip, Britain was well within its rights as the sole claimants to the islands to establish complete sovereignty.

Oh, and an Argentine telling me about misinformation and propaganda is precious, especially considering all the blatant lies you and your government spout on a daily basis. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You appear very angry, not surprising considering the state of your economy.

the islands are british,
the islanders want to remain british,
if you cannot accept that, then stop throwing up irrelenences and go to the ICJ .
full stop.

Hermes

You miss my point. BOTH PLAQUES ARE VALUELESS. Both are claims from countries who couldn't maintain a civilian population. neither of those countries are Argentina.

Your claim about civilians being evicted is heresay, as Vernet asked permission from Britain before going there, as the logs from the Lexington said the living conditions were terrible, as the vast majority chose to stay, as those that left went to Montevideo...the idea four of them found British sovereignty unpalatable is just guesswork, no evidence they didn't just choose to leave...90%+ chose to stay.

So, coming back to my point:

I agree that Spain had a plaque, like Britain before they couldn't maintain a population. So, it was valueless.

I see no evidence that the Falklands AUTOMATICALLY cede to Argentina as opposed to Uruguay or Paraguay or as an independent issue.

I see no evidence that Argentina had a civilian population or any plans to.

Therefore the British reclaimed islands, Spain had voluntarily left, Argentina didn't fill the void.

180 years later....it's all done mate.

I am sorry, without an “injured party” a “displaced civilian population” all you have is a plaque that another country put there, a natural succession that is far from clear, and a number of contemptible acts done in the name of Argentina which you conveniently want to call the actions of a junta.

Sorry. There is no legal issue here, no moral issue, no geographical.

hermes
you want it both ways,

But a technicality wont get you the Falklands,

And did argentina say sorry for the hurt, that you demand from the islanders.

Hermes and Malvinas Argentinas:

Extremely interesting your posts, but the bulk of the evidence seems to fall directly into the Falkland Islander's camp.

I have said several times before, we had from 1833 to 1982, that is practically 150 years, to emigrate to the islands and fill them with patriotic Argentines who would have voted to be incorporated into the body politic of Argentina.

Or would they?

I can honestly say that if I had to choose between living in a place with one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world and a place where the inflation is 30% and rising, I think any sensible person, however patriotic would opt for British rule. And I do consider myself a patriot.

The answer is that during the almost 150 years of unimpeded immigration available to us NONE OF US WENT.

Entendés, WE DID NOT GO, we f*cked up, we stayed at home because it was more comfortable, the islands were cold and windy, and a long way from “home”, so we stayed on the mainland and WE LOST OUR CHANCE “por pelotudos”. Now we have to live with it and admit that we lost our chance because we are too bloody “cómodos”.

The Falklands belong to the Falklanders and we didn't want to become Falklanders.

@291 More bollox won't make you right.

1. “the people of the Falklands are descended from the Vernet colonies inhabitants...”

REALLY? All of them? Fact is, not even the majority can trace their ancestry to Vernet's venture. Perhaps the Perry family, who say they can trace their ancestry to Gregoria Parry. I looked it up.

So, point one - bollocks.

2. “you massacred the indigenous population and STOLE their land! So unlike the British...”

You mean unlike the British in India?

AND in South Africa?

AND in Canada?

AND in Australia?

AND in Diego Garcia?

What gives a Briton the right to complain about Argentina's crimes when Britain itself has perpetrated the SAME crime, SO MANY TIMES, and in SO MANY PLACES???

Nice double standard, LEPRecon! Point number two - BOLLOCKS!

3. “You are a hipocrite...”

And yet YOU are the one who criticizes Argentina for acts which Britain commited in many more places and on a much larger scale, all the way up to the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY.

Maybe in your backwards universe that makes me the hypocrite - but in the real world, it's only you & your lot.

4. “Tell you what, remove all colonials...from Argentina, and then the islanders might consider removing themselves...”

WHAT GOOD WOULD THAT DO? If you had read what I wrote BEFORE responding, you'd know I want islanders to STAY.

5. “Spain dropped its claim to the islands in 1843”

I presented BRITISH documentation to back my claims - you present a lot of HOT AIR. The only thing that happened in 1843 in relation to the islands were the Letters of Patent.

6. “Oh, and an Argentine telling me about misinformation and propaganda is precious, especially considering all the blatant lies you and your government spout on a daily basis.”

Oh, like Cameron is squeaky clean. Like Gordon Brown had nothing to do with the Murdoch scandal. More hypocrisy!

Clearly, LEPRecon, you are full of shyte. Go find a LEGITIMATE pot of gold, and leave ARGENTINE TERRITORY to ARGENTINA.

@295 thank you Simon. I would remind you there are severe, bureaucratically insurmountable barriers to Argentines who would want to live on the islands, and it has been that way for many decades and long before 1982.

In any case, the argument being made that “nobody went” is of no concern when it comes to the issue of a country gaining lawful, legitimate sovereignty. I have no problem with the islanders staying put - but there is an open status of outright violation of treaty law in place when it comes to British posessions on the archipelago, compounded by progressive stages whereby Britain uses that status as a pretext to extend its control over the South Atlantic more and more and more (3 million square km and counting).

If you want to Argentina to be “un pais en serio”...the very first thing is to demand other nations to respect our borders. What more basic way to define a country than its own borders? Clearly, there are a LOT of things to fix in Argentina. But one for the biggest mistake and reasons why the islands are boondoggle today is the late 19th-century preference to address internal issues while ignoring foreign policy issues. Argentina must do both, simultaneously, if it wishes to move forward.

This doesn't mean the islanders should pack up and move or that the islands should be a colony of Argentina. But it does mean all parties should sit down in peace, analyze the situation, and find a way to make it right. KFC's stance on the issue in refusing to even acknowledge the islanders is equally as ridiculous as DC's intransigence in his unwillingess to enter into ANY type of dialogue.

Saludos!

@293 Monkey, come on mate...

1. “BOTH PLAQUES ARE VALUELESS.”

I don't agree, and neither does Britain. Plaques have been used elsewhere to successfully reserve the exercise of sovereignty, preventing territories from reverting to res nullius status. Plaques are certainly valid to the British, for they've even used it in the 20th century.

In any case, the point I make is one based on British LAW, and in British law, clearly, plaques certainly do have full force of law in reserving an exercise of sovereignty - and if the British plaque has force of law, so does the Spanish one, because the concept is legitimized.

2. “90%+ chose to stay”

If Argentina invades, and some islanders who wish to leave don't have the means, would you equally say they “chose to stay”?? 90% of the population were poor Gauchos without a pot to piss in..not much of a choice.

3. “I see no evidence that the Falklands AUTOMATICALLY cede to Argentina as opposed to Uruguay or Paraguay or as an independent issue.”

Other than they being a territory of Buenos Aires, administered by the Viceroyalty from Buenos Aires, administered by Buenos Aires by the UP,
and that Buenos Aires is today a part of Argentina...yes, other than that, no evidence whatsoever...

4. “Therefore the British reclaimed islands...”

There's that prefix again...“re”...and yet no one seems to be able to answer what “pre” merits the “re” in light of the 1771 declaration which was BRITISH LAW, as it was issued UNDER THE HAND OF THE KING, stating the ONLY British property on the islands was EGMONT.

So, you mean CLAIMED, not reclaimed.

5. “180 years later....it's all done mate.”

For a country that's been around so long, you have a peculiarly short view of how history unfolds itself. I assure you, the final word in this saga will not be written for many hundreds of years.

BUENOS AIRES is the injured party. The natural succession is CRYSTAL-CLEAR, it is the SAME as ANY OTHER territory of Buenos Aires under the Viceroyalty.

Which, let's not forget, Britain happened to recognize.

If Britain recognizes Buenos Aires to be independent from Spain as part of the United Provinces, then Britain recognizes the territories that make up Buenos Aires as independent and passing from the Spanish Viceroyalty to independent Buenos Aires.

And, Britain's congratulatory letter of recognition of independece of the United Provinces made no reservations whatsoever about the islands, nor was any objection made to the Government of Buenos Aires when, under its orders, Jewett formally took posession of the islands on behalf of the United Provinces, four years after independence.

You would think, if Britain at the time TRULY believed the Falklands were British, they would have strenuously objected...but not a peep.

@294...

“hermes you want it both ways”

how do you figure?

“And did argentina say sorry for the hurt, that you demand from the islanders.”

No - and we SHOULD MUTUALLY APOLOGIZE....I see that as a wonderful opportunity for mutual reconciliation and the beginning of negotiation for a future structure that rights all wrongs while simultaneously allowing islanders self-determination. I truly do not believe the two are mutually exclusive, it CAN be done, and I believe it MUST be done to ensure perpetual peace in the South Atlantic.

For, certainly, this generation of Argentines are decidedly anti-war, but I cannot speak for future generations, and I DO NOT WANT ANOTHER WAR. We should nip this in the bud during our lifetime, so that our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren don't have to deal with it, and can live side by side in peace, mutual prosperity and full cooperation.

“KFC”....hilarious!! If only she were fat...

266 St.John: “El presidente gozaba de facultades colegislativas: ... La firma de tratados con otros estados estaba a su exclusivo cargo”

@ 267 Hermes1967
“pero vos citas la constitución de 1853 para legitimizar un acontecimiento de 1850”

Not at all.

I quoted from 'Constitución Argentina de 1853' to demonstrate that ratification of treaties with other countries (at least since 1853) was a presidential prerogative. This also implies that Mitre and Sarmiento could discard or endorse/authorise previous treaties, including the 1850 treaty. Their official Messages to Congress 1865 (reflected in VP Paz statement 1866) and 1869 strongly indicate that they endorsed it.

At the same time it demonstrates that your previous postulate (in 262) “... that an act by an extra-constitutional government must be RATIFIED by ACT of congress, then signed into law by the executive ...” is not in compliance with the 1853 constitution - laws and decrees, yes, but NOT treaties with other countries.

Britards have much more pressing issues they should be getting passionate about. You're unemployed, on the brink of recession, overindebted and the union is about to break apart. And yet, what is the issue that you pass day and night discussing? Some fucking islands thousands of miles away from your homes. Have a sense of priority.

Circus -- curcus indeed! Not in Argentina's diplomatic circles but in the UK political system. The UK uses islands whose sovereignty won't in any way affect your lives to create a sense of patriotic conformity among Britards. Circus -- panis et circenses.

@302 I'll concede your distinction between laws/decrees and treaties. However, a strong indication of endorsement is not an endorsement outright.

What matters is action taken. Look at your list:

-1865, Mitre “implicitly”...

-1966, Marcos Paz “implicitly”...

-1869, Sarmiento “implicitly”...

-1888, Ortiz, a SPECIFIC and UNAMBIGUOUS objection through the proper diplomatic channels (the 6th, and following the last from 1849 meaning 39 years NOT 90 as some would have the world believe).

The bottom line is made clear by Britain's own historical evidence: Claim to legitimate British title TODAY is not founded on the earlier claim to legitimate British title of Egmont per the 1771 treaty; rather, is founded upon an illegal act of aggression which, Britain pretends, has become legitimate with the passage of time (ridiculous).

Besides, in addition to the quotes by British FO officials I've already provided, there's the following:

1. “The initial illegality can never be the source of legal right”

-Ian Brownlie
“International Law and the Use of Force by States” pp.422
Oxford University Press

2. Kershaw Commitee sessions- Session # 2, pp. 141

Sir Hooley:

“But if it was held to be unlawful by somebody or bodies, then the prescription rule would NOT apply?”

Mr. Fawcett:

“I think it would be so, the prescription rule, yes”.

AND Session #4, p.119, Professor Peter Beck, Britain returned in 1833 founding its sovereignty not on right of CONQUEST (Argentines went peacefully but under protest which does NOT lead to sovereignty by conquest),

rather, that after 1833 the case for British sovereignty is made “in fact claiming that she was re-asserting her ancient rights and this was the basic British rationale used when she took control of the islands”.

Look at your quotes: “implicitly, implicitly, implicitly...”

Look at mine: BRITISH HISTORIANS WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS TESTIFYING UNDER OATH.

BRITISH LAW.

BRITISH SOURCES.

BRITISH PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS.

Come on.

hermes,

get a friggin job or take up a hobby.....you boring most of us!!

@Hermes/MalArgentinas,
You're on the wrong thread.
You should be preaching on the one about “Hot Air from BsAs.”
What a load of lies & pure waffle.
Haven't you got a job to do sr Argerich?
Does your boss know how you're wasting his time while you're supposed to be working?
Some people................

@297 MalvinasArgentinas

No matter how you dress it up, any kind of handover would involve a massive loss of prestige for my country, at the hands of a country using very specious arguments over an event that happened over 180 years ago.

The impression that I get from the Falklanders is that they would massively resent ANY kind of Argentine rule over them. I am 41 years old and remember the war vividly. If I was a Falklander I would be hopping mad at the thought of letting your govt get its hands on my home and family, to the exent of either leaving, or doing something to make your occupation unpleasant for you.

As to your point about the SPANISH claim, that was Spains business, not yours. Its a bit like the USA claiming the Falklands. They were a former colony that broke away, and they are in the western hemisphere, so why did'nt they claim the islands when they arrived to deal with UP harrassment of shipping in the Falklands in the early 1830s? They could easily have used your “successor state” argument.

What about your claims on South Georgia, and other British antartic territories? When did theses get retrospectively added to your wish list? Or is this simple “mission creep” with Argentine govts seeing our weakening position since 1940 seeing how much they can get away with.

You still have'nt addressed the idea that Vernet was an independent operator and thus did not (at first) represent a formal claim by the UP govt. You also failed to state why he recognised the strength of our claims to the extent that he asked our govt permission for his venture. Remember HMS Clio only arrived after the penal colony and garrison were set up and you claimed the place. You had been warned diplomatically of the consequences of these actions.

@305 “you boring most of us” then go read something else.

@307

“No matter how you dress it up, any kind of handover would involve a massive loss of prestige for my country”

Not really. Not under the pretext of world peace. Well, torys might object...but frankly, f*ck them.

“As to your point about the SPANISH claim, that was Spains business, not yours. ”

Wrong - it was the VICEROYALTY's business. Hence, it is now OUR business. Were Spain administering the islands directly from Madrid, you'd be right - but they didn't.

“What about your claims on South Georgia, and other British antartic territories?”

I don't agree with them - I suppose they're really rhetorical overkill to counterpoint Britain's own egregious excess - a sort of rhetorical, “ok, we'll BOTH act insane then” position. As far as I know, commercial activity does not grant sovereignty.

“You still have'nt addressed the idea that Vernet was an independent operator”

I don't need to, my objection pre-dates it. If my objection is correct, whatever follows the event of usurpation is irrelevant.

“You had been warned diplomatically of the consequences of these actions.”

Actually - no. As stated previously, Jewett's declaration in 1820 went UNANSWERED by the British:

-No reply

-No objection

-No communication of any kind.

HMS Clio just showed up, one day, out of the blue. Argentina went peacefully, therefore Britain did not gain title by military conquest.

Further, Onslow (and Palmerston's instructions) had SPECIFICALLY referred to Britain's “resumption” of formerly reserved sovereignty.

Only one instrument was used by Britain to reserve sovereignty - its plaque.

Only ONE POSSESSION was in British hands to reserve sovereignty over when the plaque was left: Egmont as per the 1771 treaty rendered by the hand of the King;

making it BRITISH LAW, which was broken when during the 1833 return you took not only Egmont but the whole archipelago. No matter what happens after, that's usurpation.

Hermes

Please stick to the facts.

The Falklands were NEVER “administered” by BA under the United Provinces, there was nobody there to administer. The SPANISH population were long gone. Lots of places USED to be administered by different places, but certainly the UP had pretty much no involvement. The Viceroy did, but then it had involvement with Uruguay and Paraguay too...and those Borders have drastically changed since the 1810s.

Its funny because there have been thousands of posts from Malvinistas on these boards saying that an indigenous Argentine population was evicted. You view is nearer the truth, but still wrong. I like the idea that the Vernet community were living this Utopian existence under the UP flag, desperately wanted to go when the British arrived, but couldn't afford to..except four of them, who could somehow. I prefer my view, they were an independent group, with no particular affiliation to either UP or UK, four of whom were tired of the tough conditions and chose to leave when given the choice. Decendents from the who remained are still on the islands.

If it means so much to you..Britain “claimed” the islands in 1833. They “claimed” islands which that had a long running dispute with SPAIN over. Nothing to with Argentina, the plaque was Spanish. Spain recognise British sovereignty.

So, at worst, the Argentine position is this.

“when we claimed independence from Spain, we thought we got the Falklands, we had no civilians living there, and none we ever evicted, however there was a Spanish plaque. The Spanish eventually recognised our independence, but they recognised British sovereignty over the Falklands”

Sorry, it doesn't sound compelling to me, it certainly doesn't sound like, 180 years later, 3000 islanders should be punished by having to change the sovereignty of their home.

As I said, nice argument. Far more honesty than the ridiculous fairy tales given by most of the Malinistas on these boards.

“The Falklands were NEVER “administered” by BA under the United Provinces, there was nobody there to administer.”

Ridiculous - I can provide a list of governors if you wish.

“The Viceroy did, but then it had involvement with Uruguay and Paraguay too...and those Borders have drastically changed since the 1810s.”

Irrelevant - Buenos Aires remained in the union, and the islands were a territory of Buenos Aires.

“You view is nearer the truth, but still wrong.”

Only backed up by British historical documents.

“Decendents from the who remained are still on the islands.”

How is this relevant to the issue of “restoration” of sovereignty claim upon British return? Seems to me, Clio got there first, Sarandi left afterwards. Post-facto events are irrelevant if usurpation took place upon Clio's arrival.

“If it means so much to you..Britain “claimed” the islands in 1833.”

NO - read Onslow's declaration. A claim was not made, according to Palmerston's orders, previous sovereignty was “re-established”. BIG difference, and one which illegitimizes Onslow's actions.

“Nothing to with Argentina, the plaque was Spanish.”

Wrong again! The plaque was the Viceroyalty's, not Spanish, laid on order from Buenos Aires. Madrid issued no orders to withdraw.

”but they recognised British sovereignty over the Falklands”

WHEN?? IN WHAT DOCUMENT IS THIS RECORDED? You mentioned 1848 before and I asked you for proof - so far, you've provided NOTHING, so bollox.

There's no way you can dress up this turd, Monkey. Britain had no right in 1771 beyond Egmont, Britain had no right in 1833 beyond Egmont, and it has no right today beyond Egmont. British documents confirm this. British historians agree. Early 20th century British diplomats agree. So, continue to bury your head in the sand if you wish...

...but those pesky facts in which lie the TRUTH of the matter shall never go away. You can't change history.

Hermes

Ok you want to play silly season..

Argentina NEVER had any right over the Falklands. NEVER. The VICEROY of River Plate had rights, they were disputed but they had rights...THIS IS NOT ARGENTINA. PART of the VICEROY EVENTUALLY BECAME ARGENTINA...PART OF.

Part of the Viceroy became Paraguay, Uruguay and PART became the Falklands.

Argentina got it's independence irrespective of Spanish claims due to...oh there's this word again...self-determination of those that lived there...same for Uruguay, same for Paraguay...and same for the Falklands....oh...but nobody did live there between 1811 and 1828. numerous vessels stopped there, British, French, American...but there was nobody living there.

Spain had claims over all of South America...ultimately administered by Madrid...therefore Argentine usurped their own country, as did Chile, Brazil was usurped from Portugal.

You see, if you want to behave like a tit, it is possible to make equally stupid claims.

You want the 1771 boundaries back, excellent..when is Spain coming back to “rule”Argentina...as you usurped their land.

Pity you had to ruin this thread with your pathetic last rant.

There's nothing silly about facts.

“Argentina NEVER had any right over the Falklands.”

Why? Because you say so? Wrong.

“EVER. The VICEROY of River Plate had rights, they were disputed”

Wrong again. The treaty was quite clear. Given under the King's hand = British LAW.

“THIS IS NOT ARGENTINA.”

Buenos Aires most certainly is part of Argentina. What map are you looking at?

“Argentina got it's independence irrespective of Spanish claims due to...oh there's this word again...self-determination of those that lived there”

Wrong again. No UN Charter in 1816. Just chutzpah.

“but nobody did live there between 1811 and 1828. numerous vessels stopped there, British, French, American...but there was nobody living there.”

Plaques were there. If the British plaque has force of law then so does the Viceroyalty's plaque. If Britain recognizes the independence of Buenos Aires it recognizes the territories that comprise Buenos Aires. You painted yourselves into a legal corner - don't blame us for it, and don't think we won't call you on your BS.

“Spain had claims over all of South America”

Irrelevant - we are dealing with the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, and the territories it administered, which later became independent and were duly recognised as such by Britain.

“You see, if you want to behave like a tit, it is possible to make equally stupid claims.”

No, I'm afraid your claims are quite unique in that aspect. And I'm still waiting for proof for that whole “Spain gave them to Britain in 1848” bit you came up with earlier.

“You want the 1771 boundaries back, excellent..when is Spain coming back to “rule”Argentina...as you usurped their land.”

They could - except they recognized our independence already. Pity we never recognized British sovereignty, then you could go on plundering free of any criticism.

But, as it stands, British historical records place sovereignty quite squarely on our side, while cret er i mean britons like you ignore facts or make them up

Hermes

You are mixing up the Viceroyalty, the United Provinces, Argentina and Spain. Where it suits you they are exactly the same, where it doesn't they are different.

British claims to the Falklands predate the 1771 agreement with SPAIN. We made an agreement with SPAIN, that we would stick to Egmont.

SPAIN claimed the Falklands and put them under their VICEROYALTY banner. Good for them.

When the Viceroyalty became the UNITED Provinces, SPAIN (throughout it's VICEROYALTY) had already withdrawn. The Viceroyalty and therefore the placer of the plaque CEASED TO EXIST.

A new entity existed the United Provinces, independent from Spain.

Therefore, any British agreements with SPAIN, any VICEROYALTY plaques are no longer relevant.

So, when the Clio arrived, the British past claim was for their historic rights, the whole archipelago.

We have held it now for 170 years suck it up bitches we can hold it indefinetly.

So we have an agreement in 1771 between Britain and SPAIN. Do Spain want the Falklands...NO

We have a plaque left by the VICEROYALTY of River Plate...Does the Viceroyalty still exist...NO

We have claims based on no civilian population by the UNITED PROVINCES of River Plate...Do the United Provinces still exist...NO

We have claims by Argentina, who had no 1771 agreement, no plaque, no civilian population...only a military campaign in 1982.

The idea, that a just claim was passed throughout Spain in 1771, through the Viceroyalty and their plaque, through the United Provinces to Argentina is very far-fetched.

Britain had a legal agreement with Spain, long since expired ON BOTH SIDES
Britain acknowledges a plaque left by the Viceroyalty of River Plate...an entity that no longer exists.
Britain acknowledges that a sovereignty claim was made by the United Provinces, which it dismissed at the time, and continues to long after that entity ceased to exist.
Britain totally refutes and claim by Argentina.

In answer to your question, Buenos Aires is in Argentina, which map are you looking at? I can look at either of two if you wish. I can look at 1830s map. I am happy to go back to that map if you wish. Please return Patagonia to the indigenous, and the large chunks of Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay you have subsequently stolen. We can then talk about the Falklands.

I can look at 2012 if you want. My map says Falkland Islands (UK) Malvinas. I am happy with that.

At no time, on any map has it said Argentina.

Hermes - The arguments here go round and round. But can you answer me this question.
Why do you (assuming you are Argentinian), WANT these islands so much. Why is something that you believe happened 180 years ago, to some people who may or may not be among your ancestors, so important to YOU now. Do you want to live there. Do you want the economic resources. Do you just want to subdue people who do not wish to live under your rules or your laws.
The fact, whether you like it or not, is that as things stand at the moment the Falklands do not “belong” to Britain in the sense that you want them to belong to Argentina. They belong to the people who live there. The fact is that any economic benefits do NOT legally belong to the UK - they belong to the Falkland Islanders. Any oil revenue, fishing revenue, agricultural revenue, tourism revenue, taxation, government spending, etc etc is completely under the control of Falkland Islanders. The Islanders receive NO subsidies from outside the Islands except for the very high cost of maintaining a credible defence. (Whether or not you say that is an over-reaction, the continuous war of words from across the water definitely means that we feel much more secure with the deterrent in place - and however you like to view it, it is not a “threat” to South America, it is genuinely a defence against a perceived threat from you). It is true, that should revenue allow, Falkland Islanders would wish to re-imburse the the UK the costs of defence, but it is NOT asked for or required by the UK. If the Falkland Islanders at some time in the future decided they did not wish to maintain their association with UK, there would be no issue with this (other than understandable disappointment, after the sacrifices made) - but it would be the choice and self-determination of the population.

@316 mollymauk,
They cannot get over their defeats of 1833 & 1982.
Their fragile Latin egos have been bruised.
They think that they have failed in front of their women.
They seek revenge & reassurance.
They are as children, dangerous children.
They cannot rest until they have “paid us back”.
Very common in New Guinea. Whole tribes are, or were perpetually at war as “paybacks” go on forever.
Unfortunately for them, they've hit a brick wall with us as we'll NEVER give in to their “demands.”
Suffer, baby, suffer.

“You are mixing up the Viceroyalty, the United Provinces, Argentina and Spain.”

Not at all, I've been very clear about which one came after which. The Spanish crown handled matters of defense, as does Britain for the BOTs today. The Viceroyalty's seat of government in Buenos Aires was the administering power. The United Provinces were the independent territories that used to be the Viceroyalty, recognized AS SUCH by Britain. Argentina is the modern-day nation that resulted from the secesion of provinces from the union and civil war.

“British claims to the Falklands predate the 1771 agreement with SPAIN”

But it did serve to LIMIT and DEFINE those claims as only PART of the islands going forward from 1771.

“The idea, that a just claim was passed throughout Spain in 1771, through the Viceroyalty and their plaque, through the United Provinces to Argentina is very far-fetched.”

If the British plaque reserves an exercise of sovereignty as if Britain was physically present, so does the Spanish plaque. Which means the territory passes to independent Buenos Aires, just as if independent Buenos Aires had people physically present, because the plaque serves as substitute.

“Britain acknowledges a plaque left by the Viceroyalty of River Plate...an entity that no longer exists.”

Britain recognized it continued its existence in recognizing independence of the UP.

“So we have an agreement in 1771 between Britain and SPAIN.”

The fact that the agreement was with Spain is not the point. The fact that the agreement limited British property to Egmont is what is at hand. Britain in 1833 claimed to reserve more than what it actually had to reserve in 1776. The agreement could be made with Timbuktu for all I care, it set British boundaries which the British then ignored.

“We have claims based on no civilian population...”

Doesn't matter, as Britain claimed sovereignty by first discovery back then, NOT by prescription. First discovery claims are not subject to population sizes.

Hermes - you are just repeating yourself. Any chance of an answer to my post at 316?? Or don't you have any answers..............

@316 One observer of the '82 conflict said that it was like “two bald men fighting over a comb” which is a good analogy

BUT...
The rights of the the present day Falklanders to determine their future on THEIR land is paramount. Delving into history is interesting but the history of the Falklands is no different from any other New World country. The boundary lines drawn through conflict and Argentina is no different in this - they have the added issue of the indigenous population that the Falklanders did not. This dispute has been “talked up” in the past seventy years. The islanders are not threatening the lives of Argentinians (unless you believe all the “nuclear armed sub” rhetoric from BA) or disrupting their day to day activities so why not be nice to them and try and co-operate on local issues.

Rant over...

@318 Hermes

“The fact that the agreement was with Spain is not the point. The fact that the agreement limited British property to Egmont is what is at hand.”

What the agreement actually says is :

“his Catholick Majesty engages to give immediate orders, that things shall be restored in the Great Malouine at the port called Egmont, precisely to the state in which they were before the 10th of June, 1770”

To maintain that this limits British property to Egmont when it says no such thing, when the British claim to the whole of the Falklands predates 10/6/1770, and when it is continually reiterated thereafter, is a very shaky foundation to be building a house of cards upon. Bring on the ICJ.

Oh FFS! Mercopress would you please shut this thread down it is done to a cinder now.

Hermes

But that's the point, just because the islands were administered from Buenos Aires when they were part of the Spanish Empire, does not mean that agreements made between Britain and Spain automatically ced through the Viceroy, through the United Provinces, to modern day Argentina. For your logic to work, you would have us believe...

1) the agreement in 1770s between Britain and Spain, was actually de facto an agreement between Britain and modern day Argentina.

2) the plaque left by the Viceroy of River Plate was in fact de facto a plaque left by modern day Argentina

3) an independent civilian population set up by Luis Vernet were de facto representatives of modern day Argentina

4) the 1850 pact between Britain and Argentina, wasn't a pact with anyone representing Argentina at all.

5) the 1982 invasion by Argentina wasn't representative of Argentina either.

So three things done by people who didn't call themselves Argentina, certainly represented some of what is modern day Argentina, some of certainly what isn't modern day Argentina, and modern day Argentina certainly exceeds what these bodies represented in some areas as well....all of those are legal Argentine bodies in law.

However, two groups that actually called themselves Argentina, are more recent and clearly prescriptive..they are NOT Argentina at all.

Feck me...good luck with that.

Britain made an agreemen with Spain, in that agreement it included reference to it Bering void if a third party became involved...VRP, UPRP, Argentina...take your pick for a 3rd party. Of course with your logic, anyone not called Spain must be, but those chaps to the west of Portugal probably aren't.!

@296 - Hermes - Loosing the argument I see.

Bringing up the colonies. Well Hermes, if you ever talked to anyone from the colonies you would find out what they truly think (not just what you think they should believe).

I have shown your post to a friend of mine, a student from India. He thinks you're full of sh!t.

This is what he says:

The British stopped the slave trade in India, where the muslims were trafficking the Hindu's to the middle east to sell as slaves. Ever heard of the Hindu Kush? It means Hindu death, and many of these Hindu slaves died crossing that mountain range on the way to the slave markets.

The British created the rail network in India, which they are still very proud of.

The British stopped the killing of widows, who by tradition had to be thrown alive onto their husbands funeral pyre.

The British gave India a sense of national identity - before the British arrived, India was split up into numerous little kingdom, ruled over by a Raj, which left them susceptable to the muslim raiders from the north.

The British introduced tea into India, which is still one of India's main exports around the world.

The British introduced a common law into India, that helped unite the country. The British assisted India with its transition from being part of the Monarchy into becoming a full Republic. The British changed the rules for the Commonwealth to allow a Republic to join, which then led to other former members of the Empire becoming Republics and remaining as part of the Commonwealth.

In fact, many Indians believe that British occupation did more good than harm, which is why India is now taking its place as a major player on the world stage, strong enough to counter China.

That is just one opinion of course, but he says that in Darjeeling, where he comes from, they are very proud of the fact that they still maintain links with Britain.

54 other nations feel like that too.

The Falklands belong to the Islanders - end of.

Ribera’s 1540 claim
In 1648, Spain signed the treaty of Münster recognising Dutch independence. In that treaty Spain accepted that its territories were those it held at the time. This renders the above claim irrelevant as Spain did not hold the Falklands in 1648.

Comments by William Dowdsewell and others:

William Dowdsewell was a Whig, not a Tory and, though he had been Lord Chancellor in a previous government, was simply an opposition MP when he said the above.
This from the same book, page 297:
Lord North
........
The gentlemen who find fault with the treaty say that England has recognized the right that England has confirmed the bull of Pope Alexander VI. No part, Sir, of the Declaration or Acceptance justifies gentlemen in asserting that. The Declaration says, that the engagement to restore the possession shall not in anywise affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty. That question stands just as it was before. No right is given; no right is taken away. (1) England accepts this Declaration, declaring all along that she does not mean to agitate the question of right. The basely abandoning the right, which has been thrown in our face, is totally groundless

(1) Lord Camden, in a letter to the Earl of Chatham of the 5th of February, expressed nearly the same sentiments.—“I cannot” he says, “ satisfy myself, my dear lord, that the reservation of the question of right, in the King of Spain's Declaration, does in anywise touch the King of Great Britain's right of sovereignty. That becomes absolute, jure coronae, from the moment the restitution takes places. Nor does it seem to me, the King's title is abridged or limited; inasmuch as the reservation neither denies the right on one side, nor asserts it on the other. That question remains as it stood before the hostility.” Chatham Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 91.

Lord North was the Prime Minister at the time. Camden, like Dowdsewell, had previously been Lord Chancellor, but at the time he wrote the above was an opposition member of the Lords. Now, if you think the opinion of an opposition MP carries greater legal weight than the opinion of the prime minister of day, then you live on a very strange planet.

@326 - dab

The Malvinista's only cherry pick the bits of history that they believe support their claim, then they present them completely out of context. They are paid by La Campora to do this, so once the Argentine government collapses, I expect most of them will fade away into the ether.

When you point out to them that their information isn't true, they respond by calling the British pirates and colonisers.

When you point out that Argentina is a colony, they stick their fingers in their ears and sing 'La-la-la' at the top of their voices, and when you point out that their ancestors commited acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing on the native populations of South America and stole their land,they always come back with:

Brits massacred Indians, Australians, Canadians, South Africans etc... despite that there is no evidence of the British committing genocide or ethnic cleansing against any of these people.

Its a sure sign that they know they are talking bollocks and are desperate.

@308 Hermes1967

Actually most people I know would be offended by handing the Falklands over to Argentina. They feel that it would completely negate the price we paid in blood for liberating our people in 1982.

HMS Clio did not show up out of the blue. The declaration of sovereignty in 1829 and the appointment of a governor were protested at the time. The incident involving the harrassment of shipping and the arrival of USS Lexington were what finally prompted HMG to do something physically. You should'nt therefor have been surprised by the arrival of the RN.

If the viceroyalty gave you SOLE possession - what was it possession of - the ex French colony only? Or did kicking out our people at gunpoint in 1771 make you sole rulers of the whole island chain.

If it was Ok for Spain to kick us out and claim the islands - then surely we had equal right to evict your garrison in 1833, if your argument is “might makes right”.

You still have'nt answered why it is OK for Argentina to claim the Falklands , but not the USA, if they were an ex colony, surely they could have used your argument of “passing soverignty on”.

Being as we were there first you still have to admit that your only claim to being sole owner of the islands is based on the 1771 eviction of the British colony.

On top of this you still can't explain why the Falklanders would want to be associated with a country that has gone out of it's way to insult and harrass them.

How would you feel if Paraguay asked you to turn over a town of 3000 people to it to regain territory lost after the war of the Triple Alliance? Or is that magically different?

Hermes is almost unique with respect to the Malivinistas on these boards, in that he hasn't made up fairy stories of events that never happened. For that alone, he has been worth debating with. Marcos and Malviner10 and others would have you believe that 1000s of poor Argentine civilians were evicted from their Utopian lives on the islands at gunpoint by nasty British pirates.

I think, given that more of the Vernet population left willingly on the Lexington, than left with Pinedo, it would seem more likely that the four that left were not evicted but chose to Montevideo.

However, using what little is left without the fairy stories and turnips, the argument is wafer thin.

Somehow an agreement to stave of war between Britain and Spain in 1771 was somehow valid between Britain and the viceroy of Peru, then the viceroy of river plate, then the united provinces of river plate, then Argentina..apparently. Even though said agreement contained reference to becoming void on the appearance of a 3rd party.

Then he argues that a British plaque claims on Port Egmont (although it doesn't) and a Spanish plaque from 1811, again passes through the various viceroys, then to the United Provinces then to Argentina.

Finally, and this needs the biggest leap of faith, upon the formation of the United Provinces, all areas formerly administered by Buenos Aires automatically became part of Argentina. This is curious, as what was considered Argentina changed dramatically between 1816 and 1830 as various provinces became aligned to either Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia or even Chile. How did they achieve this...how were these new boundaries drawn? How come modern Argentina is completely different to the area administered by BA of 1816? A mixture of strength of arms and folk choosing where they belong.

Same is true for the Falklands. Just as parts of the Spanish empire administered by the Viceroy of Peru, didn't become VRP, didn't become UPRP, didn't become Argentina.

Good argument but NO

@ 304 Hermes1967

“What matters is action taken. Look at your list:
-1865, Mitre “implicitly”...
-1966, Marcos Paz “implicitly”...
-1869, Sarmiento “implicitly”...
-1888, Ortiz, a SPECIFIC and UNAMBIGUOUS objection”

Sorry, No Go!

Look at my list - as I wrote it:

1833: British sovereignity re-installed (or for the sake of argument: installed).
1833-1849: Protests.
1850: Treaty ratified.
[addition: 1853 Argentine constitution: treaties presidential prerogative]
1850-1887: No protests, no claim.
1865: No protests, no claim, we have friendly relations.
1866: The Argentine vice-president see only one dispute, that of
1881: A map, which does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.
1881/82: A map showing one colour for Argentina and another for other countries' possessions, including the Falkland Islands.
1888: One single protest.
1889-1941: No protests, no claim.
1905: The map of Argentina’s military regions from 1905 does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.

As previously stated, all of this converges on Argentine acceptance of British sovereignity over the Falkland Islands.

BTW: in a following post a shall give the

“Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas, que vienen de pasaje en la ”Sarandi“ + Mujeres pertenencientes a los militares que vienen presos en la goleta inglesa ”Rapid“, y que vienen en dicha ”Sarandí”

- based on José María de Pinedo's statement, signed by him in Buenos Aires, enero 16 de 1833. Source: Archivo General de la Nación, Sala III, 16-6-5.

@330 -StJohn

Interesting post, please continue.

EGMONT IS BRITISH. THE REST IS SPANISH. THERE'S YOUR BORDER, THERE'S YOUR PARTITION.-

As both North and Camden point out, the reservation changed nothing. It left the sovereignty question as it was before. It’s a status quo ante agreement. And what was the situation before? One in which Spain had not established any prior sovereignty, so was in no position to make any reservations for itself. It had made a baseless claim for itself against France and GB. France had caved in, but GB had no obligation to do the same. What happened between France and Spain was not a cession of sovereignty from France to Spain because if it had been a cession, that would’ve meant Spain recognising prior French Sovereignty, which it never did. Instead France declared its settlement illegitimate and by doing so lost any rights as first occupant, which by default passed to the British. Legally, it’s as if the French occupation had never happened.

The British claim to sovereignty dates from 1690, and the United Kingdom has exercised de facto sovereignty over the archipelago almost continuously since 1833. Argentina has long disputed this claim, having been in control of the islands for a brief period prior to 1833. .

Timeline of de facto control

February 1764 – April 1767 France

January 1765 – July 1770 Great Britain

April 1767 – February 1811 Spain

September 1771 – May 1776 Great Britain

February 1811 – August 1829 None
August 1829 – December 1831 United Provinces

December 1831 – January 1832 United States

January–December 1832 None
December 1832 – January 1833 Argentine Confederation

January–August 1833 United Kingdom

August 1833 – January 1834 None
January 1834 – April 1982 United Kingdom

April–June 1982 Argentina

June 1982 – present United Kingdom

we have had control the longest, and the people there for over 9 generations, should have the right.

Hermes - you have gone very quiet. Any chance of a response to post 316, or do you not have an answer. As Monkeymagic said, you are one of the few on your side who actually tries to logically explain your position (even if we so far remain unconvinced).

Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas, que vienen de pasaje en la “Sarandi”.

Capitán: D. Juan Antonia Gomila.
--
Batallón de Artilleria
Cabo 1°:
Miguel Hernández y su mujer María Romero.

Soldados:
José Barrera.
José Gómez.
Manuel Francisco Fernández.
Toribio Montesuma.
--
Batallón del Rio de la Plata
Sargento:
Santiago Almandos.
Soldados:
José Soto.
Jose Rodriguez.
--
Patricios de Buenos Aires
Soldados:
Juan Castro y su mujer Manuela Navarro.
Antonio García.
--
Guardia Argentina
Cabo:
Daniel Molina.

Soldados:
Juan J. Rivas y su mujer María I. Beldaño.
Dionisio Godoy.
Hipólito Villareal y su mujer Lucía Correa, y dos hijos.
Gregorio Durán y su mujer Carmen Manzanares, con dos hijos.
Benito Vidal y su mujer María Saisa.
--
Individuos de la isla

Joaquín, Acuña, su mujer Juana.
Mateo Gónzales, su mujer Marica.
--
Extranjeros:
José Viel.
Juan Quedy.
Franscisco Ferreyra.

Y el preso:
Máximo Vbarnes [Warnes], que fue destinado.
--
Mujeres pertenencientes a los militares que vienen presos en la goleta inglesa “Rapid”, y que vienen en dicha “Sarandí”

Maria Rodriguez, con tres hijos.
Anastasia Romero.
Encarnación Álvarez.
Carmen Benitez.
Tránsita González, con un hijo.
--
Militares que vienen en la goleta inglesa “Rapid”
--
Batallón de Artilleria
Soldados:
José Antonio Díaz.
--
Río de la Plata
Soldados:
Manuel Delgado.
Mariano Gadea.
Manuel Suares.
--
Patricios de Buenos Aires
Cabo 1°:
Francisco Ramírez.
Soldados:
Bernardino Cáceres.
Menuel Sáenz Valiente [1].
Antonio Moncada.

[Sign.] José María de Pinedo, Buenos Aires, enero 16 de 1833.

Note: [1] El consejo de guerra lo condenó a muerte por asesino del gobernador Mestivier; fue fusilado el 8 de febrero junto con otros seis soldados, en el cuartel del Retiro. Antes se lo cortó la mano.

Original source: Archivo General de la Nación, Sala III, 16-6-5.

Photocopy of Pinedo's printed statement: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg

On 2 December 1980 the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Nicholas Ridley, stated in the House of Commons: “We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands... we have a perfectly valid title”.[59]
The current United Kingdom position remains the same and regards the right of the islanders to self-determination as “paramount”.[59][60]
• That the British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.
• That the British both claimed the islands and settled in them before Argentina existed.[61]
• That the islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of “2 months of illegal occupation” by Argentina.
• That Argentina's attempts to colonise the islands in 1820–33 were “sporadic and ineffectual”.
• That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.
• That the Arana-Southern Treaty of 1850 (the 'Convention of Settlement'), ended all possible claims by Argentina on the Falkland Islands.
• That in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances, preferring to remain British.[62]
• That the principle of uti possidetis juris “is not accepted as a general principle of international law”.
• That the title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 would have reverted by Fundamental breach when the Spanish breached the agreement to maintain a colony at Port Louis to prevent the British gaining title...
.from wiki

A side note to those who don't want to read more of this thread: In the email you receive you'll find “To stop following comments to this article, please click here.” - use it.
---

@ Hermes1967

Let me first say that it is a pleasure to debate the issue with you and the few others **on both sides**, who are actually trying to bring light on this complex issue. Almost all previous “debates” on the subject have been tarnished by namecalling and mud-throwing, which I loathe - now we have an adult debate.

My thanks to those of you, who participate with real arguments.

Now, let's get back into the brawl :-D
------
Of course I use the expressions “implicitly” and “converges on”, because I don't claim to have THE solution to the Falklands/Malouines/Malvinas dispute, which is extremeley complicated.

It reminds me of the dispute over Slesvig and Holstein in the 1840-1860's, of which Lord Palmerston is roumoured to have said:

“In the whole world only three men have ever understood the full complexity of this case.
One was professor who was driven insane by it, another professor was who is dead, and me - and I have unfortunately forgotten it.”
---
The Virreinato del Río de la Plata was not an Argentine viceroyalty but a Spanish one, created by the Spanish king Carlos III and acting on behalf of him until his death 14 December 1788, following which it acted on behalf of Carlos IV, another Spanish king. The viceroyalty was Spanish - Spanish, mind you - and not Argentine, and besides the 'Gobernación del Río de la Plata' it included the today sovereign states Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia plus a part of Brasil.

Claiming that Argentina is the sole successor to the Virreinato is simply 'orgullo nacional' - national pride - on behalf of Argentina.

If we were to accept and uphold the claimed heritage, then the islands must be divided between ALL of the members of the Virreinato.

(Brief analysis of the Declaration of 22 January 1771 to follow)

:----

Thanx.The Declaration of 22 January 1771 is not a treaty but a declaration from the Spanish king, facilitated by his ambassador, the Prince of Maserano.

Paraphrasing it (the full text is too long), it says only that it was a mistake on behalf of Spanish troops, which forced the British to evacuate Port Egmont. It will now be restored by the Spanish and handed back to the British “with all the artillery, stores, and effects of his Britannick Majesty”. This “cannot, nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.”

Lord Rochford signs a document, which accepts the Spanish declaration.

The papers outlining the negotiations, are laid before Parliament by Lord North and the final agreement is published in the London Gazette on 29 January 1771.

In the House of Lords, Lord Chatham wanted two questions referred to the opinion of the judges.

1. Can Britain hold any territories or possessions belonging to them except in sovereignty?
2. Can the declaration be accepted, when it includes an implicit acceptance of, that Spain also have a claim to the islands?

Lord Chief Justice Mansfield refused to refer the questions to the judges because the answers are “self-evident”.

Lord Camden (Lord Chancellor 1766-70, i.e. member of the Cabinet) wrote “... The question remains as it stood before the hostility; the King of Spain declaring only that he ought not to be precluded from his former claim ...””

Nothing in the two documents can reasonably be interpreted as other than the claims of both the Spanish crown and the British are upheld, but undecided upon, except that the Spanish king accepts British sovereignty over Port Egmont.

Why, then, is only Port Egmont - and not the islands in their entirety - named in the documents?

Because only Port Egmont was destroyed, the rest of the islands were unaffected and thus there was no need to include them.

Great thread - I for one am enjoying it.

Not a “Pirate scum jajaja” in sight!

''No one should be in any doubt that as far as the British Government is concerned, it is Falkland Islanders who will determine the sovereignty of the islands. I believe their view will be respected by this House, this country and by the world.''
Earlier this month Foreign Office minister David Lidington said Falkland Islanders were being subjected to increasingly aggressive behaviour, threats and military rhetoric from Argentina.
Mr Lidington said Argentina had become increasingly hostile to the islanders, preventing free trade, stopping cruise ships bearing Falkland Islands flags docking in Argentinian ports and preventing flights using its air space.

Gavin Short, chairman of the Falklands Legislative Assembly, said: ''We are holding this referendum not because we have any doubts about who we are and what future we want, but to show the world just how certain we are about it.
''I have no doubt that the people of the Falklands wish for the islands to remain a self-governing overseas territory of the United Kingdom
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9354879/Falkland-Islands-behaviour-of-Argentina-is-unacceptable-says-David-Cameron.html

mmmm
.

Allmost ehausted reading all the comments recently posted on this site but it has been very interesting and leads me to a couple of conclusions.

The position of the Argentines have changed so much over the Falklands Dispute that it is becoming ever more clear now it is in fact the absolute financial wealth that surrounds us which is now paramount in their eyes. Many years ago it was national pride where dictators brainwashed their children to believe what they wanted them to believe. Today Oil has changed all that. He who owns the Falkland Islands has absolute control over all of the South Atlantic by the very fact that our Islands could one day produce amounts of revenue that would dwarf anything Argentina has ever had and they cannot accept that we the Falkland Islanders just a mere 3000 strong are in complete control of what they want. I have seen this the world over. Oil is possibly the biggest discovery that started world turmoil. Wars and human greed. However I am sure we Islanders would from our new found wealth be quite prepared to help our strugling neighbours to ensure their poverty ridden people were fed which is the complete opposite of what that Country is currently trying to do to us through embargos. Such tantrums from so called reformed peoples does not look good on the world platform. comments have even ssugested that one day the Argentines will get our country. I doubt that very much because unlike our rather grumpy thugs of neighbours, we have always played by the rules that is peacefull. Heck we even allowed Argentine families come and make their homes here that says a lot about how decent we really are. We are not an implanted people as would be sugested we are all decendants of people who wanted to do something differant nothing more.

@342 kelperabout,
That is my belief also.
They want OUR oil.
They see it as the answer to their present dilemma.
Plus, let us not forget payback & revenge.

Kelper

Indeed, there will be a great amount of responsibility on the Falklanders to use their new found wealth wisely. 30% tax and duty on Sealion alone could make $10 billion in tax revenues over 20 years, at current Brent crude prices.

Should the larger southern prospects succeed or the multiple gas discoveries be commercialised revenues could be 10-50x that. A heck of a responsibility for the FIG.

Of course there are agreements with the UK about ongoing defines costs, and possibly repayment of historic, but the rest is yours. Use it wisely, and remind the Argentines that if it weren't for the Kirchners you would have worked together on it!

@ 257 Hermes1967

”(...+ British congratulatory letter of independence ... +
Statement by Wellington)”

British congratulatory letter of independence - can you provide a link?

Statement by Wellington - can you provide a link?

@320 The rights of the the present day Falklanders to determine their future on THEIR land is paramount.“

I agree, but history determines what is their land and what isn't.

@321 ”To maintain that this limits British property to Egmont when it says no such thing“

It clearly states Egmont is British property. There was no other British property on the islands at the time. Therefore any plaque of reservation can only reserve sovereignty over Egmont.

”British claim to the whole of the Falklands predates 10/6/1770“

Spanish claim to the whole of the Falklands is 2/4/1540 so try again.

@323 Points 1 & 2, correct ONLY BECAUSE Britain recognized the independence of the United Provinces. In doing so, Britain recognized those territories formerly under the Viceroyalty to be independent.
To exclude the islands from that recognition would be to selectively pick and choose which of the former territories of the Viceroyalty Britain actually recognized, and which of the Britain didn't, which is to DENY HISTORY given that British recognition was given over ALL former Viceroyalty provinces and their territories.

Point 3..maybe, but irrelevant to what I'm trying to say about the 1833 return.

Point 4, correct, in the same manner as the Rump Parliament didn't speak for Britain during the protectorate.

Point 5 - ABSOLUTELY.

”Britain made an agreemen with Spain, in that agreement it included reference to it Bering void if a third party became involved“

That's the Nootka treaty, a different treaty.

@324 Does your friend also think Ghandi was a rabble-rousing traitor, too? Because according to your friend, aparently, the British were so wonderful, why would anyone encourage civil disobedience against them?

@Dab - let me research & get back to you.

@327 - ”They are paid by La Campora to do this”...ridiculous, as is the rest of your post. Look at all these other people coming up with thorough, thoughtful replies - you should take a clue from them.

I will respond to all in tym

@ 340 Steveu

I fully agree.

I used to skip 10-20-30 posts of derogatory nonse from “debaters”. Now, at least, we are getting somewhere, although there is not a “chinaman's chance” we will agree in the end - but we get a lot of real information from both sides about this extremely complex sovereignity dispute.

agreed, very good posts all around (except for a few trolls), thank you all - BRIEFLY, St. John,

“Why, then, is only Port Egmont - and not the islands in their entirety - named in the documents?

Because only Port Egmont was destroyed, the rest of the islands were unaffected and thus there was no need to include them.”

Go further. Why was only Port Egmont destroyed? Because it was the only British property on the island. There was no need to include any other because there was no other. I've looked for others and have found none, at the time the Egmont eviction took place. Can you confirm this in your research?

@334 Molly, sorry - a very thoughtful post which I'll endeavour to respond in one of my own personal opinion, however after my responses to those others who've done significant research to back their claims, which only merit my own in kind.

@323 Points 1 & 2, correct ONLY BECAUSE Britain recognized the independence of the United Provinces. In doing so, Britain recognized those territories formerly under the Viceroyalty to be independent.
To exclude the islands from that recognition would be to selectively pick and choose which of the former territories of the Viceroyalty Britain actually recognized, and which of the Britain didn't, which is to DENY HISTORY given that British recognition was given over ALL former Viceroyalty provinces and their territories.

Recognition of a state is simply recognition that the state exists. It does not imply recognition of all that state’s territorial claims.

346

Let me take you word for word on your response.

“Points 1 & 2, correct ONLY BECAUSE Britain recognized the independence of the United Provinces. In doing so, Britain recognized those territories formerly under the Viceroyalty to be independent”

Ok, so the provinces are now independent from Spain. Good.

What is currently Argentina is independent from Spain
What is currently Bolivia is independent from Spain
What is currently Uruguay is independent from Spain
What is currently Paraguay is independent from Spain
What are currently the Falklands are independent from Spain.

Oh look here, I have an agreement with the the KING of Spain that we will respect each others position on the Falklands. Oh look, I have just recognised that the Falklands are independent of Spain. I recognise all the provinces are independent of Spain....File agreement with King of Spain in the Bin...no longer valid...revert to former position of total claim to the island.

No where did Britainaccept sovereignty of the FIs passed from Spain to Argentina.

Your administered by Beunos Aires argument is nonsense. look at the region “administered” by BA in 1816, look at it in 1830, look at it today...if modern day Argentina is based on the regions of the Viceroy administered by BA..there's a whole lot of giving back to be done.

Like I say. Recognising independence generally means ceding sovereignty to the people who live somewhere. I (on behalf of the UK) continue to recognise the independence (the right to self determination) of all of the former Provinces of the Viceroy. Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and the Falklands.

amen

@ 346 Hermes1967

“[1771 declaration] It clearly states Egmont is British property. There was no other British property on the islands at the time. Therefore any plaque of reservation can only reserve sovereignty over Egmont.”

You are not suggesting, I hope, that the British commander should have covered the entire surface of the islands with lead plates in order to reserve sovereignity over the islands?

349

Very well put, currently the UK recognises the independence of many countries without recognising the full extent of their colonial aspirations.

@ 348 Hermes1967

“Why was only Port Egmont destroyed? Because it was the only British property on the island. There was no need to include any other because there was no other. I've looked for others and have found none, at the time the Egmont eviction took place. Can you confirm this in your research?”

You are overinterpreting. You cannot imply, that there were no other settlements on the islands, based only on that fact the British **garrison** was stationed in Port Egmont. As for the existence of other settlements, I shall remember to look it up in the available sources.

@346

> It clearly states Egmont is British property. There was no other British property on the islands at the time. Therefore any plaque of reservation can only reserve sovereignty over Egmont.

You are confusing territory and settlement. Or are you seriously maintaining that every square inch of land without property erected on it cannot be part of a territorial claim?

In any event, the declaration is perfectly clear that it is restoring what was taken, and leaving all other issues on the table. A nice piece of diplomacy in fact, and one that seems to have averted a war. But if you think otherwise, quote some text from the declaration itself which supports your argument.

> Spanish claim to the whole of the Falklands is 2/4/1540 so try again.

Why? The argument here isn't about who claimed first, or even whose claim is better founded, it is about whether the 1771 declaration implied the abandonment of the British claim to the whole of the archipelago.

Since that declaration explicitly resets the clock to 10/06/1770, at which point the British claim was still extant, and since it says absolutely nothing about the abandonment of any British claim, you are basing your argument on something that just isn't there.

@ 354 HansNiesund

“You are confusing territory and settlement. Or are you seriously maintaining that every square inch of land without property erected on it cannot be part of a territorial claim?”

I second that. Hermes1967 is in actual effect saying that much of Argentina is not Argentina, because only a percentage of its more than 2.700.000 square km is covered with buildings or fenced in.

354 HansNiesund

See my post 325 re Treaty of Münster. In any case a claim gives only an inchoate right and must be followed by occupation within a reasonable length time. 220+ years from 1540 to the 1760s is far too long to maintain any Spanish claim. There is simply no evidence that Spain had a valid prior claim when it protested the French and British settlements through which it could exercise reservations over 'the rest of the Falklands'

Does that mean that Port Louis when occupied by the French was the only property owned by them so meaning the rest of the Falklands were British. Interesting thought considering the many comments sugesting a plaque determines ownership. Of course it does not. This argument could be told all over the world. South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands by the same token therefor were never even owned by the French so could anyone with an honest heart in Argentina explain why they also make claim to these pieces of land. I think I already know the answer. You want it all no matter what. Why you even went to war with Chile to steel some of their land but in your historical words it was yours always. same old song. It is really time the Democrocies of the world started to take serious notice of those countries that claim to be democratic and bring them into the 21st century. As for any other country supposidly taking another by force it seesm that everyone would be guilty of that EXECPT od course the Falkland Islanders who in their own right migrated away from troubled parts of the world to find and establish peace on these Islands. Saddly like everything good in life there is evil not to far away. Argentina unfortunatly was not in existance when these very early settlers started to make new discoveries. In fact when the first settlers arrived on the shores of the Falklands they discovered that North american sealers were using the islands as shelter while hunting. These sealers and whalers did not contest their rights against Britain but instead worked alongside the settlers to begin what we all have today. We have cared for this land for nearly 200 years while having to put up with the aggresive nature of a neighbour who truthfully could have been enjoying the good times of our country but for the one fact they have shut themselves out. There loss .

The title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 would have reverted by Fundamental breach when the Spanish breached the agreement to maintain a colony at Port Louis to prevent the British gaining title,

As I did say, we was not there, and so do not know what was what,
What if the Spanish already accepted that the Falkland’s were British , but the Egmont
Problem persists, so an agreement was made that asserts British property of Egmont,
That the Spanish was agreeing to this, thus only Egmont and not the whole of the islands would be mentioned,

For if argentina just naturally inherited everything that was Spanish, do you not think, that ALL ex Spanish territories, were entitled to all that was Spanish , and not just argentina .

.

Falkland Oil & Gas reveals tie-up with French utility EDF
http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/44627/falkland-oil-gas-reveals-tie-up-with-french-utility-edf--44627.html

@359 Steve

No doubt CFK is going to take them to court as she promised?

Or was it possibly more hot air?

@ 257 Hermes1967

”I could easily claim the same with my own citations,
(1771 Joint Declaration + British congratulatory letter of independence + Statement by Troutbeck + Statement by Spicer + Statement by Robinson +
Statement by Wellington all converge on Britain's acceptance of Argentine sovereignty)“

1. 1771: Declaration by the Spanish king through his ambassador, who only has authority to speak on behalf of the government based on instructions from the Spanish king. Lord Rochford signs a document, which accepts the Spanish declaration.

2. British congratulatory letter of independence: How is it relevant?

3. Statement by Wellington: He was Prime Minister in the Tory Government 1828–1830, but what did he say?

4. Gerald Spicer: Civil servant in FCO, lacks any authority to speak on behalf of the government. ”it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Goverment's attitude is not altogether unjustified, and that our action has been somewhat high-handed“
- a personal opinion as input to the decisionmakers, of which he was not one.

5. John Troutbeck: Civil servant in FCO, lacks any authority to speak on behalf of the government. ”The difficulty of our position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of present day.”
- another personal opinion as input to the decisionmakers, of which he was not one, and which even refers to the ideology of ***present day (1936)*** and not to the world including accepted international law in the mid 19th century.

6. Sir Malcom Robinson: Ambassador to Argentina, lacks any authority to speak on behalf of the government unless so specifically instructed (same as the Prince of Maserano could not possibly add anything binding to the 1771 declaration). The ambassadors opinion, although not without merit was not submitted under instructions from the British government.

(Summary to follow)

please continue

Dissapointed to see someone with a name like Jimmy Burns writing such a bad article! On his criticism of Timmerman, if his father really did like the BBC then either the son is more radical than the father (it happens) or most likely its because the BBC has got much worse. Ever since it was made to pay for airing anti-war facts by a vindictive Blair (despite them being generally regarded as true) it has been a pathetic mouthpiece for the government and at times even more reactionary and neocon that the government, for example refusing to broadcast an AID APPEAL for Gaza even after New Labour ministers said it should!

#105 “There's a THOUSAND ways it could be resolved amicably with all 3 parties coming away satisfied - none involve islanders speaking Spanish or driving on the right - all involve negotiation”

One of the most important points made on this thread or this forum. The amicable historical discussion, which I've just finished skimming, was refreshing compared to most of the slagging matches on here. But the most important point at the moment is that Cristina stands for an amicable and final settlement leaving both sides content, while Cameron stands for continuing a running sore

Thanx.

To sum up:

Against a conglomerate of:

1. protests before the 1850 treaty
2. 1850 treaty
3. end of protests during the following 37 years
4. 1865 + 1869 the two first constitutionally elected presidents of the unified country after the war over confederation or unitarianism, with the prerogative to discard or endorse treaties, declare there were no disputes with Britain
5. 1866 a vice president who declares 'la unica' dispute is over British merchants losses in 1845
6. one diplomatic letter protesting in 1888
7. three maps not showing the Falkland Islands as part of Argentina

You have:

1. a Spanish declaration, which leaves any territorial dispute as it was
2. British congratulatory letter of independence
3. statement by Wellington
4. opinions of two public servants without authority, one 76 and another 103 years after 1833
5. the personal opinion of an ambassador, who is not speaking on behalf of his government

- to my mind strong arguments for acknowledgement of British sovereignity and much weaker against.

----
Re. 348 Hermes1967:

I have found three sources to whether there was a British settlement except for Port Egmont.

One is a statement of a Spanish officer, who was surprised to find “some sort of settlement”, the other two tells of a blockhouse in Port Egmont and the French Port Louis (which is irrelevant to a British settlement).

Neither of the latter two refer to original sources - I would love to read an official contemporary report from e.g. captain Hunt relating the exact extent of the Port Egmont settlement.

@363 B_K
I agree this thread has been one of the better threads in terms of debating the historical facts regarding the Falkland Islands.

Thanks St.John for your balanced input.

But unfortunately you have just just added to the silly slanging match with your opening comments (Gazza, the BBC etc.).

You purposely wind-up people with your comments about the “lovely and beautiful Cristina” - this does nothing to help any constructive debate!

the fact is ,
if argentina was today, very confident of there claim,
now is the time to take it to the ICJ,
and get it over with ,

for come the referendum next year,
any claims will surley flitter away with the wind .

In these discussions, there are often comments that one side or the other should “take the case to the ICJ”. As far as I understand it, the ICJ is not a place that one side can take a dispute, and have the other side tried “in absentia”. It requires both sides to agree to put the case forward, and to agree in advance to abide by the decision.
I guess what is being meant is for Argentina to indicate their willingness to take it to ICJ. I believe the Falklands case should stand up to any legal scrutiny, but would be suspicious that there may be some kind of unwarranted compromise to try and placate the Argentinians, so do not know if we will ever find both sides willing to take the chance.........
I also think this thread has been, and continues to be a good debate, unlike most Mercopress slanging matches.