MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Malvinas: Argentina remembers Rights reaffirmation Day and calls on UK to resume negotiations
Argentina reaffirmed on Monday its “inalienable right” over the Malvinas and other South Atlantic Islands, and its “strong will to promptly restart negotiations with the United Kingdom” over the what it considers to be an “unacceptable and anachronic colonial situation”. Argentina also complains about the March referendum held in the Falklands last March. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesTwaddle.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0So the Argentines argue they created it in 1829 (what about the population before then? Perhaps they massacred them, as they like to do) and held it for four years, which tops the 180 years of the Falkands since then?
Jun 10th, 2013 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think we should make June 11 national 'Feck off' day.
So why did vernet have to seek approval from the British consulate in ba prior to even his first Venture?
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't make a jot of difference.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing has changed and nothing will change, no matter what the Malvanistas dream about.
LOL....Nope...They still dont get it...We all know about their rediculose claim concerning the Falklands,but how the hell did that extend to South Georgia,South sandwich islands and British Antartica..?Yup..gotta hand it to them,a laugh a minute..!!
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hector, could you maybe jazz it up a bit next year, only we've heard it all before and I think people are starting to lose interest.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 01856 – May 5th, Luis Vernet writes to Lord Harrowby; “… the wish, to get my Colony under the British Flag, was in accordance with my own interests and those of my colonists, which required such change of flag; because situated as we were on the Highway of Nations, we could not expect permanent prosperity, unless placed under the sovereignty of a Government capable of protecting us against filibustering4 or other aggressions. As to the grants of Land, wild cattle, and privileges, these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Islands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be”
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There does seem to be a systematic confusion in the Arjuntine mind between tenancy and ownership.
Why do they keep doing this to themselves?
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Take your inalienable right to the ICJ then. Oh wait, the UK has offered on 3 separate occasions to take the 'dispute' to the ICJ but you refused each time, why, because you know you would lose. Argentina just wants the UK to hand over the islands, well guess what, that's never going to happen so put up or shut up and let the islanders live in peace.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 04 ElaineB
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0......and the show goes on and on and on..... So who do you think is the ringmaster and who is the clowns???
My money is on “laughing boy” Timerman. I think he has the long shoes and a red nose in his office..........
What a bunch of numpties. “The culmination of this process was that dictated by the decree establishing the Civic-Military Command of Malvinas, which today we remember, and the naming of D Luis Vernet to head it”. A decree issued by the “government of the Republic of Buenos Aires”. Not even the “government” of the “country” that illegally granted Vernet “rights” on British territory. The “Republic of Buenos Aires” isn't even mentioned as a predecessor state in the argie constitution. Or is that similar to the “right” “as heir of the austral territories and the adjacent maritime spaces which had belonged to the metropolis”. A “right” that doesn't exist in international law. Now or then.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Latinamerica and the Caribbean wholly support Argentine legitimate rights over the Malvinas as well as other groups of countries from Asia and Africa.”
Then they can all get stuffed. We don't care.
“That vote finds no sustentation in any of the forty UN resolutions on the Malvinas question, does not alter the bilateral nature of the dispute nor does it relieve the UK from complying with its obligations imposed under International Law, that is the resumption of negotiations”. Still making it up as they go along. That's forty NON-BINDING UN resolutions. All meaningless. There is NO dispute. There is only argie whining. And there are NO obligations under international law. A NON-BINDING UN resolution, or even forty of them, does not constitute “international law”. Poor, little, desperate argieland. Once again it loses and looks stupid. Because it is stupid.
So this week its Vernet that constitutes the “inalienable right”.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats fine, its one of the fout turrets of shit which hold up the “Argentine case”
1) inheritance from Spain..shit
2) Vernet..shit
3) Mestevier/Pinedo...shit
4) Geographic proximity...shit..
As they wish to talk about Vernet, lets do just that.
1) Vernet asked permission from the British Consulate in BA before setting up his business.
2) Vernet left the islands in 1831 due to court cases involving him seizing 3 American ships. He never returned.
3) Vernets business was decimated by the Lexington raid and by 1833 only 20 or so inhabitants remained.
4) The majority of the Vernet community elected to stay on the islands post 1833. The British matthew brisbane was Vernets appointed agent on the islands.
5) Vernet sold part of his holdings to G T whittington, and received compensation for the remainder. He signed a waiver against further claims!
Vernet was a businessman, he was interested only in his business and played Argentina and Britain off against each other to maximise any return he thought he might get.
The civilians working in his business chose to stay working on the islands, and preferred the silver paid by the british than the4 promisary notes paid by Vernet/Brisbane.
Whilst the acceptance of Vernet of the position of Military and Civil Commander of Falkland Islands and the Islands adjacent to Cape Horn, is probably the strongest part of the Argentine claim, Vernet left the islands in 1831 and it is unclear who held the role, before poor Mestevier arrived.
Clearly by the Argentines replacing him in November 1832 it was clear they felt that the Vernet role had been relinquished in abstentia.
Meanwhile - in present day Argentina - the Qom are literally dying to keep their ancestral lands from colonizing Europeans and their descendants.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12
Jun 10th, 2013 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet's “appointment” was also contested the moment it was made :
The undersigned, therefore, in execution of the Instructions of his Court, formally protests, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, against the pretensions set up on the part of the Argentine Republick, in the decree of 10th June, above referred to, and against all acts which have been, or may hereafter be done, to the prejudice of the just rights of sovereignty which have heretofore been exercised by the Crown of Great Britain. The undersigned, &c. (signed) Woodbine Parish Buenos Ayres November 19th, 1829”
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1823-1832/
Not the last time Arjuntina wold ignore a warning.
”...nor does it relieve the UK from complying with its obligations imposed under International Law, that is the resumption of negotiations”
Jun 10th, 2013 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A little large on rhetoric but short on substance, because there is no obligations imposed under International Law on the UK, otherwise lying Argentina would be disposed to show them
Some liars are so expert they deceive themselves.
AUSTIN O'MALLEY, Keystones of Thought
@9 knarfw
Jun 10th, 2013 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The FIG should tell Argentina to take it to the ICJ.
They should wait until Bolivia lose their case against Chile, then make an announcement to the world, tell them to either put up or shut up.
Argentina cannot win so won’t do it. But it would be a big victory for the FIG and it will make the Argentinian Govt look stupid and significantly weaken their colonial claims.
They can their fairy tale to the ICJ with the rest if their bogus claims... Oh wait...
Jun 10th, 2013 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quote
Jun 10th, 2013 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“constant repetition will succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd”
Adolf Hitler
So the Kirchner 'Plan' is still not working, oh dear, never mind eh!
Jun 10th, 2013 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 HansNiesund
Jun 10th, 2013 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12 Monkeymagic “Whilst the acceptance of Vernet of the position of Military and Civil Commander of Falkland Islands and the Islands adjacent to Cape Horn, is probably the strongest part of the Argentine claim ….”
What Vernet wrote to Lord Harrowby in 1856, while interesting, is of no significance to the debate over sovereignty. As Monkeymagic has pointed out Vernet was pursuing his own interests.
The strongest part of the Argentine claim is the succession of governors who were appointed to administer the Malvinas first by Spain and then by the Government of Buenos Aires between 1767- 1832. The decree, issued on this day in 1829, creating the Political and Military Commandery of the Malvinas islands etc. is judicially more important than the later decree naming Vernet as governor.
In short what is important is the fact of the continuous administration of the islands from Buenos Aires not the individuals who were appointed. The administration constitutes legal title.
How many times in the last two years has Argentina reaffirmed its “inalienable right” over the falkland islands?. What a sad little country :)
Jun 10th, 2013 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 018. Große Lüge
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it”
Office of Strategic Services
hmm.. sounds a lot like Argentina history lol.
Love the use of the words, promptly restart, they know the rules for negotiations, they have been stated again and again! So they are never going to happen, not unles they are prepared to accept them.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem with Vernet being Buenos Aires governor is that the head of the Buenos Aires government murdered the previous governor of BA.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dopes this not make his authority illegitimate?
In addition, Britain protested their claim and that Vernet wanted British ownership as it would be more reliable for his settlement -like the Islanders feel today-not a lot has changed-Argentina incompetent government added to murder and crime.
If the British claim was irrelevant then, so was the Argentine claim.
The problem for Argentina is that their 19th century claim does not relate to UN rules which are post-1945 and include the UN charter which Argentina ignores.
@7
Jun 10th, 2013 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There's no need to tell me Vernet doesn't count, tell your own Foreign Ministry, who seem to be under the impression that he does.
The list of Spanish governors is of no more relevance than the list of Spanish goalkeepers. The Brits and the Spanish accepted each other's presence in the islands, and there is nothing even remotely resembling an unequivocal passage of title from Spain to Arjuntina.
The only attempts by Argentina to appoint any form of administration necessary to back up a claim of sovereignity were the appointment of Vernet in 1829, immediately contested by the Brits and abandoned by Vernet himself two years later, and then later Mestivier. And we all know what happened to him.
But in any case, all this nitpicking over the events of 200 years ago, entertaining as it may be, is totally insignificant compared to the fact of nearly 200 years of continuous occupation, a failed war of aggression, modern international law, and the freely expressed wishes of the inhabitants.
@20
Jun 10th, 2013 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0International law tends to make judgements based on evidence built up over time. Simply waving a pen in Buenos Aries saying that you now administer something 1000 miles away does not constitute effective administration. This was what was attempted with the Penal Colony in Dec 1832 to replace the British (business) administrator (Brisbane). Whether the ICJ would consider the 7-week Penal colony EFFECTIVE adminstration would be interesting to know - but I'm guessing that mutiny, murder, rape & an unhappy (non-Argentine) population could all be raised to challenge the notion.
I would genuinely love to know whether you actually believe that you have a legal right to the islands - in which case why are you not demanding that your government takes it to the ICJ? If I was only a court case away from getting the thing I'd always wanted, I'd pull my finger out and submit the documentation. What's stopping you?
It continues to be odd, to say the least, that each time anyone mentions the Arana Southern Treaty on these pages, there are never any responses from the trolls.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This treaty, the so called Treaty of Perfect Friendship, clearly states that at the time of ratification there were no outstanding matters to be resolved between Argentina and Great Britain. Any fool, including Timerman and Ms Kirchner, must realise that this treaty pus the whole matter of the Falklands/Malvinas “to bed”.
This is why Argentina declines to take the matter to the International Court of Justice as the Arana Southern Treaty has never been revoked and can only be revoked by agreement of the two parties. The same process would apply to the Treaty of Utrecht in the matter of Gibraltar and Spain.
@20 Sorry, you don't have the intelligence or ability to consider facts and reach viable conclusions. I'd like to discuss but you don't have the wit.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have no doubt. If you come for OUR territory again, WE will kill YOU. WE have no problem with how many. Send all 41 million if you want. The Falkland Islands are BRITISH. They will remain BRITISH until the Falkand Islands are ready to be INDEPENDENT. Argieland has no role play except that of annoyance or irritation.
'Argentina's inalienable right over the Malvinas.' - Such twaddle.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principle judicial organ of the UN. It was established by the United Nations in June 1945. The court has a two fold role:
(I) Settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted by states. (Its judgements have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned) .
(II) To give advisory opinion on legal questions referring to it by duly authorised UN organs and agencies.
So if Argentina believes that it has a legal right to the Falklands, why doesn't it take its case to the ICJ?
Perhaps this statement is irrefutable evidence that the Falklands Islands are British: 'Argentina will take legal action at home and abroad against any companies involved in oil exploration off the Malvinas Islands.'
(Hector Timerman - 15th March 2012).
So Hector, what's happening?
N o t h i n g - No jurisdiction.
Let it rest, Argentina. These are unimportant islands, and the people there are not argentine by blood.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Leaving the islands alone and never having to hear from the UK again is a far better future for us.
“Administration constitutes legal title”.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islands are without doubt British.
No debate necessary.
#29 Toby, nice to see you have at least one brain cell still intact and functioning
Jun 10th, 2013 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's 100% more brain function than you.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@32 Actually, for your insult to work you would have to say it's an infinite % more, since dividing by zero isn't possible. If you had two brain cells and Faz only had one, then you could say you had 100% more.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looks like you are limited to one clear thought per day, at best.
No, YOU ARE.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He said “at least one”, so the divisor is one.
Not only do I know math, I know English (my 3rd language), better than you monolingual.
Fail.
Thought a persistent irritating sound in in the ear was Tinnitus not Malvinas - but seems they are one of the same....
Jun 10th, 2013 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@29
Jun 10th, 2013 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm delighted to hear that young Tobes. Though in fact you have had nothing to fear from us since we signed a peace treaty with you in 1850. Apart from 1982, neither Britain or the Falklands Islands have represented any threat to you at all.
So live your lives freed from the Malvinas myth that your governments repeatedly use to distract you from asking what they are up to. Good Luck.
@20
Jun 10th, 2013 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know that isn't true.
Everyone acknowledges and accepts that the Kingdom of Spain had appointed governors between 1767 and 1811.
The Kingdom of Spain also appointed governors for Mexico and Peru.
What you cannot show is why this specific territory was inherited by Argentina.
Why not Chile, geographically closer?
Why not Uruguay, the SPANISH population left the islands in 1811 and went to Uruguay to fight the Argentines?
Why not Mongolia or Mars?
Spain controlled great swathes of South America that are not currently Argentina.
Spain administered great swathes of South America from Buenos Aires that are not currently Argentina.
Argentina used self-determination to gain Independence. Uruguay, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Peru etc all used self determination...there was nobody on the islands to self-determine anything, and given the last people there left to fight Argentina...it's bloody unlikely they'd have chosen them.
So,
Inheritance from Spain....bullshit
Vernet community “argentine”....bullshit
Vernet community “evicted”....bullshit
Next???
If Argentina refuses to take military or legal action (the latter it always promises.but never does) then it can take its self invented claim and shove it were the sun doesn't shine.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The (present...)Argentine government needs to take beta-blockers. All that fantasy producing useless adrenaline.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@37 Monkeymagic
Jun 10th, 2013 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You forgot their 'Geographical Proximity' argument which is also bullshit.
@38 - Beef
Agreed.
@29 Tobias
Yes Argentina should let it rest, but the government won't while gullible people buy into it as a distraction whilst they continue to stuff their off shore bank accounts with YOUR (as in the people of Argentina's) money.
I've often found it paradoxical that the leaders of socialist governments who tell the poor they should all share and be equal, aren't willing to share or be equal themselves. There are more greedy than those from 'capitalist' countries, and certainly more hypocritical. Do as we say, and not as we do.
20 Devolverislas
Jun 10th, 2013 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here's the historical reality, without any indoctrinated elements
In fact there was never a “governor”, only a “civil and military commandant” (Louis Vemet himself), and he did not receive that title until June 1829. ... ...order to improve his financial situation, Pacheco, supported by Vernet, approached the government for permission to exploit the wild cattle and seals in the Falklands This permission was granted on 28 August, 1823; Pacheco and Vernet prepared an expedition, and as it was about to leave made another application on 18 December 1823, for a small grant of land, cannons and for the appointment of a retired military officer, Pablo Areguati, to be unpaid “commander” of their settlement The grant of land was made th same day, but no cannons were supplied, and Areguati was not appointed to any rank. This is clear from the reply of the BA government:
“The Govt., having a duty to protect commerce and assist all branches of trade in the country considers it right to concede to the applicant freely the lands that he requests, under the absolut obligation to conduct a proper survey so he can obtain titles of ownership, the Govt thus reserving th provision of this, as of all the other poinls requested by the applicant/”
So the government reserved its position, and Areguati was not given any rank. This is supported by th fact that in the few communications by him that survive in the Archivo General de la Nación (AGN) in Buenos Aires, not one suggests that he had any official position. Nor, apparently, was any public announcement made either of this grant or the proposed expedition
Argentine historian Ricardo Cafltet-Bois, who wrote the most detailed book on the Argentine clain fudges the question of Areguati's appointment. But another distinguished Argentine historian, Mari Tester, rejected it altogether in an article in the Buenos Aires newspaper Clarín entitled “Gobernadora Que Nunca Fueron” (Governors That Never Were), on 6 June 1974 This cl
Falkland Islands “dispute” summary FTI:
Jun 10th, 2013 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina: Wha wha wha waaaaah wha waaaaaah whaa
UK: ....... tumbleweed........
Falkland Islanders:
@41
Jun 10th, 2013 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Article 1: The Falkland Islands and adjacent to Cape Horn in the Atlantic Ocean, will be …..GOVERNED…. by a Political and Military Commander, appointed immediately by the Government of the Republic.
Article 2.- The residence of the political and military commander will be in the Isle of Solitude, and it will establish a battery under the flag of the Republic.
Article 3.- The Political and Military Commander will see the population of the islands the Laws of the Republic, and take care of their costs of enforcement of regulations on fishing for amphibians. Article 4 .- Communicate and published.
Signed, Martin Rodriguez, Salvador M.del Lane. ”
………in other words……a Governor!!!
'Russia backs Argentina's bid for Falklands negotiations with UK -
Jun 10th, 2013 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Russia supports Argentina's bid for talks with Britain on sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday.
“We support the determination of Argentina to start direct bilateral negotiations with Britain with the aim of the earliest possible settlement of the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands with numerous UN resolutions being taken into account. We are determined to continue to maintain this approach, including at the UN Special Committee on Decolonization,” Lavrov said in an interview in Buenos Aires on Monday...'
http://rbth.ru/news/2013/06/10/russia_backs_argentinas_bid_for_falklands_negotiations_with_uk_26944.html
THE FALKLANDS will never be Argentinian as long as you have a hole in your arse
Jun 10th, 2013 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why is ANYONE bothering with the Vernet crap?
Jun 10th, 2013 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 01982 closes all the debate on who owns the Falkland Islands and the local group. The stupid Junta thought they had the islands but never did: they were defeated and chucked OFF the islands and sent back to The Dark Country on our ships (the ones we paid for). THEY LOST!
The only mistake Baroness Thatcher ever made was to listen to 'Ray-gun Ronnie' when he implored her to let the argies off to save face, and this is the problem we have now. We should have carried on and flattened BsAs to teach them all a lesson.
I bet we would not be in this stupid, stupid situation now.
Argentina reaffirmed
Jun 10th, 2013 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its “strong will to promptly restart negotiations
ha ha ha .
How many times does a child have throw his toys –
Before mummy listens?
Allow us to educate you in honesty,
Simple but true,
If you think or you know that you have a legitimate claim-
Then take the British to the ICJ- its that simple ?
But on the other hand if you bloody well arrogantly know that you have NO claim and are just simply trying to steal what is not yours, then by all means carry on throwing your silly toys out of the pram,
But sooner or later, we will perhaps get a better government that will happily take those toys and shove them where the sun don’t shine,
They are NOT yours, never was , never will be , not now and not ever ,
So either take us to a legitimate court or shutty uppy,
Thieving wannabies..
..
43 A_Voice
Jun 10th, 2013 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It must be invisible, but I don't see a source, and I don't see a title.
@46
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “Vernet crap” as you call it, is ideal Argentine propaganda as it is vague. It fits in with all the vagaries of the time.
The Argentine position would be far stronger if any of those vagaries were more definitive, but none of them are, it is a case of if only:
If only, there was a Spanish population still on the islands between 1811-1833 who passionately and desperately wanted to leave Spanish rule and become Argentine...there wasn't...
If only, the Vernet community had prospered, not seized the American ships, not suffered the Lexington raid, and absolutely and unequivocally revolted against British rule....they didn't.
If only, the United Provinces of River Plate hadn't stripped Vernet of his title of “Governor” (or whatever A-hole wants to claim he was) and replaced him with Esteban Mestevier (thus totally nullifying whatever weak claim Vernet had, that he hadn't already passed to Brisbane (British))
If only, the Argentine militia hadn't murdered Mestevier and raped his wife, thus removing any sympathy for their 2-month stay on the islands.
If only, the Agentines hadn't claimed Gaucho Rivero wasn't fighting for Argentine rule against British oppression when he murdered Brisbane, thus destroying any moral claim they had calling the Vernet community Argentine, as Brisbane was Vernets nominated successor.
If only, Argentine hadn't signed the settlement in 1850
if only, Argentina hadn't invaded in 1982, rounded up civilians, held them at gun-point, indiscriminately landmined the area, and used false white flags and civilian property as weapons stations..
It's full of if only's...but none of them add up to anything.
Britain actively dismantled 1/3 of the surface of the Planet, we couldn't wait to give away territories, or encourage independence. But Argentina were so stupid, so lazy, so ignorant, so corrupt....that they couldn't convince a couple of thousand islanders of the merits.
Too late now...at least for a century or two.
@46
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Same thing happened in Suez crisis in 1956, the Yanks asked us to withdraw. yet we still help them out.
@48
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Same source as this.......
1828
“July 25th, the Prime Minister responds, ” It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago. If our right to the Falkland Islands had been undisputed at that time and indisputable, I confess that I should doubt the expediency of now taking possession of them. We have possession of nearly every valuable post and colony in the world and I confess that I am anxious to avoid to excite the attention and jealousy of other powers by extending our possessions and setting the example of the gratification of a desire to seize upon new territories. But in this case in which our right to possess more than Port [Egmont] is disputed, and at least doubtful, it is very desireable [sic] to avoid such acts. I am at the same time very sensible of the inconvenience which may be felt by this country and of the injury which will be done to us if either the French or Americans should settle upon these islands, the former in virtue of any claim from former occupancy, the latter or both from any claim derived by purchase or cession from the government of Buenos Ayres.”
@52 A_Voice
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And just imagine. Had the tenant Vernet not gone rogue and taken up piracy, and had proto-Arjuntina not turned up with an implanted population of rapists and murders, it might have been left at that and history might have been different.
@52
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You and I both know it was not piracy…….English ships were not molested, only American ships as they thought they had an inherited right to fish in those waters from the British Crown after Independence........so they said
Nobody argues that there was a valid sovereignty dispute with SPAIN. In fact, given that we voluntarily evacuated the islands in the 1770s, and Spain remained until 1811----it would be churlish to argue that the SPANISH claim wasn't stronger.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that suggests that the Spanish sovereignty claim passed to Argentina.
Nobody can explain how this happened.
Why didn't it pass to Uruguay?
Why didn't it pass to Chile?
Why didn't it evaporate when they voluntarily withdrew in 1811?
There were no people to self-determine their form of government
The Spanish garrison left via Uruguay (not Argentina)
The Spanish garrison left to fight against the Buenos Aires uprising, not to support it.
SPAIN did not pass its DISPUTED sovereignty claim to Argentina.
Argentina tried to steal a territory that had previously been contested between Britain and Spain.
Argentina has lied..in the past it has PRETENDED (lied), that the Spanish population from the 1760s remained on the islands, chose to become Argentine and were evicted by the British in 1833. If indeed that we're the case, some sympathy could be had...IT IS A LIE.
The British left in 1775
The Spanish population left in 1811
The next population was Vernets, which mostly failed, but in 1833 had a Brit in charge.
The next group came in November 1832 were from “Argentina” did a bit of murder, a bit of mutiny, a bit of rape, and we're evicted in January 1833.
The next group stayed there for 180 years, 9 generations of people, interrupted only by an illegal invasion in 1982.
It's hard to see a people in the Americas with more right to their homeland than the Falklanders.
@54
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A legal right to half of it via the British......that's all......even the British Prime Minister thought the same, at that time!
And the other half SPAIN..which they relinquished voluntarily in 1811, and have never subsequently taken up. 180 years later, it's safe to say they aren't coming back!
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, now that you've all has your say about the Islands in question, I would like to remind all of you that “Possession is 9/10ths of the law...”
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, if you want to go on historical presidence, Patigonia belongs to Chile.
Panama belongs to Colombia and those Argentinian arseholes from Italy need to move back to Naples...
@53
Jun 10th, 2013 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So it's only 'piracy if 'English' ships are involved, otherwise it's just 'ship molesting'? That sounds awfully like the kind of Malvinista distinction I often have difficulties with. And why would 'English' ships be immune from ship-molesting if the islands aren't 'English'? Jimmy?
@57
Jun 10th, 2013 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We would all be happy with negotiations on that basis!
Ignore self-determination in the Americas at your peril. Every stolen inch of land belongs to who it does today based on that premise.
What was once Spanish, French, British, Portuguese, Dutch is now spread amongst several various states, because by hook or by crook, one way or other, the people who live in the regions have chosen it that way.
Start redrawing boundaries, to what territories were once governed by which genocidal Spaniard, or once ruled by which British slave trader or Portuguese murderer and the map looks wholly different.
It's a two way street.
The more recent Argentine territory, now almost universally accepted as Argentina in Patagonia. certainly not governed by Spain out a buenos Aires in 1833...so it can't be Argentina right? but chunks of Uruguay and Bolivia aren't, but chunks of Paraguay are....oh dear!!
However, a prerequisite for returning to pre 1811 Spanish colonial boundaries would have to be the return of Patagonia, and full reparations made to the indigenous population for the various minerals and hydrocarbons stolen from them in a blatant act of 19th century colonialism.
Prior to any Falkland sovereignty negotiations this should be “demanded”. Anything else would be rank Argentine hypocrisy, we wouldn't want that!!
@58
Jun 10th, 2013 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet was fully aware of the dual sovereignty…….British ships had the rights to fish there, America didn't……it was no more piracy than what is practiced today when a foreign nation tries to fish in territorial water……the impounded Squid and fines by the FIG…….the impounded seal skins and the seized ships by Vernet
@56
At that time Britain recognised that Spain had lost it's territories and recognised Argentina. Argentina being a former Spanish colony claimed the Falklands or at least the Spanish part and a Governor was dispatched to establish a colony. I don't see what difference it makes if the said governor saw it as a commercial venture.
Spain didn't oppose it so …… a fait accompli
.I like that this spy agency “stuck” in South America begins with the only true name of the Islands: MALVINAS.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed as the article says, the pirate flag of his majesty, began only in 1833 flaming there after lowering the legitimate: The Argentina.
All it have to show the world England are eight years illegitimately occupying an island, Trinidad, from 1766 until 1774 when at the request of Spain, he left quietly acknowledging his sovereignty. Of course, during those short eight years, they were not alone. First France and since 1767 with the governors appointed from Buenos Aires in Puerto Soledad. During all those years until 1811 and then Argentina to 1833, had complete control over the entire Malvinas archipelago.
Illegitimately, because England with that act violated treaties with Spain as San Lorenzo, 1790 (among others), which prevented him from occupying the mainland adjacent islands in this part of America.
So, we have nearly 60 years after its abandonment, come with the intention of claim. But not even that. The pirate of her majesty Onslow, said “the islands did not belong to anyone.”
In short, the 180 years of illegitimate occupation of the islands since 1833 by his majesty pirate, means nothing legally.
THE MALVINAS ISLANDS ARE ARGENTINE.
#61
Jun 10th, 2013 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No they are not . End of discussion.
@61
Jun 10th, 2013 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I totally disagree they are definitely the Falkland Islands named after 5th Viscount of Falkland, by Captain John Strong, who landed on the islands in 1690 not Îles Malouines named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764
I said that in legal terms you may have had some claim ......that's all
@60
Jun 10th, 2013 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Dual sovereignity”? What's this now? How exactly did British ships have the 'rights' to fish there? Who gave them these 'rights'? By what title? Where's the document?
@64
Jun 10th, 2013 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are going to have to read the history yourself....
....same as the Spanish......been there occupied it, stuck a flag in the ground..left a plaque......and left.....that was a brief synopsis!
@65
Jun 10th, 2013 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's try again. You said : “Vernet was fully aware of the dual sovereignty…….British ships had the rights to fish there, America didn't”
1) Are you saying that Vernet, at this point official Argentine Governor or Commandant or whatever, recognised British rights in the Falklands?
2) Who exactly conferred these rights on the British? Was it Vernet, the authorities in BA, or the Spanish? Are you saying that Vernet meant to continue the situation established in the 1774 agreement? Or do you mean that Vernet and/or BA has conferred these rights? And the Brits had accepted their right to confer rights?
Dynamite stuff, this.
As an outsider I have always been somewhat wondering about all the fuzz about those islands. The Argentines always “invite” the British to a “dialogue” to negotiate about the sovereignty over the Falklands. But, what could they really discuss? The very constituion of the Argentine republic says that the Malvinas are part that country:
Jun 10th, 2013 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“La Nacion Argentina ratifica su legitima e
imprescriptible soberania sobre las islas Malvinas, Georgias
del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios maritimos e
insulares correspondientes, por ser parte integrante del
territorio nacional.
La recuperacion de dichos territorios y el ejercicio pleno de
la soberania, respetando el modo de vida de sus habitantes, y
conforme a los principios del Derecho Internacional,
constituyen un objetivo permanente e irrenunciable del pueblo
argentino.”
Not much for them to negotiate about. Everything but a total takeover would be a break of the constitution, so an Argentine negotiator has really nothing to discuss.
The islands are only Argentine in the Malvinistas heads. Thats the best they've got. To imagine. Back in the real physical world you can see that very clearly even before the plane has landed that the Islands are not Argentine.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina does not want to solve 'the issue of Las Malvinas'. If it it does then its clearly an entirely pathetic exercise covering almost 2 centuries of failure. Despite the 'undying passion and devotion for their dear Malvinas' and immense geographical advantage and Britain being somewhat distracted during the World Wars the Islands are still not Argentine. Why is that? Because Argentina's nationalist politics has the near perfect tool to manipulate people.
@66
Jun 10th, 2013 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am not saying anything!! It's frigging history!
Now get off your Hans und Nies and find it yourself!
It would be dynamite stuff it you could actually be bothered reading it.
“Hearing that England claimed the sovereignty of the Islands, he (Vernet) now applied to Great Britain, through their Charge d’Affaires, for the protection of his colonists.” [Shuttleworth 1910]”
May 25th, Emilio Vernet writes in his diary about the 1810 Revolution celebrations on East Falkland; “.. dawn broke with some heavy showers and hail. At sunrise three cannon shots were fired and the flags of both Great Britain and Buenos Aires were hoisted;10 at noon, three more cannon shots were fired, and three more in the evening. After lunching meat roasted with hide on and cakes especially prepared for the occasion, we practised target shooting until dusk. People organized a ball at the cooper’s ranch, which lasted all night”.
Jose, do something about it then you yellow belly surrender monkey.
Jun 10th, 2013 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@69
Jun 10th, 2013 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is of course well known that prior to 1829 Vernet was sleeping on both sides of the bed.
The point you are obviously missing is that after 1829 Vernet is supposedly proto-Arjuntinian Governor of the Malvinas, and as stated by the official communique of the Arjuntinian government noted above, this makes for Arjuntinian sovereignity of the islands.
However, this must celarly be wrong according to your frigging interpretation of friggin history, since you have him recognising either British or dual sovereignity, it's not too clear which.
Now there's a thing that could cause consternation on National Kneejerk Day.
@71
Jun 10th, 2013 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You answered yourself in the first line. Vernet had no argument with the British it was only the Americans that pursued him and wanted him to stand trial in the US whilst he was in BA.
Britain had warned Vernet that they had not relinquished sovereignty over the Islands. So British ships were left alone!
December 14th 1831
”It appears that English as well as American vessels have been sealing in the same places, but the warning which I sent to Mr Vernet (as stated to your Lordship in my dispatch No.34 of last year) has saved them from similar consequences:- It is however no small aggravation in the eyes of the North Americans, that they should have been suffered to continue to do those Acts with impunity, which have led to the seisure of North American vessels, and to the ill treatment of their crews.”
@67 “swede”
Jun 10th, 2013 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As an outsider I have always been somewhat wondering about all the fuzz about those islands”
Welcome puppet, “as an outsider”!
Oh, dear.
LOL!!
Oh dear ladies...
Jun 10th, 2013 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands have been de-facto British for 180 years and the residents simply prefer it that way and have done for well, actually more than those 180 years. Why the Junta can't be a tad more grown up and respect the wishes of others is perplexing to put it mildly. That the Junta is NOT WANTED is what sticks most painfully in the tender throats of poor Hector and the Botox Witch. and their squealing is a vain attempt to divert attention from their woeful mismanagement of what should be such a prosperous and pleasant land.
So please, a bit less bleating about a bunch of gringo sheep-shaggers and a bit more attention sorting out the economic disaster and corrupt inequalities of the Junta's mainland colony (cunningly robbed from it's rightful indigenous inhabitants) and we might all sleep peacefully, counting puffy little Patagonian lambs until the snores gently overtake us.
I'm off to Gibraltar for a pint!
@61 José Malvinero: 'illegitimate occupation'
Jun 10th, 2013 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0been said a million times before, but Argentineans talking about 'illegitimate occupation' just reeks of hypocrisy.
@66 HansNiesund: You and I both know that Herr. Vernet played the both the UK and whatever the Spanish around the River Plate were calling themselves at the time, as best he could to make a profit.
He played his hand badly and lost. So is the life of a gambler.
What we should continue to point out to Argentina, is that you don't have to take much of a look at him to realise that he was not a Falklander and probably would not have ever been a Falklander. He had business interests there and was a transient worker. As such, the fact he happened to be on the islands when one of his kids was born on the islands does not mean a great deal in the context of the early to mid 1800s.
On the other hand Argentina's attitude to multiple generations of Islanders in the early 21st century should have alarm bells ringing around the world. Not least because of the ramifications on most of the current population of Argentina (that is, of course, if they are not a bunch of hypocrites and believe in universal justice).
The British Empire
Jun 11th, 2013 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 who tried to limit the whole-scale slaughter of seals which were in danger of being made extinct on the islands. A penal colony was also established on the island”
The Brits were there before you, end of!
Jun 11th, 2013 - 04:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@76 Marcos
Jun 11th, 2013 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Try this:
Some points about the Nootka Sound Convention.
1) It is debatable that it applies to the Falklands. It refers to adjacent islands. The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to Argentina.
2) It was suspended in 1795 due to war between the two countries. It may or may not have been renewed in 1814 after the war. There is no evidence that it was renewed.
3) It's a reciprocal treaty. Both countries, Spain as well as Great Britain (the respective subjects), were forbidden to form establishments on the coasts mentioned. Spain, by forming settlements late 18th -early 19th century in what is now San Clemente del Tuyú (directly south of the Banda Oriental -now Uruguay), was in breach of the Convention
4) If it does apply to the Falklands, Argentina, by claiming it established a settlement on the Falklands in 1826 (subjects of any other power), rendered article 6 null and void as per the secret article:
“Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.”
(Argentine web pages on Nootka and the Falklands never mention the secret article)
5) New states do not inherit treaties without the consent of other signatories to those treaties, and Britain certainly DIDN'T consent for Argentina to 'inherit' the Islands.
6) Argentina did not inherit the Falklands so neither did she inherit any treaty Spain may have signed with any country regarding the Falklands.
I see none of the trolls have taken up my challenge @26 above concerning the Arana Southern Treaty.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder why?
Still nobody has answered the question, they keep repeating the same shit about SPAIN.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say-
“At that time Britain recognised that Spain had lost it's territories and recognised Argentina”.
I say-
Agree 100%. The limit of Argentina was 1000 miles from the Falklands.
You say:
“Argentina being a former Spanish colony claimed the Falklands or at least the Spanish part and a Governor was dispatched to establish a colony”.
I say:
Under what authority? When America claimed Independence, it didn't automatically gain all the islands in the Carribean controlled by Britain, Argentina didn't automatically get Mexico, Chile Peru, Uruguay. ARGENTINA DIDN'T AUTOMATICALLY GET THE FALKLANDS.
You say
“. I don't see what difference it makes if the said governor saw it as a commercial venture”
The “ Governor ” left the islands in 1831. Did his title and therefore “argentine sovereignty” go with him? Argentina saw the need to replace him with Mestevier in November 1832.
Did the Mestevier militia in 1832 respect Britains historical claim? Or were they 19th century usurping pirates too?
When Mestevier was murdered and his wife raped in front of their children, did Pinedo automatically become “Governor”?
Sorry, I still see absolutely no transfer of title (of half the islands) from Spain to Argentina. They could equally have transferred them to Uruguay, Chile or Britain.
Argentina attempted to seize them in 1829 using Vernet as “Governor”. That is Argentinas FIRST claim. There is no inheritance.
This First attempt failed for multiple reasons.
Firstly, the Lexington raid destroyed most of the business.
Then Vernet voluntarily left in 1831 and never returned
Vernet passed his leadership over to a British Matthew Brisbane (de facto his title was therefore held by a Brit!!!! LOL)
Even Argentina realised he was gone and looked to replace him.
Vernet would have accepted ANY sovereignty if there was a $ in it.
The 2nd failed Argentine attempt was poor Mestevier.
The 3rd in 1982
@72
Jun 11th, 2013 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh I see. It's just because Vernet was scared of the Brits, not that as official representative of proto-Arjuntina in the islands he recognised British 'rights', or 'dual sovereignity', or something, as you originally stated.
I'm sure the Malvinistas will be pleased you've back-pedalled out of a contention so damaging to their case. That could really have undermined the strength of their argument, what with the secret articles nobody has ever seen to treaties they were never a part of, the claim they claim to have inherited without it ever having been left to them, the newspaper report of an inept pirate captain reading a letter, the expulsion that never happened, the treaty of perfect friendship that didn't actually mean that, the Presidents who didn't know what they were talking about, the failed war of aggression that wasn't them it was actually their evil twin brother, and all the rest of the canon we're supposed to believe.
But the really funny thing is, interesting and entertaining though it may be, this 'dispute' isn't about who had the best claim in 1833, it's about who has the best claim in 2013. And it's perfectly clear that this is nobody but the islanders themselves.
'Uruguay lost U$ S 500 million by Falkland - Uruguay no longer perceive up to 500 million dollars annually by the Government preventing the entry into its ports of vessels flying flags of Falkland Islands, archipelago of the South Atlantic whose sovereignty claims Argentina. “We have affected our interests to defend the Argentine cause, which did not do any other country of the South Atlantic or the Pacific, eh!”, exclaimed during a parliamentary debate the Deputy of the Frente Amplio, a coalition of left-wing Government, Jorge Pozzi...'
Jun 11th, 2013 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.ansa.it/ansalatina/notizie/rubriche/mercosur/20130610192835572905.html
'“Between Russia and Argentina military and aerospace cooperation.” - The Russia and Argentina have an ample opportunity to engage in effective cooperation in high-tech sectors, such as aerospace, nuclear energy and military-technical. This was stated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, engaged in a tour of Latin America.
The Minister also assured that Russia's position on the Falklands Islands remains unchanged. “Do not have any influence over the results of the referendum enacted by the United Kingdom, which is not regarded as a recognition of British sovereignty over the Islands,” – said the head of Russian diplomacy.'
http://www.ansa.it/ansalatina/notizie/rubriche/mercosur/20130610192835572905.html
'China presses for UK-Argentina talks over Falklands future - China has called upon Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume the sovereignty negotiations, “as requested by the [United Nations General Assembly] resolutions and in accordance with the spirit of the United Nations Charter”...'
http://www.ansa.it/ansalatina/notizie/rubriche/mercosur/20130610192835572905.html
'Rossi: “the Falklands cause is permanently present in the agenda of the national Government”
http://www.ansa.it/ansalatina/notizie/rubriche/mercosur/20130610192835572905.html
The UK govt. has offered talks with Argentina about the Falklands with the proviso that the Islanders are included in the discussions.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 08:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0The conditions are on the table, so what is the problem ?
Hey Argentina,
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just in case you haven't heard.
There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on OUR Sovereignty.
ls that clear enough for you?
Do you want me to repeat it daily, so that your miniscule minds will let it soak in?
Obviously you can get Argentina to do anything at all for you if you tickle its tummy over “Las Malvinas” so it is an easy call for Russia & China et al, but it would be interesting to know what these countries are really saying to our officials. Do they genuinely want to reverse 19th and 20th century population movements with such significant consequences for themselves and not least Argentina? Also it is interesting that these countries hold permanent seats on the UNSC and yet don't advise Argentina to go to the ICJ. Is it international law they don't rate, or Argentina's chances?
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0China still has to put up with a Human Rights lecture at the start of western visits so you could understand them wanting to get their own back with some satisfyingly annoying but ultimately empty rhetoric. Plus they are still sore about Cameron meeting the Dalai Lama.
Argentina remembers Rights re-affirmation Day? What nonsense. It's like saying “lets celebrate the day we setup our penal garrison on someone else's island”. followed by “how we became perfect friends with Britain in 1850, they built a railway.. and we shafted'em when hitler threatened, in 1941 .. Day” followed by “we invaded, with Junta who we hate-love-hate-love-nothing to do with us but we celebrate their efforts Day” .
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvinas myth has less chance of becoming true as Elvis coming back from the dead to give a one-off concert with that lummox Morrissey!
@67 'The very constitution of the Argentine republic says that the Malvinas are part of that country'
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Until 1999, the Irish constitution laid claim to the whole of the island of Ireland, but that didn't stop the Irish government signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, which Gerry Adams saw as a sell-out: 'The formal recognition of the partition of Ireland... [is] a disaster for the nationalist cause... [it] far outweighs the powerless consultative role given to Dublin'.
If China presses for Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands-easy-we say give Tibet self -determination.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0In realpolitik though China does better out of trade with the UK than through Argentina. If the UK stopped buying from China, it would dent China's economy big style.
@78
”1) It is debatable that it applies to the Falklands. It refers to adjacent islands. The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to Argentina.”
I think it is stretching it to say that in 1833, the Falklands which were over 1000miles South East of Buenos Aires were adjacent to BA.
In fact St Helena is roughly adjacent to Brazil but there are no claims on St Helena from Brazil.
This is the problem with all Malvinista arguments, making generalisations about treaties without minute scrutiny of the details that contradict what they say.
When challenged further on the occasions that they actually look at history, they dry up.
Ie we inherited the Falklands from Spain.
So if that is the case Spain would not have paid an official visit to the Falklands and saluted the Union Jack in 1863 if they:
1/-Continued to claim East Falkland
2/- Had transferred their claim to UP/Argentina.
At this point Malvanista arguments fall on stony ground
One reason why they would never go to the ICJ
Jose, Marcos,Steve - Your Timmerman had an open invite to sit down and talk with the British Foreign Secretary a few months ago in London.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I recall seeing a picture of his empty chair as he was cared wet and brown trousered at the thought of having to accept that some people live there and also wanted to discuss the future of the islands with him!
You lot really are are prize group of fools - no wonder Latin America laughs at you behind your back!
One strange thing, however, is that the Argies so often tell the world that they want a “dialogue” with the UK. But the only outcome possible for them is a hand-over of the sovereignty. Everything else must be considered unconstitutional according to the Argentine constitution. You cannot expect a negotiator to break the constitution of the country he represents. What do they want do discuss, really?
Jun 11th, 2013 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0@88 - Pete Bog
Jun 11th, 2013 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0A poor choice of words, I should've said the Falklands are more than 300 nautical miles from the coast of South America.
But you get my drift.
The Argentines need to look up the meaning of the word 'adjacent'.
1. [adjective] nearest in space or position; immediately adjoining without intervening space.
2. [adjective] having a common boundary or edge; touching.
@91
Jun 11th, 2013 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's quite easy, you just have to grasp that in the Malvinaverse words mean different things. For example :
Negotiation: transfer of sovereignity to Arjuntina
Peaceful solution: transfer of sovereignity to Arjuntina
United Nations: transfer of sovereignity to Arjuntina
Dialogue = UK to agree transfer of sovereignity to Arjuntina
Arrogance = UK not agreeing transfer of sovereignity to Arjuntina
Lies = UK disputing transfer of sovereignity to Arjuntina
etc, etc.
See for example : “Argentinean Sovereignty over the Malivinas is not negotiable. That is the starting point of negotiation.” (Dante Caputo, Argentine Foreign Minister, 13 November, 1983. Quoted in House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, 1983-4, Report, Vol. 2, p 149)
So, there cannot be any serious negotiations. It sounds like “Malvinism” is some kind of a religion with a very strong set of beliefs.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@88
Jun 11th, 2013 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Correct-I wasn't trying to pick fault with what you said, merely reinforce it, well said LEPRecon-logic vs fairy tales.
@92
Agreed. Malvinese is a language that makes no sense whatsoever and consists of the speakers sticking their fingers in their ears.
I am sure Argentina is now trying to make out that the Falklands were 300 miles away in 1833 and hope no one notices- what the land borders actually were but they cannot marry geographical proximity with 1833-so disjointed is their claim.
Much as I admire all the historical buffs quoting what was supposed to have happened in 1833, the fact is that in today´s age it doesn´t set a precedent
Jun 11th, 2013 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0´International law rests more on the peoples’ perspective than in the historic, real or imaginary territorial possession´
The fact remains that Britain won a war in 1982 & the Argies surrendered unconditionally. It also helped to bring down a brutal dictatorship for which the Argies should be eternally thankful instead of crying for over 30 years that ´we lost but it wasn´t fair´. To the victor go the spoils …….Uti Possidetis De Facto!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arana–Southern_Treaty
Jun 11th, 2013 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@95 Red Rose
Jun 11th, 2013 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as we are stating facts…….there was no war in 1982 only a conflict.
Military engagements of the United Kingdom (not formally declared)…… is it's classification .
“To the victor go the spoils ……” Hardly, the conclusion was…..
Status quo ante bellum
If it's latin you like, my favourite is Saint Augustine's
……”Inter faeces et urinam nascimur”
@97 - A_Voice
Jun 11th, 2013 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well actually it was a war because by invading sovereign British territory, Argentina unilaterally declared war on the UK. There doesn't need to be an 'official' declaration.
The Pragmatic Theory of Declaration of War states: that the power to declare war can be made unnecessary by an act of war in itself.
The Argentines should be thankful that the UK decided not to attack Argentina itself.
And Manchesterlad is right: to the victor goes the spoils. In this case the UK (the victor) handed the spoils (the Falklands) over to the control of the Islanders lock, stock and barrel.
The only people who believe the status quo was maintained are the Argentinians. And that is because they refuse to accept that little thing called reality.
@98
Jun 11th, 2013 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your opinion.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_Kingdom
@97
Jun 11th, 2013 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0> there was no war in 1982 only a conflict
So that's all right, then. I was afraid somebody might have got killed or something.
100 Argies like to use alternative terms when their arguments start to sag - implanted population is another. Anyway señor Thinks boys are in line for another thrashing by Young England. Always good to see Good triumph over Evil.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@100
Jun 11th, 2013 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok let me put armed in front of conflict or perhaps Military engagement……….Opps…. I did put that!
Now apply your reasoning to those words……
@101
I would suggest to you that the terms Good and Evil are relative
@37 @54 Monkeymagic
Jun 11th, 2013 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@41 Terence Hill “Here’s the historical reality…”
@37 There is, it seems, one vital piece missing from your impressive knowledge of Argentina. Spain created the Vice-Royalty of the River Plate in 1776. The centre of the Vice-Royalty was Buenos Aires. The Government of Buenos Aires, on behalf of the Vice-Royalty, appointed governors to the Malvinas. Title to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas passed to Argentina (formerly United Provinces of the River Plate), not directly from Spain but from the Vice-Royalty.
In @54 you write of the populations who have lived on the islands. When it comes to deciding the sovereignty of the territory the population, whether it be that during Vernet’s time, later, or now, is strictly of no import. Thanks to its periods of administration of the islands, prior to the British seizure in 1833 and subsequent occupation, Argentina has legal title to the islands.
@41 Terence Hill Are you not just regurgitating Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper whose interpretation of the history of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas is not of the most reliable? It would be helpful and honest if in the future you would give credit to your sources. Otherwise it is plagiarism.
@103
Jun 11th, 2013 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I Disagree any entitlement from the Spanish would only pertain to East Falkland and British to West Falkland!
103
Jun 11th, 2013 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”@37 There is, it seems, one vital piece missing from your impressive knowledge of Argentina. Spain created the Vice-Royalty of the River Plate in 1776. The centre of the Vice-Royalty was Buenos Aires. The Government of Buenos Aires, on behalf of the Vice-Royalty, appointed governors to the Malvinas. Title to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas passed to Argentina (formerly United Provinces of the River Plate), not directly from Spain but from the Vice-Royalty. ”
I think Spain would disagree also!
@103... Once again, spitting on the principle of self-determination. Also, you continue to talk “administration.” Administration of what? A claim and an “right” to a claim. Not the rights or will or as you fascist apologists claim “interests” (which the Islanders learned about in spades in 1982 from you) of the people living there. They've given you feedback over and over and your hearing is no different or better than the Junta that you pretend to repudiate. It's Administration Through Letterhead, nothing more. It's no more a credible historical claim than it is to say that the current Island administration (not to mention a goodly sized slice of Antarctica which belongs to no one despite what countries, including UK, claim) is seated in a province that you couldn't even be bothered to give full status to years after you fascists were holding guns at the Islanders heads and THEN say that its net territory is far bigger than the relatively tiny region that it actually manages. With the magic of MS Word and Photoshop, I can make claim to be the governor or any piece of real estate I covet by AR's arguments. The difference is that I have friends who respect me enough to tell me that I'd be crazy if I did it. Pity you don't and your neighbors who are “friends by geography” just say it behind your back when it's time to shakeout the realpolitik and work with the grownups, including those on the Islands.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Grow up, take it to the ICJ, and if not, then just stop acting like teenage neonazis claiming your Sudetenland* because that's how you come off to the grownups of the world. (*Ironic since Germany may actually have had a better claim to that infamous slice of land before they did in the 30s & 40s what you did in 82 and blew what infinitesimal right to a claim there was.) Otherwise the claim is nothing more than a distraction from your domestic issues just as it always has been: Ink on a page to distract from red in a ledger.
@103 Devolverislas
Jun 11th, 2013 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course. as usual, your sources are the most reliable !
103
Jun 11th, 2013 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0””@37 There is, it seems, one vital piece missing from your impressive knowledge of Argentina. Spain created the Vice-Royalty of the River Plate in 1776. The centre of the Vice-Royalty was Buenos Aires. The Government of Buenos Aires, on behalf of the Vice-Royalty, appointed governors to the Malvinas. Title to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas passed to Argentina (formerly United Provinces of the River Plate), not directly from Spain but from the Vice-Royalty. ”
You violently rebelled against Spain, so you cannot say you were operating as their representatives - rather, in direct opposition to them.
Spain certainly did not bequeath anything to you, as you were not the inheritors of their possessions.
You can only claim what you stole and held militarily, or territories which subsequently pledged their allegiance to you.
That was certainly NOT the Falklands in either case, being 1,000 miles away from you, across 300 miles of water with British, Spsnish, French, German, African inhabitants and claimed by UK.
The Spanish gave up their claim in 1811 and Vernet asked permission from Britain as the governing authority, to settle there.
Sorrrryy...
@103
Jun 11th, 2013 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NO IT DIDN'T.
Sovereignty (at least half) belonged to Spain via its Viceroyalty. A whole load of areas rebelled against the Viceroyaly and used the principle of self-determination to set up various states. Parts of the old Viceroyalty are now Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina. In each case the people who lived in each region of the viceroyalty self-determined what they wanted to be.
There was NEVER any transfer of legal title...what bullshit...there were wars of independence, and PEOPLE deciding what they wanted to be. as there were NO PEOPLE on the Falkland islands, they didn't /couldn't self-determine to be anything.
However, if you look at the preference of the last Spanish garrison on the islands, they left via Montevideo to fight the Buenos Aires uprising...hardly representatives of BA then, nor part of the independence movement.
Yet again, you've failed to show transfer of whatever rights Spain had to Argentina. It looks like Uruguay or nobody are far better options, or based on CFKs 3-year old analogy, Chile.
Explain how legal title of Patagonia passed to Argentina too please!!
So, I repeat, no legal title was passed to Argentina, and no self-determination possible. therefore ARGENTINA inherited only the areas of the Viceroyalty where the population supported them..not Uruguay, not Bolivia, not Brazil, not Paraguay..not Patagonia and NOT the Falklands.
They subsequently tried to gain sovereignty of the Falklands...(odd they needed to try if LEGAL TITLE had already passed to them.
Vernet was a botch-job. He didn't leave with any title, accepted one months after he arrived, left a few months later, leaving a Brit in charge...!
Mestevier was an even worse botch job...murdered, his wife raped..by their own men..evicted 2 months later.
So, nobody debates Spain had at least a partial claim in 1811.
However NONE of that claim passed to the self-determining Argentines 1000 miles away, and neither of the 2 botch-jobs worked.
@103 Devolverlasislas
Jun 11th, 2013 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Pascoe and Pepper account of the Falklands/Malvinas saga is based on both British and Argentine official sources NOT just on the Argentine myths and fairy stories and thus is much more accurate than any other work.
Just looking at my old Spanish maps.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting that according to Devolvedanalass the LEGAL TITLE of the Viceroyalty of Rio Plata passed to Argentina.
My my....
So, why do my maps of the Viceroyalty of Rio Plata..look NOTHING like Argentina. Surely they should be exactly the same if Argentina has “legal title”.
Why is part now called Uruguay, some is now Bolivia, some is in Brazil, some is Paraguay and some Argentina...doesn't look like Argentina was very good at keeping its “ inalienable legal title”.
However, what it does seem to be very good at is stealing land of which it appeared to have no “legal title” I.e, wasn't part of the Viceroyalty...I.e Patagonia. The Genocide of the desert appears to be a blatant act of 19th century colonialism, by pirates and squatters.
Much like great swathes of the Viceroyalty, legal title of the Falklands didn't pass to Argentina, or anybody. There was nobody on the islands to decide whether they wanted to be Argentine, Spanish, Uruguayan, Paraguayan, Chilean or British.
So, the age old plaques stood..Spain with a stronger claim, Britain a weaker one.
Argentina, did try two botched attempts at usurping the territories in 1829 and 1832, but much like today, they could organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone set up a civilian population 1000 miles from home.
TUM-to-TUM...
102 ok English are relatively good and Argies are relatively evil.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gentlemen,,Gentlemen=
Jun 11th, 2013 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Splitting hairs will not change the direction of the combe.?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
China today calls for talks between Argentina and the british,
but refuses to talk abt their very own little problem,
Argentina stated today that it is willing to comply with the international community’s call on the question of the Malvinas Islands
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
then the falklands and the brits need to change the minds of the UN .
being silent may sound nice, but i think our goverment should be more rigerouse with the UN .
@99 A_Voice
Jun 11th, 2013 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You put a list of declarations of war made by the UK.
Argentina was the country that declared war against the UK by invading British sovereign territory. The UK doesn't have to respond with a declaration of it's own because a state of war already existed.
So yes the Falklands was a war. People who are PC like to put less aggressive names to things, but what do you think an 'armed' conflict is? It's a war.
Next you'll be saying that the UK and Argentina had a slight disagreement.
By the way “Think” this new sock puppet doesn't think at all. Its so obviously you that you should try something new.
@97
Jun 11th, 2013 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So I guess Japan were only in a conflict when it attacked Pearl Harbour since there was no declaration of war on the US. Also there have been no wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or currently in Syria by your account???
We all know that before the war the UK was trying to negotiate away the sovereignty of the Falklands but underestimated the resolve of the islanders
Since the war however there is a new resolve to protect the islanders & of course the new found natural resources that go with it......so I think a lot more than the status quo has been achieved
As for 'Inter faeces et urinam nascimur'......it's certainly true if you're Argentinian!!!
@112
Jun 11th, 2013 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh! for Goodness sake (pun intended) “you can't ”be serious” (double pun intended) (you and McEnroe's courtly behaviour) and …..“I don't believe it”….(British Comedy term applicable)
Mmmm..... lets see what an American thinks……
The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World
http://www.evilempirebook.com/book.php
Of course I take a different point of view that might lead you down the road to enlightenment…….
Evil is necessarily a relative term, its meaning becomes dependent on the kind of good which it negates or excludes. The problem which arises is the presence of contradictions on experience. The terms good and evil seem to be contradictory. The hypothesis resulting: How can we sense reality in such a way as to account for its seemingly contradictory manifestations of good and evil?
@114
Now lets see........I quote .....en.wikipedia.org as a definition and you quote your own personal definition.........ok I'm going to go with your opinion as it must be better than the sum of the collective thought that constitutes wikipedia.org........not infallible, I must admit, but not too bad most of the time!
So perhaps the naval ships just accidentally sank,
Jun 11th, 2013 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Planes were not shot down, but merely accidentally lost control,
And it’s a well known fact that troops get lost, so argie troops on patrol in the fog, [we supposed] could have accidentally got lost then found a boat decided to try to get back to base via the Falklands,
Mmmmmmm
Still
From argentines point of view, anything’s possible..lol.
But we will stick to the truth thank you very much..
.
115.... Sucks-a-roo, Lad... I don't even think they even declared war on China. Of course, they were “liberating it” from the inhabitants own opinion (not to mention the inhabitants themselves) just as the Junta did in 82.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@115
Jun 11th, 2013 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really do need to read about the implications of officially declaring war on a nation.........there are treaties and alliances to consider etc.....this is why it is avoided at all costs.
The latin term to which I referred is applicable to everyone.......lesen und verstehen!
116 Or to put it another way the Argies were relatively evil when they invaded the Falklands in 1982 and the British were relatively good when they travelled 8000 miles to take the Islands back. Mainly though I was looking forward to the rugby match when we will hopefully once again see a very good, attacking team from England defeat a bunch of evil knackers from Argyland.
Jun 11th, 2013 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yanks know nout about RU apart from what they pick up from Prism.
@119
Jun 11th, 2013 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One good reason for avoiding a declaration of war, of course, is that as a member of the United Nations you have foresworn the use of force to settle disputes, and may only resort to it in self-defence with the approval of the United Nations.
Perhaps it's this minor inconvenience of respecting the agreements you have entered into which explains why Arjuntina chose not to declare war, “at all costs”, and also why the Security Council passed resolution 502 allowing the UK to invoke the self-defence provisions of the UN Charter.
@119...
Jun 11th, 2013 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think, have you forgot your main login details? Or have you just decided it was an inappropriate username?
Latest FI Related News...
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Falkland Islands Coin Marks Referendum on Status - The Treasury of the Falklands Islands Government has issued a new coin whose main focus is that of the recent referendum which asked the population of the Falklands whether the status the Island territory within the United Kingdom should remain....'
http://news.coinupdate.com/falkland-islands-coin-marks-referendum-on-status-2022/
'Britain won a judgment that contradicts his position on Falklands -
The ruling violates the right of self-determination of the Chagossians, a people driven from his home by the British government, and contradicts the argument used in the Falklands that country...'
http://news.coinupdate.com/falkland-islands-coin-marks-referendum-on-status-2022/
'Filmus and explain CARMONA FALKLAND POSITION ON ARGENTINA IN PARLIAMENT OF IRELAND - The commissions titularesw Senate Foreign Relations and House of Representatives, Daniel Filmus and Guillermo Carmona, respectively, explain tomorrow Argentina position on the question of the Falkland Islands to the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, and hold a meeting with the president of that country...'
http://news.coinupdate.com/falkland-islands-coin-marks-referendum-on-status-2022/
'They destroyed the car to the director of Penguin News in the Falklands
The woman who runs the only newspaper that is published in Falklands informed through social networks. Most of his followers regretted the episode and were incredulous that such assaults happen in the islands...'
http://news.coinupdate.com/falkland-islands-coin-marks-referendum-on-status-2022/
@120
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It could also be said that Argentina invading the Falklands has had a lot of positive consequences (good)
nowt....... ;-)
51 A_Voice
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hardly as the original post I presume is from Argentine sources. So then you commit the fallacy of “moving the goal posts”and bring up an entirely different issue. So you can't verify a source for your claim in post #43, so the presumption is that it's not true Wellington is posing a rhetorical question to a legal issue, in the meanwhile he awaits an expert opinion. July 28th, 1829 advocate-general Sir Herbert Jenner’s legal opinion is given; “ the symbols of property and possession which were left upon the islands sufficiently denote the intention of the British Government to retain those rights which they previously acquired.” He was an authority on international law, on which he was consulted by politicians. So what he was prudently advising was that as international law stood then, the British still had a right to the territory, above all others. The only country that could have made a claim was Spain and they chose to acquiesce. So other than historical interest it has no legal weight as it is considered “privileged information”.
@119 Voice of Think
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are 3 theoretical ways to declare war:
A definition of the three ways of thinking about a declaration of war was developed by Saikrishna Prakash.[4] He argues that a declaration of war can be seen from three perspectives:
Categorical theory, under which the power to declare war includes “the power to control all decisions to enter war”. This means that the power to 'declare war' in effect rests with the ability to engage in combat.
Pragmatic theory, which states that the power to declare war can be made unnecessary by an act of war in itself.
Formalist theory, under which the power to declare war constitutes only a formal documentation of executive war-making decisions. This sits closest to traditional legal conceptions of what it is to declare a war.
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/PrakashUnleashing.pdf
Of course, it isn't wikipedia, just the opinion of an expert.
So since Argentina declared war on the UK by invading British sovereign territory it gave the UK the right to declare Article 51 of the UN Charter.
“Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Since Argentine ignored a BINDING and LAWFUL UN Security Council resolution, it allowed the UK to turn up and kick the armed aggressors off OUR turf.
Which is precisely what happened.
(@120 Believe it or not US Collegiate Rugby was on a local sportsbar screen last week - one of the lesser NBC cable sports channels has been carrying it and BBC America sometimes does 6-nations. Don't expect it to get major coverage compared to the big drain on US College Sports, US-style football, but still... )
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@125
Jun 11th, 2013 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0June 10th, the Government of the Province of Buenos Aires announces the - Political and Military Command of the Malvinas
When the glorious revolution of May 25, 1810 these provinces were separated from the domination of the metropolis, Spain had a material possession in the Falkland Islands, and all others around Cape Horn, including that known under the name of Tierra del Fuego, that possession be justified by the law of the former occupant, by the consent of the principal maritime powers of Europe and the adjacency of these islands to the continent that formed the Viceroyalty of Buenos Aires, whose government depended. For this reason, having entered the Government of the Republic in succession all the rights he had over these provinces the ancient metropolis, and enjoyed their viceroys, has continued to exercise acts of ownership on these islands, ports and coasts even though the circumstances have not allowed now to that part of the territory of the Republic, the care and attention that its importance demands, but need not be delayed any longer measures that can to shield the rights of the Republic making while enjoying the benefits that can give the products of those islands, and ensuring the protection due to its population, the Government has agreed and decreed
Article 1: The Falkland Islands and adjacent to Cape Horn in the Atlantic Ocean, will be governed by a Political and Military Commander, appointed immediately by the Government of the Republic
Article 2.The residence of the political and military commander will be in the Isle of Solitude, and it will establish a battery under the flag of the Republic.
Article 3.The Political and Military Commander will see the population of the islands the Laws of the Republic, and take care of their costs of enforcement of regulations on fishing for amphibians. Article 4 .Communicate and published
Signed Martin Rodriguez Salvador M.del Lane
This Decree is published in the Government’s official Gazette
Why do you keep on giving the MBOA ammunition by referring to the Falklands as the Malvinas. Every time that word is mentioned it should be changed to the Falkland Islands. This woman will never get it and she can bluster and runroundin circles till she disappears up her own backside but she will never get control over the Falklands
Jun 11th, 2013 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#103 Devolverislas
Jun 11th, 2013 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Should you wish to check the boundary of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata as set by the King Charles III of Spain in 1776 you will discover that it did not include the Falkland Islands.
One point raise in the thread
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/02/15/february-1833-parallel-truths-in-parallel-universes-can-that-be-the-only-explanation
is which flag is flying in shown flying in the picture which I believe is the same as the one at the start of this thread.
Some posters have stated that it is the white ensign signifying that Lt Smith was in residence, this may be correct but at the time the White Ensign was not the universal ensign of the Royal Navy. Lt Smith would have flown an Ensign, which may have been white, but its colour would have been determined by the 'colour' of the Admiral he was serving under.
In the 1830's RN admirals, vice admirals and rear admirals were further dived by the colours red, white and blue, in that order of seniority. I do not know which 'color' the admiral Lt Smith served under at the time, it could have been white.
At the battle of Trafalgar Nelson was a Vice Admiral of the white, his deputy, Collingwood was a Vice Admiral of the blue. The ships directly under Nelson's command would have worn the white ensign, I am not sure what those under Collingwood would have worn, white or blue, however after the death of Nelson all the ships should have worn the Blue Ensign.
103 Devolverislas
Jun 12th, 2013 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was just following your lead, and as you proffered no citations I simply did likewise. Nothing wrong with Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper, nobody as yet been able to fault the truth of their research as everything of theirs is properly cited. Plagiarism is when you claim for yourself someone else's publication as your own, and this I have never done. I guess this is more of your viveza criolla when you engage in blatant sophistry in posts 43 and 51. By claiming there was an Argentine governor on the Islands, no citation. Then in 51 quoting British sources on an unrelated matter.
As too your conclusions that the Vice-Royalty of the River Plate appointed governors to the Island seems like an excess of jurisdiction as the Islands are situated at 51 degrees S, as according to Lord Ton on Topix FALKLAND ISLANDS forum thread The Falklands were not in the Viceroyalty Sep 5, 2012 #1
1776 - In August, King Charles III of Spain creates the Vice-Royalty of the Rio de la Plata.
“.. the viceroyalty of La Plata is represented as extending southward to the latitude of 41 degrees; and in the map accompanying it, a line drawn from the Andes eastward to the head-waters of the river Colorado, and down that stream to its mouth in the Atlantic, near the 40th degree, is given as the boundary between the viceroyalty and Patagonia.”[Greenhow 1842 quoting from Revolucion Hispano-Americaux Mariano Torrente 1829. Torrente actually says (p.11); “ The Viceroyalty of Buenos-Aires was located from 15º and 37º latitude South.”]
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/falklandislands/TJ9CIVMADTKUELTNS
128A Voice of Thinkedover
Jun 12th, 2013 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0“June 10th, the Government of the Province of Buenos Aires announces the - Political and Military Command of the Malvinas”
Big deal. So what? Just like they do today, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
2013 and Argentina still can't get the islands.
Jun 12th, 2013 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe in the next 25 years?
Yeah! Because the past 200 years have been so successful.
124 Hello there you little Tinka.
Jun 12th, 2013 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anything relatively good that came out of the relatively evil war against the relatively evil Argy Facists was down to the very good British troops and the efficient manner in which the relatively evil Argy troops were despatched.
And no pet it's nout not nowt :-)
127 Good news then. Just wonder when the US will start playing cricket instead of rounders. ;-)
Still no troll response to the Arana Southern Treaty - the Treaty of Perfect Friendship - why?
Jun 12th, 2013 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is all because chile has easter island?
Jun 12th, 2013 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Admit it rg wants a windswept island too and the nasty brits wont play ball.
@135 Gordo1
Jun 12th, 2013 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0In all the posts in all the threads I have seen (not only on this site) the answers from the trolls have basically fallen into one or more of the following categories, all BS in my opinion:
1. The treaty does not apply to the Falklands
1.1 The treaty does not specifically mention the Falklands therefore it does not apply.
2. We were tricked into signing it.
3. We signed it under duress.
4. We did not fully understand it.
5. It is not a 'treaty'.
That all being said I have only seen one answer that makes any sense at all, and it came from an RG supporter, to the follow on question of ”Why after signing the treaty did Argentina stop mentioning at the opening of the Congress for 91 years and why since signing it, at the openings of three different sessions of the Congress have two Presidents and one Vice-President said that they (Argentina) have no disputes with anyone?” (I know the Vice-President did acknowledge that there was a very minor dispute with some UK citizens about personal damages). The answer was in the vein that owing to the strong trade relations that Argentina had with the UK then perhaps Argentina was afraid of disturbing that relationship. It does seem to have some sense to it, however in my opinion, should that be the case I would think that owing to the period of time that elapsed between official protests that Argentina could be presumed to have acquiesced to British sovereignty?
'Filmus and Carmona will explain the position argentina over Malvinas in the Irish Parliament Capital Federal - holders of the commissions of foreign relations of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, respectively, today explained the Argentine position on the question of the Malvinas Islands before the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, and will hold a meeting with the President of that country.
Jun 12th, 2013 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Our visit to the Republic of Ireland can be classified as historic, because for the first time the Parliament of that country invited us so we will explain the position of Argentina on their rights over the Malvinas Islands”, said Filmus, President of the Commission of Foreign Affairs and worship of the Senate, who will remain to Dublin together with his pair of Deputies days Wednesday and Thursday.
Filmus said that they have “great expectations since never before the Irish Parliament had officially invited the Commission to report in depth on the Argentine position prior to the meeting of the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations on the Malvinas case of July 20”.
The legislators will be accompanied by officials from the Argentine Foreign Ministry during his visit with his Irish peers, who “publicly expressed their support for the Argentina in the dispute with the United Kingdom”, both at the meeting with the President of Ireland and the highest authority of the Labour Party, Michael Higgins...'
http://www.impulsobaires.com.ar/nota.php?id=181795
#138
Jun 12th, 2013 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“great expectations”
If I remember my Dickens, Pip did not quite get what he expected
Lets wait and see what the outcome is .
Interesting. Has the Irish parliament also invited representatives from the other parts in the conflicts, especially the Islanders themselves, so they also can explain their position?
Jun 12th, 2013 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0hmm... i can't find any Irish news story's about Filmus? Argentinian spin anyone?
Jun 12th, 2013 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@138
Jun 12th, 2013 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since when have the British ever cared what Ireland thinks.......
One potato, two potato, three potato.......none......get lost and starve! Or enter bonded slavery in the Americas!
Or, .....“we would like Northern Ireland please”......get lost and like it!
@ 137 biguggy
Jun 12th, 2013 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. The treaty does not apply to the Falklands - Does it exclude the Falklands/Malvinas? No!
1.1 The treaty does not specifically mention the Falklands therefore it does not apply - It clearly excludes nothing and includes every thing!
2. We were tricked into signing it - Who is alleged to have tricked them? Arana was a pretty clued up diplomat and Rosas was no fool, either!
3. We signed it under duress - it was ratified in Bs As. Who was holding a pistol to the heads of Arana and Rosas?
4. We did not fully understand it - there are versions of the treaty available in both Spanish and English composed in very understandable terms!
5. It is not a 'treaty' - How silly a “tratado” is a “treaty”!
I had seen all these comments at various times but not here in Mercopress - thanks!
@126
Jun 12th, 2013 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There may be three ways where you come from, Yankee or Canadian,…… is there a difference?, oh yes the Canadians are slightly smarter than Americans, ……when they wanted independence they realised, they need only politely ask for it!
There is only one way in the UK, ........when the Queen says so and she didn't, so there was no War only a military conflict!
@143
You answered your own question......
“1.1 The treaty does not specifically mention the Falklands therefore it does not apply - It clearly includes nothing and excludes every thing!”
You answered your own question......
Jun 12th, 2013 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“1.1 The treaty does not specifically mention the Falklands therefore it does not apply - It clearly includes nothing and excludes every thing!”
A_Voice,
It was a peace treaty, therefore, it is precisely because the Falklands are not mentioned that uti possidetis applies
http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/uti-possidetis.html
Definition - Noun
[Late Latin, as you (now) possess (it); from the wording of an interdict in Roman law enjoining both parties in a suit to maintain the status quo until the decision]
: a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated.
International law By George Grafton Wilson
1901, 1910, 1918, 1915, 1917, 1922
http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/uti-possidetis.html
“The general effect of a treaty of peace is to replace the belligerent countries in their normal relation to each other” In case no stipulations or public interests are to the contrary, the doctrine of uti possidetis applies, by which the property and territory in the actual possession of either of the belligerents at the conclusion of the war vests in the one having possession
Or to put it simply: with uti possidetis, unless the territory was specifically mentioned in the peace treaty, the country that was in control of the territory kept the territory, and the other country no longer had any valid claim to it.
2. We were tricked into signing it - Who is alleged to have tricked them? Arana was a pretty clued up diplomat and Rosas was no fool, either!
Gordo1,
The treaty was drafted by the Argentine side, and the UK gave Rosas everything he asked for. It even allowed for Argentine troops to remain in occupation of Uruguay until France signed a similar treaty.
@144 A_Voice
Jun 12th, 2013 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. In the United Kingdom the Monarch makes no political decisions. Political decisions are made by Parliament on behalf of the populace. The Monarch is our Head of State NOT Head of Government.
2. You clearly are unable to read plain English!
@146
Jun 12th, 2013 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you capable of reading this?.....
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. In the United Kingdom, only the Monarch has the power to declare war and peace, under the Royal Prerogative.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_Kingdom
@144 Voice of Think
Jun 12th, 2013 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am British. You are not British. How do I know this? Well it is obvious that you haven't the faintest idea about how the British government or Monarchy work.
There was no NEED for any written, verbal or formal declaration because it wasn't necessary as Argentina DECLARED war on the UK by the VERY act of invading UK sovereign territory.
Now I know that this is a difficult concept for you to understand (and since you are a sock puppet of Think - you are being deliberately ignorant) but the Falkland was a war.
Here are some definitions of war:
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. (Like the Falklands War perhaps?)
b. The period of such conflict. (Like calling it the Falklands War perhaps?)
2. To wage or carry on warfare. (Like Argentina waging war on the Falklands perhaps?)
3. To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend. (Like Argentina shows towards the UK and the Falklanders - a war of words, perhaps?)
Idiom:
At war “In an active state of conflict or contention.” Just like the UK and Argentina were between 2 Apr and 14 Jun 1982 - they were AT WAR in an active state of conflict.”
Does that clarify things for your confused mind?
So the word conflict means war too.
@148
Jun 12th, 2013 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What can you not grasp in the sentence……
There was no Official State of War between the UK and Argentina???
and…….you are not British…..Liar!
“If a person doesn't fall within these categories they can buy a vaccine at a local pharmacy, for about US$ 10, and have it injected on site at NO extra cost. ”
Where are the errors in your post here??…….Pharmacy? did you mean Chemist?…..injected on site? are you saying that staff at chemists are trained nurses and can inject customers?.........yeah you are sure British...........not!
Royal Pharmacuetical Society?
Jun 12th, 2013 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@150
Jun 12th, 2013 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Meaning....????? so they are not called Chemists in the UK then???
Hello again Tinka.
Jun 12th, 2013 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can get the flu jab at Sainsbury's Pharmacy in the UK for around £7-00.
Aldi is £3-00 but you have to inject it yourself.
Hope this is of assistance.
Chuckle chuckle
@148 - A Voice of Thinks
Jun 12th, 2013 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes wikipedia is such an acurate source of information.
However the original question was whether the Falklands War was an actual War. Yes it was.
As for the part of my post you took from another thread here are some answers for you:
Yes they are Pharmacies, and people like me who work in Healthcare professions (such as nursing) call them Pharmacies. It's only lay-people who say 'I'm going to the Chemist.'
If you actually bothered to look at the signs outside of Boots, Lloyds and others you will see the word 'Pharmacy' not Chemist.
And yes, Think, if you actually lived in the UK you would know that during influenza seasons, large pharmacies, like Boots offer in-house injections. Tesco and Asda's pharmacies ALSO offered this service last year. And no all the staff aren't trained to give the vaccines, they employ agency nurses to give the vaccines.
Now for all your pedantary, Think, you really need to come up with something better.
But remember. Argentina declared war on the UK by the very act of invading UK sovereign territory.
There doesn't have to be an official declaration of war for a state of war to exist (perhaps you should try looking at wider reading sources than wiki).
“Pragmatic theory, which states that the power to declare war can be made 'unnecessary' by an act of war in itself.”
I wonder why it is so difficult for you to understand this particular sentence. Is it because it hurts your Argentine pride to know that you lost a war? I mean it must salve your ego a little to call it a 'conflict' or a 'bit of a barney'.
To clarify how things work in the UK
Jun 12th, 2013 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
In Britain, while prerogative powers were originally exercised by the monarch acting alone, without an observed requirement for parliamentary consent (after Magna Carta), since the accession of the House of Hanover these powers have been generally exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, who in turn is accountable to Parliament, exclusively so, except in matters of the Royal Family, since at least the time of Queen Victoria.
Anyone who thinks the Queen decides government policy has no idea how things work in the UK.
@147 A_Voice - I am now convinced you are blind!
Jun 12th, 2013 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you noticed I have not been involved in the debate concerning the definition of “war”? In this particular thread I have really only been concerned with the Arana Southern Treaty by way of which Argentina surrendered any claim - fairy tale or myth - it might have had to sovereignty of the Falklands/Malvinas archipelago.
Or have you had too many after lunch “tint0s”?
Poor Tinka. Best sleep it off old chap and see what tomorrow brings.
Jun 12th, 2013 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@A voice of thinkedover
Jun 12th, 2013 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So adamant and so derisive, and yet, so WRONG.
You fool, Think!
.BTW Thinkedover, I can perfectly understand why you did not Declare War, a formal Declaration would have tipped off the Islanders that invasion was imminent. You didn't want that, and a bit cowardly I might add.
Declaring War would surely have sparked protest from the UK, the UN, and Chile, for a start.
It was nice to have it presented as a fait accompli.
Besides, Chile was next, right?
My local chemist was Mr priese.
Jun 12th, 2013 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In true Welsh tradition he was affectionately know as, “Priese the poisoner.”
Ah, happy days!
@152
Jun 12th, 2013 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are right I had no idea......flu jabs at a chemist
@153
It's only lay-people who say 'I'm going to the Chemist.'........do you mean lay-people like the UK population?
and give me a source that says the UK was officially at war with Argentina......Ever!
@155
You clearly jumped in at 146 on the debate of war with your interpretation of what a Monarch can and can't do ????......Did you forget?
@157
Did you actually say anything in your post???
@157
Jun 12th, 2013 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They didn't declare war because they were sneaky bastards, but also because they had renounced the use of force except in self-defence when they joined the UN. By not formally declaring war they kept a fig-leaf for themselves and those other implanted Iberian populations of South America, few in number, that were willing to speak up for them.
@159 - A_Voice of Thinks
Jun 12th, 2013 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tut tut Think. Really scrapping the bottom of the barrel now. As usual with your sock puppets you try to go for semantics.
We were talking about whether the UK and Argentina were at war. Yes we were. Just about every source refers to the events of the 2 Apr - 12 Jun 1982 as the Falklands War.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/services-commemorate-falklands-war-anniversary
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/services-commemorate-falklands-war-anniversary
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/services-commemorate-falklands-war-anniversary
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/services-commemorate-falklands-war-anniversary
You are talking about an official declaration which, if you actually BOTHERED to read my posts, you would know was made UNNECESSARY by the Argentine Invasion.
Argentina, through an ACT of war (the invasion of British territory), declared war on the UK. It is not, therefore necessary for the UK to stand up and say, “We now declare war on Argentina,” because Argentina had already declared through their actions that they WERE at war with the UK.
Such an statement would be unnecessary as Argentina was the aggressor.
The UK did inform the UNSC that we would invoke Article 51 of the UN charter regarding self-defence. We also, as per the charter, told the UNSC that we would use 'all means necessary' to achieve our goal of recovering British territory.
Argentina just gambled that the UK couldn't be bothered. You lost, didn't you A_Voice of Thinks.
And that hurts your pride, to know you lost a war that everyone expert in the world said you couldn't possibly lose.
159think
Jun 12th, 2013 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Did you actually say anything in your post???”
I was quite clear. You did not “formally ” Declare War because it would have meant you lost the element of surprise, and give nonody s chsnce to protest your illegal act, first in your campaign against the Falklands and then your planned continuance on to Chile.
A State of War existed, initiated by your cowardly attack, and the UK responded fittingly.
But, being Think, you did not wish to respond because you cannot justify your actions and your objections are groundless.
@161
Jun 12th, 2013 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All those links and not a single mention of the FACT that neither side declared War on the other.......the rest is hot air on your part.......terminology......like I keep saying No DECLARATION of WAR
@162
All you did again was give your opinion......no facts.......like.......
In 1982 Argentina declared War on......... or Britain declares War on.........
You can define it however you wish but the official view is......there was no war!
@163
Jun 12th, 2013 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what difference does this make, exactly?
@164
Jun 12th, 2013 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ermmm.........none whatsoever......I've forgotten now, how I got into the whole war definition argument.
@165
Jun 12th, 2013 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I understand. There'd be no posts on here if it weren't for Malvinistas splitting the hairs off picked nits.
166hans
Jun 12th, 2013 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The funny thing is, not 3 months ago, TIT was arguing exactly the opposite of Avoice of Thinkedover.
We asked why Argentina did not declare war and he replied that they did, by attacking, that was a Drclaration of War and no written Declaration was needed for a country to be in a State of War, but UK was required to follow the international Rules of War.
A point of interest to the commentetors on this thread, by a very aged Argentine:
Jun 12th, 2013 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On April 3rd 1982, the UNSC passed Resolution 502 which authorised the UK to take military steps to restore the status quo in the face of our invasion, thus the UN explicitly and tacitly agreed that the sovereignty of the Islands was vested in the UK!!!!!!!!!!
@167
Jun 12th, 2013 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now take a moment to Think..........what could be inferred by your premise?
That they may be two different people would be a thought!
@166
Your come out with some strange idioms.......I've heard of Splitting hairs and I've heard of Nit picking but never the two together. Surely everyone on this forum is guilty of doing this?
To whom it may concern.
Jun 12th, 2013 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was born in the UK and lived there for 31 years leaving in 1974 and 'they' were called 'Chemists' back then, as in 'Boots the Chemists'.
When 'it' changed to 'pharmacy' I do not know, but I do do know that until he died 2010, my father still referred to 'them' as 'chemists.
@159 A_Voice
Jun 12th, 2013 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you trolls suffer under the misapprehension that the Monarch of the UK actually rules the country all I did was try to explain the real situation. I made no comment about the “war”, the “armed conflict”, the “illegal invasion”, or whatever name you choose to give it.
169 avoice ofThinkedover
Jun 12th, 2013 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That they may be two different people would be a thought!”
Certainly TTT is not one of your puppets, that much is clear. Yours are easily identifiable.
However, you are both Trolls and both arguing towards the same end, Argentina's actions, the UK's response, and UN's moral and legal assessment, not to mention World Opinion, are all based on what type of action this was.
TTT says Argentina was at war with the UK and therefore behaved correctly, whilst you say just the opposite, Argentina was NOT at war.
I suppose TTT would say that you are a “loose canon” and are not following the party line.
@143 Gordo1
Jun 12th, 2013 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fully agree with you, and then some, as I said in my original post 'all BS'.
Regards
@172
Jun 12th, 2013 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see you want to drag me back into this again.......I am saying......
There was no Declaration of War from Argentina
There was no Declaration of War from Britain.....ergo.......No......War, only a military engagement. Call it what you like but there has been No official War with Argentina!
So TTT is incorrect
170biguggy
Jun 12th, 2013 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I too was born in the UK and lived there.
My grandfather owned a Chemist's Shop in his village.
It took a strong dislike to “Boots the Chemists” moving in on his turf and renamed his shop, “Xxxxxx's the Chemists”.
He was known as “The Chemist”, but he did many more things than dispense medicines. His biggest sideline was developing and printing film, selling cameras and darkroom supplies, and aerial photography. Sir Edmund Hilary was a customer.
He was also an Optician, with his own workshop.
He earned a degree in Pharmacology and was a Pharmacist.
Despite becoming Mayor of his village, a recent book still describes him as a “Chemist”, but that is only a general term, covering the many different qualifications he held.
I wonder if that is clear for Mr. non-British Thinkedover?
@175
Jun 12th, 2013 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see you have been spending your time developing a history.......where have I seen this before???
Some of us don't feel the need to develop a history or an identity or even a nationality, I can see my little Wannabe song on the other thread hurt.......
I must apologise profusely!
On the subject of war or not war thread.
Jun 12th, 2013 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remember Korea? they called that blood bath a “Policing Action.”
147 A_Voice
Jun 12th, 2013 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please show where a British monarch has unilaterally declared war since the restoration of the monarchy on on 8 May 1660, because the evidence seems a bit contradictory as you both appear to be right. Apparently their constitution does allow for such a royal prerogative. But if I recall when my wife was studying various constitutions, she stated that within parliament's prerogative, they having assumed the former power of the monarchy, “that the King could do no wrong”, and had the absolute power to pass any law. Of course they never exercised their power in that way, as it was tempered by their “unwritten constitution”. This is in any case now subordinate to the European Constitution. Regardless wasn't it the UK's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, that delivered the ultimation and subsequent declaration of war to Germany, not the King?
159 A_Voice
UK was never officially at war with Argentina in the sense that they formally declared war. But war as defined by The Law Dictionary
Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
What is WAR?
A state of forcible contention; an armed contest between nations; a state of hostility between two or more nations or states. Gro. de Jur. B. lib. 1, c. 1. Every connection by force between two nations, in external matters, under the authority of their respective governments, is a public war. If war is declared in form, It is called “solemn,” and is of the perfect kind; because the whole nation is at war with another whole nation. When the hostilities are limited as respects places, persons, and things, the war is properly termed “imperfect war.” Bas v. Tingy, 4 Dall. 37, 40 1 L. Ed. 731.
http://thelawdictionary.org/war/
Even Argentina officially recognizes the past hostilities as a war.
Argentina will not return to war over Falklands - ambassador
http://thelawdictionary.org/war/
What
@178
Jun 12th, 2013 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the United Kingdom, only the Monarch has the power to declare war and peace, under the Royal Prerogative. There has been a debate regarding whether Parliament should have this power. This was attempted (to the limited extent of possible war against Iraq) in 1999 with the introduction of the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill. However Queen Elizabeth II, acting upon the advice of her Government at the time, refused to grant her consent to allow the Bill to be debated in Parliament and so it was dropped (Queen's Consent was needed before debate could take place because the Bill affected the Royal prerogative)
and for your example of a King declaring war since 1660
Canada...
The Senate approved a declaration of war on September 8 and the House of Commons approved it on September 9. The following day, Prime Minister Mackenzie King and the Cabinet drafted an Order in Council to that effect. Canadian diplomats brought the document to King George VI, at the Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, for his signature, whereupon Canada had officially declared war on Nazi Germany. In his capacity as the government's official recorder for the war effort, Leonard Brockington noted: ”King George VI of England did not ask us to declare war for him—we asked King George VI of Canada to declare war for us.
LOL. Argentina. So unimportant it can't even get a country it invades to actually declare war.
Jun 13th, 2013 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Poor Argentina. A supposedly sovereign nation that just can't be taken seriously even when invading and killing people.
It's no wonder Argentina has decimated her armed forces. Sheer embarrassment. The only government scared of Argentina's army is the Argentine government when it comes time for the next junta to be installed.
Argentina: Declare war on us, c'mon I dare ya.
UK: No thanks, we'll just kick you arse so hard it hurts 31 years later.
World: LOL
179 A_Voice
Jun 13th, 2013 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0So constitutionally it's the sole prerogative of the reigning monarch, but within this constitutional maze of custom and legalize the monarch cannot exercise such a prerogative without a prior vote in the commons, and subsequent request from the Prime Minister. So a monarch is constitutionally barred from acting unilaterally, without the consent of parliament, got it.
@175thinkedover
Jun 13th, 2013 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0“@175
I see you have been spending your time developing a history.......where have I seen this before???
Some of us don't feel the need to develop a history or an identity or even a nationality, I can see my little Wannabe song on the other thread hurt.......
I must apologise profusely!”
Um, what song?
“Developing a history”?
“Where have I seen this before?”
Do you mean like your puppet Dame Dover, the elaborately constructed, but ludicrous 1920's caricature of a racist retired British Serviceman?
The one you created a wife, a legion and two inappropriately named dogs for?
The pantomime character you 'conversed' with, for over a year?
Or do you mean “Surfer”, carelessly exposed as you expounded on your 'cleverness'?
Or perhaps, most recently, OzzieThink who couldn't bow out without singing your praises and publicly stroking your “you know whatsit”?
What do we have left?
Just “Think” in several forms, afraid to say he is Argentine.
I am quite happy being a British Canadian or Canadian Brit.
Like it or not, Think, we Brits come in many forms, but you are not and never will
be, one of them.
I don't expect you to agree publicly, but that's what really smarts, isn't it???
Cheers, Sr. Think !
@153 LEPRecon,
Jun 13th, 2013 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0lt hurts their pride that they were defeated, alright.
That's why they will try again.
We must never let our guard down.
Argyland might be better suited to a Military Government. Wonder whether Tinkadova would then seek asylum in the UK or just bravely keep his head down and courageously not say or do anything............... like last time.
Jun 13th, 2013 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@168 Simon68
Jun 13th, 2013 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Keep your head down, mi amigo, as the trolls will start to accuse you of being a cipayo!
Semantics, bullets were exchanged and people died. Squabbling about what it was called is offensive to the people that lost their lives on both sides.
Jun 13th, 2013 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0@186 Benson:
Jun 16th, 2013 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not if the naming is part of the myth by which Argentina actively seek to swallow the islands and their inhabitants. It is actually offensive to stand by and let Argentina spread its propaganda, which is aimed at providing some sort of legitimacy to their myth, unopposed
Is Argentina unique in persisting with such claims for such a long time? I mean, there must be lots of territorial claims in the world which are not always on the agenda like this one. Argentina is already one of the biggest countries in the world (rank 8). It must be much better for them just to relax and enjoy the 2,780,000 km2 they already have istead of quarreling about some 11, 400 km2, with no “argentinity” whatsoever.
Jun 17th, 2013 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0@188 - Swede
Jun 17th, 2013 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine government doesn't actually want the Falkland Islands, if they did they'd take this to the ICJ, where they would naturally lose as their case for sovereignty doesn't hold any water.
They do, however, find it a useful tool to be used to distract the Argentine public from successive corrupt and inept governments, that are too busy lining their pockets with the wealth of Argentina, rather than run the country properly.
The Argentine population have been indoctrinated about the so-called mythical 'malvina's', to a point where it has become their holy grail.
The public are lead to believe that IF ONLY Argentina had sovereignty of the Islands, then all of their problems would disappear in a puff of smoke, and Argentina would become a second garden of Eden.
The problem is that even if the Argentines somehow got control of the Islands, their problems would persist, so the government would then point to Chile, Uruguay or Brazil (all of whom they accuse of stealing land off them), and the whole process would begin again.
The people of Argentina have been indoctrinated to believe that they've had land stolen off them in the 19th century. The truth is that if you look at Argentina in (for example) 1850, and compare it with Argentina today, you will see that it was Argentina that stole land off their neighbours and the native Amerindians.
It suits the Argentine government to keep the people of Argentina aggrieved at the apparent 'injustices' done to them. The Nazi's did the same thing, and look what happened there.
We can only be thankful that Argentina is a toothless paper tiger, that is too distrustful of it's own military, and too corrupt anyway, to ever be more than a slight annoyance to anyone.
Maybe one day they'll mature and join the rest of the world in adulthood, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!