MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falkland Islander running for mayor of a Santa Cruz town
A Falkland Islander, resident in Argentina is running for mayor of the city of Puerto Santa Cruz, in Patagonia's Santa Cruz province, which is the Kirchner's couple political turf. James Lewis is backing Eduardo Costa from the opposition Radical party, the current mayor of the small town of 3.500 people, who next year is confident can become the province's next governor. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhen he emigrated to Argentina he became an Argentine citizen. So the title of this story is misleading.
May 03rd, 2014 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0It would be like calling Timidman a Ukrainian instead of an Argentine citizen, just because he happened to be born in the Ukraine.
Everything they say is misleading, LEP.
May 03rd, 2014 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice horse, Dougie...
May 03rd, 2014 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Best of luck with the election...
You’re the best Kelper for the job…
And then..... we have some Brainwashed Ignorant Anglo Turnips and some Newcomer Anglo Squatters in here ”telling” us that them Islands are not Patagonian!
Think.
May 03rd, 2014 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Irrespective of who tells you, the Falkland Islands are not Patagonian. This is reflected in reality.
Whether or not you choose to listen to what the facts tell you is entirely your perogative.
@ Think, Still living in Northern Europe are you??? poor sod must be difficult having to wake up every day knowing you had to move half way around the world for a better life-NEVER MIND think of the poor buggers you left behind.
May 03rd, 2014 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Brainwashed Ignorant Anglo Turnip at (4)...
May 03rd, 2014 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your grasp of Patagonian reality is as bad as your syntax…
It's spelled…:“Prerogative”.
Think, he may be a Kelper by birth but having lived all his life bar one yr in Santa Cruz he is indeed an Argentine citizen(otherwise how could he stand for election). Good luck to him in the elections - so long as he is doing it for Santa Cruz benefit and not going to try and make politics out of where he happened to be born.
May 03rd, 2014 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0There are indeed a number of similarities in our lives between Patagonians and Islanders.
There are some Islanders who happened to be born in Patagonia as well. People move about the world - so what. As they have lived virtually all their lives or the majority of it here and have permanent family here - they are islanders - in the same was that James is Argentine and Patagonian.
If Argentina would have had better contact with the FIs since the 50's They would have had a much different relationship today
May 03rd, 2014 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's see. 61 years in argieland. Undoubtedly underwent the standard argie educational brainwashing. We can all see “the town which he hopes to rule next year”, can't we? In such a “democratic” place as argieland, shouldn't that be “hopes to govern”? Or is he expecting to become “king”?
May 03rd, 2014 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0(7) Islander1
May 03rd, 2014 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0He is a Kelper by birth, blood and right...
And of course he makes “politics out of where he happened to be born”...
So do you...
Think - a difference -I make politics out of my rights to live in the country of my birth and to choose who governs my country where I live.
May 03rd, 2014 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0James has that right in Argentina, he also has the right to call himself an islander as he is by birth. He has every right as an Argentine citizen to vote and have his say in who runs Argentina - but he has no right to have a say in the future of the Islands as he has never effectively lived here.
(11) Islander1
May 03rd, 2014 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Says who?
@6 Think.
May 03rd, 2014 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0My spelling error has no bearing on the errors in your reasoning.
The Kirchnerist would love to keep control of Santa Cruz during the absence in the executive as a safe provincial stronghold.
May 03rd, 2014 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But they would need to be-friend Peralta's peronist for that who seems inclined towards Massa for that.
Kelpers ruling in Argentina.
May 03rd, 2014 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But no Argentineans ruling in the Falkands.
I'm loving the status quo.
Surprisingly fairly intelligent replies until the dummy aussy brought the bell curve of the website back to “moron”.
May 03rd, 2014 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kelpers ruling in Argentina... when there has not been an election yet.
And if anything that shows we are not as intolerant as the Falklanders, who would never elect anyone with Argentine blood.
@1
May 03rd, 2014 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It isn't clear that he emigrated (with his parents). It does say he is resident. So presumably he is British. If so Christina won't like that on her own turf....
What is most interesting is that Think and a few others are recognising that we are Kelpers. Kirchner and most of her followers leaving comments believe we do not exist.
May 03rd, 2014 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So if indeed you class this individual as a Falkland islander then all I can say is that your Country is slipping further because if 0ne of our born and bred is able to become a politician then it is clear that Argentina recognises we do exist and that we are needed to run their affairs.
Reality is though this individual is being used as a propaganda tool which the likes of Think who has little or no education I guess is leaping on the story as if it was his first love affair.
But wait. If this guy is from an “implanted population” and then goes and implants himself in Argentina would that make him a “double implant?” I think he just canceled himself out of existence........
May 03rd, 2014 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are all Argentines. But some are too arrogant to admit it.
May 03rd, 2014 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You could become an autonomous province of Argentina.
You could accept a deal like that was made between England and China over Hong Kong.
Who knows?
@20 I think Brasileiro should be made to be a Russian, would that suit you? it does not matter what you are, you will do as your told won't you!
May 03rd, 2014 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Surprisingly fairly intelligent replies until the dummy aussy brought the bell curve of the website back to “moron”.
May 03rd, 2014 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kelpers ruling in Argentina... when there has not been an election yet.
And if anything that shows we are not as intolerant as the Falklanders, who would never elect anyone with Argentine blood.”
Aaah Nostrils. I knew you would return to your normal persona eventually as you can't hide it for long.
As befits someone who STILL can't argue (even though you keep claiming you have superior arguing skills); I never claimed nor alluded to the inability for an Argentine to get elected in the Falkland Islands.
Intelligent people would know the Argentine rule in the Falkland Islands that I was talking about. The one that CFK and La Campora want to inflict.
Aussy...... haha you're so clueless it's almost endearing. I must so get under your skin for you to call me a dummy. Haha bring it Nostrils. You'll look like a loser yet again.
(18) kelperabout
May 03rd, 2014 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“What is most interesting is that Think and a few others are recognizing that we are Kelpers.”
I say...:
Of course you Kelpers are Kelpers....
Difference being that some of you Kelpers choose to keep a slavish allegiance to the Dark Squatting Empire of the North, becoming Squatters yourselves (A bit like them Pakis wishing to instaurate their Sharia Law in Ol’ Blighty) whilst other Kelpers (like Dougie here) choose to positively integrate to their new home Country and Geographical & Historical Reality...
@20 “Brasil”eiro
May 03rd, 2014 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You are all Argentines. But some are too arrogant to admit it.”
Funniest thing I've read all day......but English speaking, first world countries don't voluntarily downgrade.
You must try to accept there superior status, but above all stop using false history and nonsense as an entitlement to something you just hate and envy.
Again the continual british ignorance and indoctrination. Lewis is not the only born in the islands that run for a political election. And is not that Argentina recognize a “falklands” population.
May 03rd, 2014 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina recognize there is a british colonial government in the islands. Just like the UN recognize there is a british colonial government in the islands, or a non self-governing territory if you like.
For political purpose, Argentina can not recognize a legal british government in the islands, becouse it would gives islanders a right to self determination in those disputed islands. But by law, all islanders that were born there are entitled to argentine citizenship by right of been born on argentine territory.
All islanders can come to continental Argentina and request their DNI as any argentine that born in Argentine territory.
There are islanders too that were born in Argentina, when they came to argentine hospitals for medical treatment or to give birth.
So of an immigrant stands for election in Argentina, Argentina is entitled to the sovereignity of his country of origin? Is that it?
May 03rd, 2014 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Neurosis is the mother of creativity, so it seems.
@24
May 03rd, 2014 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you are confused. No one in Argentina wants to be British, or think of you as superior. You think you are superior to us, a common trait to Europeans and their descendants, which at the end of the day only proves you got small penises and likely could not satisfy the demands of an argie girl.
@25
May 03rd, 2014 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Call it what you like, name it what you like. ~200 years of de facto status means everything. Even your YPF mappers know the difference between reality and fantasy.
Go build yourself a time machine, only chance you'll ever have changing this situation.
@26
May 03rd, 2014 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has no choice but to be expansionist. In fact it should begin arguing for territory in Europe, not just South America. Exclaves in all major European nations should be carved out for Argentina.
Why?
If you don't expand, we die. The best defense is a good offense. If we renounce expansionism, you Europeans will be invading Argentina in a heartbeat. You want the territory and we know it, you do not respect us as a nation and think you have the right to take our land away.
You already have an enclave in Miami. Filled with illegal Rg waiters, bus boys, gardeners, pool boys and all kinds of service people.
May 03rd, 2014 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think there's one in Houston too.
Too bad you'll never see it.
@30
May 03rd, 2014 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously you have never been in Miami. Own goal, again.
Americans working as hostel interpretators in Mendoza, I give them tips every now and then if their English is good.
Yes I've been to Miami hasn't everyone? I prefer the FL west coast though.
May 03rd, 2014 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No American would go to Argentina to earn pesos. Your average monthly wage is less than we spend on a decent dinner w/ wine in NYC. If there are Americans there they're probably studying spanish or retired or both.
Silly boy.
Well maybe you should take back that Dustin Luke guy that is everywhere. He used to come up in YT but now he is making it to national TV.
May 03rd, 2014 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is a attention seeker and the argies are complexed and in love with him because he talks like them. The same as the Sweedish slut of Lanata and Tinelli
It's much easier to be famous in small countries. There are so many “famous” people from around the world that we've never heard of here.
May 03rd, 2014 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know when the Beckhams moved to LA the wife was really mad that nobody knew who she was and was not making a fuss over her.
I guess that is why most of the Rg stars have places in Miami so they can be anonymous and not have to worry about being kidnapped etc.
@17 “Lewis, 62, was born in the Falkland Islands, son of Falkland Islanders who arrived as a one year old to Santa Cruz province, more specifically the town which he hopes to rule next year, and according to Argentine media, is the only Falkland Islander to have done his military service in the Argentine Army.”
May 03rd, 2014 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can you read that? More importantly, can you comprehend that?
@20 I'm not an argie. Because I have citizenship and residency in the greatest nation in the world. My nation does what's right. It doesn't wait until the money's right. My nation has shown the way to the rest of the world. My nation has beaten dictatorships into the dust. My nation stands against anarchy, belligerence, criminality, dictatorship, genocide, larceny, mendacity, racism, xenophobia. My nation protects and defends. My nation has been in being for over a thousand years.
But let's look at the moron @29. “Argentina has no choice but to be expansionist. In fact it should begin arguing for territory in Europe, not just South America. Exclaves in all major European nations should be carved out for Argentina.”
If it has an overwhelming urge to watch its heart carved out and “cooked” for the dogs before its eyes. Shiteland needs to be carved into small pieces and then adopt the reverse of the Roman principle of decimation. Execute 9 out of every 10 argies. Throw the hooks into them and drag them to the ocean to be eaten. Fishfood is their best use. You can tell by the smell!
34
May 03rd, 2014 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well to be honest I find it amusing how the american guy feeds the Argentine ego with his crap videos and they all fall on his knees to him.
22 Anglotino (#) I hate to disappoint you but we have had people with Argentine blood in our council . While the individual was born in the best country in the world the Falklands , her mother was from Argentina who decided to come and live here many years ago because she obviously preferred our lifestyle to that of Argentina. We have several Argentines living among us and some if they wished could run for council.
May 03rd, 2014 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The truth never was argies strong point,
May 03rd, 2014 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0still,
if this man born in the Falkland's can still be Falklander, then any argies not born in Argentina cant be graded as argentine,
is this not right,
or do I have it wrong, just a query honest..lol
#37: There is no country called Falklands. There is a colony, or a non self-governing territory if you like, called, Falklands islands (Malvinas) or Islas Malvinas (Falklands).
May 03rd, 2014 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#38: All islanders that born in Malvinas are entitled to argentine citizenship, becouse they were born on argentine territory.
20 Brasileiro
May 03rd, 2014 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are wrong. Not all of these guys who speak here are argentines, if not none. Argentine law only for those born in Argentine territory (and the Malvinas Islands are) are Argentines; but it happens that these are increasingly to be a small part. They all go to England, New Zealand or Australia and instead, there are British-British doing their business in the islands with his home in England and their cottage in the Malvinas. (There are more houses than people). Starting with the “governor”.
Which there are only squatters in Argentina territory. And almost all the reviewers in this blog, speak from the British Isles.
Regards.
“The whole thing is getting completely out of hand”! lol.
May 03rd, 2014 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0=thanks Captain Mainwaring!
Good luck to you, Mr Lewis,
However, nothing changes.
The Falklands are still NOT part of Argentina.
Argentina still has NO RIGHTS here.
Thank you.
Argentina have rights there, and many of you brits had already negotiated, in the past, even with the military junta. Eventually, britain will sit in the negotiation table again.
May 03rd, 2014 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 040 José Malvinero you are correct, there are squatters in Agentine territory, most are from Italy, Spain, Germany etc. So it's about time you went back to europe and leave South America to the indians, Oh I almost forgot, you slaughtered most of them didn't you. Thank god that here in the Falkland Islands, British since the late 1600's we didn't kill anyone for this Island.
May 03rd, 2014 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can have Justin Beiber if you want.
May 03rd, 2014 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 025 Liberato
May 03rd, 2014 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our right to self determination does not depend on the Argentine government recognising our government (which is not a British Government).
It makes no difference whether you recognise us or not.
The only important thing is whether the UK government recognise the FIG, our democratically elected representatives, and our right to self determination.
Just out of interest, what are the 'rights' you think you have in the Falklands?
So the Argie trolls think we are squatters on our own land. Well for the record I believe before any Argentine accuses me or any Islander of being a squatter they had better start looking at their own sordid history. Seems the territory you so call Argentina was not yours to begin with. No matter how many twisted comments you make you are illegal people living on land belonging to an indigenous people. So before you start preaching to me who you think I am take a really good hard long look at your own history . I think you might be surprised at what you dig up. Then and only then if you can prove you were there first can you condemn me and my fellow people.
May 04th, 2014 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is about time Argentina started growing up. I have never seen so much rubbish splattered on the sites as is coming from them. Remember no matter what junk you try to feed us we are here and we intend to stay here. British or pure Falkland islanders, Kelpers what ever you want. Get real get a life and move on the record is becoming rather boring.
#45: So Monty, what you are saying is that the population on the islands is british, but the government is not?????.
May 04th, 2014 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0#46: Comparing the killing of aboriginals in Patagonia, with the invasion of a foregin power to a recognized nation is absurd. In no way you british can legitimate an invasion with the killings of aboriginals. If we follow that line, the USA or Australia can be invaded, becouse their land had aboriginals communities living there.
42 Liberato
May 04th, 2014 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina have rights there, and many of you brits had already negotiated, in the past, even with the military junta. Eventually, britain will sit in the negotiation table again.”
Argentina has no “rights” to the Falklands.
You, like the other Trolls, and the Argentine government itself, have failed miserably, repeatedly, to make that case.
Before you got greedy and tried steal what wasn't yours, there was some negotiation.
The Islands did not used to be self-sufficient as they are now. They had more reliance on Britain, or purchased local services. In some cases, from Argentina.
Britain started to look at withdrawing and leaving a developed, friendly (?) neighbour to take on the responsibilities, in exchange for some sort of shared governance.
However, the deal was not to the liking of the inhabitants who has lived there for 150 years, and it went no further.
You have no history as a people or a culture, in the Falklands.
You never owned the Falklsnds in any form.
You are not owed any past debt. by the Islanders or Britain.
Nothing was ever promised to you, or given to you, in lieu of payment.
There are no unfulfilled co-operative agreements between Argentina and the Islanders - Nestor tore them up.
You have no legal case recognised by the UNGA or ICJ.
You have NO RIGHTS to the Falklands.
You DO have a moral debt to the Falklanders, but you childishly villify them or ignore their existence to defer your guilt.
Leave the Islands alone - they are not yours and they do not wish to be.
47 The aboriginals of North America, Australia, and Argentina, should never have been pushed out of the way as they were.
The only invaders of the Islands were Argentina, 32 years ago.
#10 “He is a Kelper by birth, blood and right...”
May 04th, 2014 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's correct, it good to see that the Argentine side finally admits that the Falklander's exist! And, yes they certainly do have rights, like the right to self determination, the right to chose who they wish to affiliate with.
#48: First, im not a troll. No matter how hard it is for you to face someone that thinks differently than your kind. But regardless what i may think of you, i dont call you names.
May 04th, 2014 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since 1833 my nation have a case, and protested since then the british invasion and ocupation of argentine territory. We even proposed an arbitration to end the dispute. Its such a case the UN each year took that case in its GA calling many times to the uk to negotiate and even congratulating Argentina for its efforts to end the sovereignty dispute. Such a case, that even the uk was willing to start that process, which it would have been a success if not for the lobby of the “FIC” ( the feudal company that controled economically the colony) that knew of the negotiations first hand and made lobby to the population of the islands and the british parliament.
It is such a case, the islands remains in the colony list. It is such a case that you have to restort to low comparison with aboriginals becouse you cant explain how you british took the islands. For you, your validity of british “rights” is that british people lives in the islands, which is way in line with the british colonialist attitude of the past centuries.
This is as simple as reading all United Nations GA resolutions and the Decolonization Committe draft resolutions and how the british voted on each ocasion. Not only in the Malvinas case, in all cases of british colonial territories.
You consider that the argentine military dictatorship was friendly to the UK? as to make the british consider a handover of the islands?.
You british do not convince even to your greater ally of your “sovereignty rights”, less you cant expect you convince the international community the islands are “british” and “self-determined”.
Do you really expect us to believe that british people on argentine land can choose whether to remain british or becoming argentines?.
@34
May 04th, 2014 - 06:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Reminds me of several American passball, baseball players that come to Argentina to do fly-fishing, as well as many US politicians. Americans tell me and my friends that that blah blah blah was in Corrientes or Rio Negro fishing and everyone draws blanks, in fact they don't even know what those sports are.
Americans think we follow their sports or politics here they get flabbergasted when they find out no one here has even heard of the Seattle Seahawks.
I remember that governor from some backwater US state no one had ever heard of and he came here many times and strolled with his mistress no one even knew who he was.
@50 Liberato
May 04th, 2014 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0> Do you really expect us to believe that british people on argentine land can choose whether to remain british or becoming argentines?.
If you were a rational society, we would expect you to show that the islands actually were Argentine land. But it's quite obvious that they never were, by any reasonable yardstick, and that is why you don't dare take it to the only body, namely the ICJ, that could pronounce upon it and advance it.
Under these conditions, the truly remarkable thing is that a case which has failed legally, morally, and militarily persists into the 21st century. You have to ask who benefits.
In this respect, it should be clear that the Peronists are perfectly to happy to have a case that distracts the population, while the rest of Latam, are perfectly happy to have a cause that distracts the Peronists. The Falklands themselves are doing better than they have ever done, and the Brits are happy defending the fundamental founding principles of the UN.
The only losers in the whole matter, in fact, are those of the Argentine population who have had a false sense of injustice implanted, are are having their pockets picked while they look the other way.
You really shouldn't be encouraging this to go on any longer.
TWIMC
May 04th, 2014 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Updated information for your kind reference...:
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/158572/uruguay-says-british-occupation-of-malvinas-is-%E2%80%98latent-threat%E2%80%99
I propose James “Dougie” Lewis for Governor of the Malvinas Islands...
Kind regards
El Think
Kelperabout
May 04th, 2014 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Reread my post at 22. Slowly this time.
@53
May 04th, 2014 - 08:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's hardly a surprise that Uruguay regards Argentine attitudes over the Falklands as a latent threat.
@53
May 04th, 2014 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0I prefer the more entertaining version of this posted in La Nacion, especially the comments section:
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1687320-uruguay-amenaza-latente-presencia-britanica-en-malvinas#comentar
Everyone knows this is just Uruguay playing along and pumping out more smoke and bullsh1t.
If you people are serious, then do something serious; send home our ambassadors, cut trade and ties; go on, do it. Narrh, not a chance in a million.
A lot of wind here today,
May 04th, 2014 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0And CFK will just let her country be blown away for her deluded dreams, and her deluded supporters will follow her,
meanwhile in wealthy super rich future Falkland's, they will be having a whale of a time.
@50 Liberato,
May 04th, 2014 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn't matter what you are or who you support.
You have NO RIGHTS in the Falklands,
never had & never will.
You need re-educating.
lf you think you have a case, take your evidence to the ICJ.
btw-what is the basis for Argentina's “claims” to South Georgia?
l'd be interested to hear YOUR reasons.
Bearing in mind that the British discovered the lsland before Argentina even existed & no Argentine has ever lived there.
Thank you.
50 Liberato
May 04th, 2014 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0the picture says it all,
Get of your your-and drink ya milk.
So it appears we are British Squatters.
May 04th, 2014 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder. Could you Argentines actually be Spanish Squatters on someone else's land.
Could that land once have belonged to another living Human and indigenous people that lived there for hundreds of years before you existed.
No I must be making a mistake. Argentina would never invade another ones homeland would they.
Or is this whole issue just a dream.
Wake up I say to myself it is not a dream. Argentina wants to control the south Atlantic by whatever means.
Unfortunately the Falkland islands are not theirs and is a key in their dominating struggle.
These tiny Islands settled by a migrating people nearly 200 years ago who wanted to start a new life in a far and distant place who never threatened anyone. Oh I forgot they first had to del with a bunch of Argentine military squatters who thought they had been given the Falklands by Spain .
No that can't be right because Spain never owned them. But of course that same thinking was applied when they created a new Argentina.
Funny old world we live in.
A group of small islands with a small population standing right in the way of Argentina's global ambitions. Oh it is so refreshing to think that we so small are doing so well in everything we do and living the dream. British and proud to be associated with Britain.
60 kelperabout (#)
May 04th, 2014 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Precisley!
Well said.
The Falkland lslands--
May 04th, 2014 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The stumbling block,
Blocking the Argentine Empire from expanding,
And they don't like it at all.
Tough cheese, Argentina.
@6
May 04th, 2014 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If we are to correct each and every spelling mistake, here is one for you.
You said in your post ” It's spelled .......prerogative, which in itself is correct ( the spelling ) but the grammar is not, you should say “It is spelt.... prerogative” ( past tense of to spell )
The other day I read in a newspaper of England they wanted the Falklands accept Argentine sovereignty. They could not lose billions and billions in business only because three thousand South Americans insist on trample British interests.
May 04th, 2014 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(58) lsolde
May 04th, 2014 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say…:
”Bearing in mind that the British discovered the lsland (South Georgia) before Argentina even existed & no Argentine has ever lived there.”
I say…:
Why do you always insist in showing off your newly acquired South Atlantic ignorance?
Read and learn girl... Read and learn…
http://goo.gl/ZyPc8b
By the way..., sweet Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen, the first person born south of the Antarctic Convergence, in Grytviken, Georgia del Sur, was as Argentinean as yours truly…
Turnip at (63) says…:
”You said in your post ” It's spelled .......prerogative, which in itself is correct ( the spelling ) but the grammar is not, you should say “It is spelt.... prerogative” ( past tense of to spell )”
I say…:
As far as I’m informed, ”Spelled” and ”Spelt” are both correct.
”Spelled” being the preferred form on the American continent where MercoPress, the Malvinas Islands and I happen to be…
Our people smells of America!
May 04th, 2014 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7dG3rNPmpg&list=FLmXPTu1f8AdGlizWNiASx2A
Falklands smells like America too. A smell of Argentina!
@58 Isolde
May 04th, 2014 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here is the irrefutable proof that South Georgia is Argentine.
The irrefutable proof appears to be a picture of two foundered sealing vessels, with the Argentine flag on the funnel.
If you thought the claim to the Falklands was preposterous .....
http://www.irizar.org/819puglisi-georgias.pdf
67 Hans
May 04th, 2014 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Irrefutable” - LOL, I see that they are tied up to a British Dock that already exists there.
Nevertheless, a great Argentine sea-faring tradition that goes way back.
A 100 years ago, Argentine ships were foundering at their berths, just like the Argentine navy of today!
TWIMC
May 04th, 2014 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what is the first thing one sees when opening Turnip (67’s) link...?
http://www.irizar.org/819puglisi-georgias.pdf
It certainly looks like the Argentinean Meteorological Station at the Georgias del Sur Islands, constructed during the 1920’s…
Undoubtedly a much better proof of Sovereignty than an alleged plaque (that nobody has ever seen) supposedly left behind in 1774 at Port Egmont, Malvinas Islands by some unwashed English pirates…
This just shows how stupid and obessed Malvinistas and Falklandists are in the greater context of things and history...
May 04th, 2014 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://vimeo.com/89394659
@69
May 04th, 2014 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That would be the observatory that the Argentine Meteorological Office operated under under the British lease requirements of the whaling station? Thus recognising British Sovereignity?
Some people really need to make a better effort to grasp the difference between tenancy and ownership, a little education would go a long way to moderating the high levels of anti-social behaviour in the British South Atlantic.
Otherwise, the presence or absence of a plaque in 1774 is hardly conclusive or even relevant in establishing the sovereignity of the Falklands in 2014. Sorry.
And this shows how stupid and depressed a Turnip as (70's)Caradura2 is in the greater context of things and history...
May 04th, 2014 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUe_Vfi5IL0
Its the whole point of it isn't it ... It just shows how much of a obssesed, butt heart and retarded cunt you are over something that matters so little....
May 04th, 2014 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://vimeo.com/89394659
Its a shame people read you here and “Think” we are like you. But hey who GAF anyway
CD2
May 04th, 2014 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We don't “Think” he reflects real Argentinians.
(73) CaraDura2
May 04th, 2014 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My dear lad....
I'm here commenting on an article about a humble man running for political office in his little hamlet at the end of the world...
I would suggest you to find some more adecuate fora for your lust to insult and discuss Imperial European History...
Well then I do need to remind you that I'm here commenting on how stupid, obessesed and vague Malvinistas and Falklandists seem in the greater context of things and history...
May 04th, 2014 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously this has touched your nerve.
#60: Its amazingly incredible. So the imperialistics are the argentine (in your view) that wants to control the south atlantic. But not so imperialistic that a power from the north atlantic, (that control too the north atlantic) controls millons of kilometers in the south atlantic.
May 04th, 2014 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@77
May 04th, 2014 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly. It's Argentina that has a policy of territorial expansion where it has no legal right and where it is rejected by the resident population. Apart from the Falklands, you seem to believe you have a natural right to the entire South Atlantic and indeed Antarctica. You don't.
Wow the UK controls the North Atlantic and “millons of kilometers in the south atlantic”.
May 04th, 2014 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for that.
@65
May 04th, 2014 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is “ Turnip” some kind of endearment? Thanks. Just because Argentina bastardised the Spanish Language into what is Castellano today does not mean you Americans should basterdise the English Language. Just look it up.
#78: A policy of territorial expansion??????. Hello this is Houston, get back down to earth will you?.
May 04th, 2014 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@81
May 04th, 2014 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't have a policy of expanding into the Falklands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, adjoining maritime spaces, and British possessions in Antarctica?
@65 Think,
May 04th, 2014 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does lying come naturally to you, Think, or have you acquired those skills?
Whatever, you're not very good at it.
Miss Jacobsen was Norwegian, Think, and you know it.
But she could have probably claimed British citizenship if she had wanted, being born in British(that is NOT Argentine)territory.
As for the photographs of the old Whalers, if it is indeed an Argentine flag, then all that proves is that the ship was Argentine.
The Graf Spee sunk off Uruguay does not mean that Uruguay belongs to Germany.
Anyway Think, not only can you be allowed to buy those old hulks, but we demand(favourite Argentine word)that you remove the eyesores from OUR territory, ASAP.
(83) lsolde, honey...
May 04th, 2014 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I clearly stated at (65)...:
Sweet Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen was as Argentinean as yours truly…
Sweet Solveig had multiple nationalities..., as does yours truly…
Sweet Solveig choosed to live her life in her favourite Country, Argentina..., as yours truly does...
No lies...
@84
May 04th, 2014 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Goodness. Were you born on British soil too?
“THE MALVINAS ARE ARGENTINE, and this is the list of Spanish and Argentine governors until piratical usurpation of 1833:
May 04th, 2014 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SPANISH
1767-1773 F. Ruiz Puente
1773-1774 D. Chauri
1774-1777 F. Gil y Lemos y Taboada
1777-1779 R. Carassa y Souza
1779-1781 S. de Medina y Juan
1781-1783 J. M. del Carmen Altolaguirre
1783-1784 F. D. Montemayor
1784-1785 A. de Figueroa
1785-1786 R. de Clairac y Villalonga
1786-1787 P. de Mesa y Castro
1787-1788 R. de Clairac y Villalonga
1788-1789 P. de Mesa y Castro
1789-1790 R. de Clairac y Villalonga
1790-1791 J. J. de Elizalde y Ustariz
1791-1792 P. P. Sanguineto
1792-1793 J. J. de Elizalde y Ustariz
1793-1794 P. P. Sanguineto
1794-1795 J. de Aldana y Ortega
1795-1796 P. P. Sanguineto
1796-1797 J. de Aldana y Ortega
1797-1798 L. de Medina y Torres
1798-1799 F. X. de Viana y Alzaibar
1799-1800 L. de Medina y Torres
1800-1801 F. X. de Viana y Alzaibar
1801-1802 R. Fernández de Villegas
1802-1803 B. de Bonavía
1803-1804 A. L. de Ibarra y Oxinando
1804-1805 B. de Bonavía
1805-1806 A. L. de Ibarra y Oxinando
1806-1808 B. de Bonavía
1809-1810 G. Bondas
1810-1811 P. G. Martínez
After the emancipation of America, by the principle uti possidetis juris, the emancipated countries inherit, of course, the limits that had its pre-emancipation, including the Malvinas Islands
ARGENTINES
1820-1821 D. Jewett
1821-1821 W. Mason
1824-1824 P. Areguatí
1829-1832 L. Vernet
1832-1832 J. F. Mestivier
1832-1833 J. M. Pinedo
During all these years (66) there was no complaint from any country.
THE MALVINAS ARE ARGENTINE FOREVER”
That's a lot of work you went to. Must have taken a couple of hours...
May 04th, 2014 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Too bad it doesn't change anything - they have nothing in reality to do with the Falklands.
But then we've coveted all that countless times.
What else did the Pope give you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_the_Falkland_Islands
May 04th, 2014 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are british now and we are keeping them
I notice that no Argentine commenter has had anything to say about my last comment . Is it to tormenting for any of you to accept that you stole the land you live on. Maybe that is the hardest part for any Argentine to accept that while they condemn me and my people they refuse to acknowledge their own devious past because it makes them look even bigger fools. Funny how the bank on about 1833. I actually believe they are still living in that time period and that is why they cant accept the world has moved on way ahead of their time. They are the most widely joked about Country on the internet because of their childish chit chat. Think is probably the most weirdest commenter I have seen. Never seems to actually know in what direction he is going. But then neither does his Argentine followers.
May 04th, 2014 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@86
May 04th, 2014 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Military Administrators of the British Settlement of Fort Louis
1833-1838 Lt. Henry Smith
1838-1839 Lt. Robert Lowcay
1839-1839 Lt. Robinson
1839-1841 Lt. John Tyssen
Lieutenant Governor of the Falkland Islands at Anson's Harbour
1841-1843 Lt. Richard Clement Moody
Governor of the Falkland Islands at Port Stanley
1843-1848 Lt. Richard Clement Moody
1848-1855 Lt. George Rennie
1855-1862 Capt. Thomas Edward Laws Moore
1862-1866 Capt. James George Mackenzie
1866-1870 Sir William Cleaver Francis Robinson, GCMG
1870-1876 Colonel George Abbas Kooli D'Arcy
1876-1880 Jeremiah Thomas Fitzgerald Callaghan
1880-1886 Thomas Kerr, CMG
1886-1887 Arthur Cecil Stuart Barkly
1887-1891 Thomas Kerr, CMG
1891-1897 Sir Roger Tuckfield Goldsworthy, KCMG
1897-1904 Sir William Grey-Wilson, KCMG
1904-1915 Sir William Lamond Allardyce, GCMG
1915-1920 Sir William Douglas Young, KBE, CMG
1920-1927 Sir John Middleton, KBE, CMG
1927-1931 Sir Arnold Weinholt Hodson, KCMG
1931-1934 Sir James O'Grady, KCMG
1935-1941 Sir Herbert Henniker-Heaton, KCMG
1941-1946 Sir Allan Wolsey Cardinall, KBE, CMG
1946-1954 Sir Geoffrey Miles Clifford, KBE, CMG, ED
1954-1957 Sir Oswald Raynor Arthur, KCMG, CVO
1957-1964 Sir Edwin Porter Arrowsmith, KCMG
1964-1970 Sir Cosmo Dugal Patrick Thomas Haskard, KCMG, MBE
1971-1975 Sir Ernest Gordon Lewis, CMG, OBE
1975-1977 Sir Neville Arthur Irwin French, CMG, MVO
1977-1980 Sir James Roland Walter Parker, CMG, OBE
1980-2 Apr 1982 Sir Rex Masterman Hunt, KCMG
Argentine Military Commander at Puerto Argentino
2 Apr 1982-3 Apr 1982 General Oswaldo Jorge Garcia (interim)
3 Apr 1982-14 Jun 1982 Brigadier General Mario Benjamín Menéndez
British Military Commander at Port Stanley
14 Jun 1982-25 Jun 1982 Major General Sir Jeremy Moore, KCB, OBE, MC & Bar
Civil Commissioner of the Falkland Islands at Port Stanley
25 Jun 1982-16 Oct 1985 Sir Rex Masterman Hunt, CMG
Governors of the Falkland Islands at Stanley (and Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Some argentines arguments for the sovereignty of the (San Pedro ) South Georgia ( among others):
May 04th, 2014 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Law of the discovery by the Spanish Ship Leon , in 1756.
- Recognition by the leading countries of the world belonging to Spain adjacent islands to the mainland ( as owner of the continent ) .
- Recognition of other maritime states (England ) by signing the Treaty of San Lorenzo ( Nootka Sound) in 1790 ( violated by this country in 1765 , 1806 , 1807 , English is characterized by respect all that sign ) that prevented him from occupying any island in the Spanish part of South America .
- Succession Rights Spain , and first human permanent settlement in 1904 by La Argentina .
- Doctrine of the Continental Shelf of the United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea , and extent of the continental shelf of coastal states .
- I was always treated the Malvinas issue , as a unit with Georgia and Sandwiches .
- Unanimous recognition of the countries of the region ( OAS)
UK arguments for the sovereignty of the (San Pedro ) South Georgia :
- Geographical proximity ?
- Strength ?
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
- ? ? ? ? ? ?
- ? ? ? ? ?
- ? ? ?
- ? ?
- ?
-
THE SOUTH GEORGIA ISLANDS ARE ARGENTINE
Think, or as I refer more accurately as “The Lunatic from Chew Butt” is without any doubt the biggest liar on MP.
May 04th, 2014 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is also like ALL of us on the planet in that he came from the stars and back to the stars we shall all go when our sun turns into a Red Giant in 4.6 billion years.
No “God” involved, just duplicitous feeble willed so called “scientists” shown in the video expressing their weaknesses.
@92
May 04th, 2014 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can you get “Chew Butt” cheese in Uruguay??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNo3j4o0qJY
I won't be eating it again after reading your spin of Think's homeland... LOL
so @91 we are told that Spain is the owner of the continent of South America.
May 04th, 2014 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know if I should laugh or cry. The bizarre hypocritical nature of Argentine logic and reasoning laid bare for all to see and the numbskulls actually think they are putting forward a good argument.
Going back to the story, if James Lewis gets elected, perhaps it could be the start of some positive communication to discuss peaceful and productive cohabitation in the region.
May 05th, 2014 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Get Uruguay to supply the pot and everyone can make daisy chains together
@82
May 05th, 2014 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0For a man that preaches “Argentines don't live in reality”, you seem to do a good job of that yourself.
No one, absolutely NO ONE, recognizes ANY British POSSESSIONS in Antarctica. You have no possessions in Antarctica. You signed a treaty remember? And yes, Argentina's claims are also not recognized due to the same treaty... So why would yours be? Oh, maybe, a Freudian slip?
In which case you proved Argentina right. The one country in the WORLD saying for years the UK is an expansionist imperialist renegade.
But can't have it both ways.
90 HansNiesund
May 05th, 2014 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Duke of Wellington, in 1829:
“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.”
2) Sidney Spicer, Holder of the Department America of the Foreign Office in 1910:
” … the attitude of the Argentine government is not entirely unjustified and our action has been a bit despotic “.
3) Ronald Campbell, Secretary Assistant of the Foreign Office in 1911:
The only question is: Who did have the best claim when we finally annexed the islands… I think undoubtedly the United Provinces of Buenos Aires [now Argentina]. We cannot easily make out a good claim and we have wisely done everything to avoid discussing the subject.
4) Sir Malcolm A. Robertson, British Ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1928:
” the Argentinian claims to the islands Malvinas are not unfounded “, and he insisted in another document that ” the English statements are not strong enough as to confront a public controversy “.
5) George Fitzmaurice, Legal Counselor of the English Chancery in 1936:
” Our case has certain weakness” and he advised what the British government finally did: ” Sit down heavily on the islands, avoiding to discuss, in a policy to make the case fall”.
6) John Troutbeck, High Civil Servant of the British State Department in 1936:
“The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”
Wow.
May 05th, 2014 - 05:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0All these wonderful facts and figures and quotes from the past several hundred years.
And yet..... in 2014 they all mean very little as the Falkland Islands are exactly as its residents want it.
British and not Argentinea.
But by all means please continue with the worthless facts and figures and quotes.
97 Marcos Argentino
May 05th, 2014 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos,
You tried this same argument a year ago on MP, and you were shot down - out of context, inaccurate, incomplete etc. ...
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/08/20/falklands-under-british-sovereignty-since-1765-says-commissioner-drake
@97
May 05th, 2014 - 07:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0All you have there is the traces of one side of an internal debate within a democratic state eager to ensure its own legitimacy. Typically, you ignore both the counter arguments and the ultimate conclusion :
Sir Anthony Eden, August 26 1936 :
“ .. there is reason to doubt whether, in fact, Argentina ever had any grounds of claim to the islands at all .... In the diplomatic exchanges of 1833 the case would seem to have been argued upon the wrong grounds by both sides. It would seem that the events in the 18th century were irrelevant, that the islands had become completely unoccupied in 1811, and that they had to be considered at that time as ‘res nullius’ open to the occupation of any State. Further, unless the occupation of the privateer Vernet, whom the Argentine Government tried rather
unsuccessfully to clothe with their authority, can be considered to have been an Argentine occupation, the islands were ‘res nullius’ at the time of the British reoccupation in 1832.”
Note also that this conclusion was reached well before the UN Charter enshrined the principle of self-determination in modern international law.
@84 Think,
May 05th, 2014 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have ever considered a career in politics, Think?
You are at best, twisting the truth & at worst, downright lying.
Miss Solveig was born of Norwegian parents on British territory.
Her birth was recorded by the British Magistrate, James Wilson.
One source says that she died in BsAs & was buried in Norway, another source says that she died in Norway.
Be as that may, she was not born Argentine, thats for sure.
l cannot find out, at this stage, details of her later life.
lf she became an Argentine citizen when she left South Georgia, or not, does not give Argentina any rights at all over S.G.
To show you how ridiculous your argument is:-
Supposing Miss Solveig moved to Outer Mongolia & took up Mongolian citizenship, by your twisted logic, Mongolia would automatically own South Georgia?
Get real, Think
ls that the best you can do?
No wonder your country is treated with contempt on these fora.
Do not worry THINK. Brazil is also treated with contempt in this forum. All the Latin and South American are treated with contempt in this forum.
May 05th, 2014 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just one thing worse than their contempt, our own contempt for them.
Contempt of them are harmless to us. Our contempt isolates them, paralyzes them economically, make them pass needs (mainly health).
I do not know. Our contempt is much worse than theirs.
All these idiots posting “facts” that prove that particular land masses belong to Argentina. If you think these facts stand up to scrutiny then take the facts to the ICJ. Argentina hasn't despite being invited to a number of times. Why? Because they are not facts they are propaganda and the claims die when exposed to scrutiny.
May 05th, 2014 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0As time goes on your case becomes weaker, not stronger. If you believe your case take it to court now or stop spouting this nonsense.
@40
May 05th, 2014 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”(There are more houses than people)”
If you knew anything about the Falklands, you would know that is a woefully incorrect statement. There is a massive housing shortage in the Falklands.
@102Brasiliero
May 05th, 2014 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0” Our contempt isolates them, paralyzes them economically, make them pass needs (mainly health).”
On the contrary, Argentina's impotent attempts to isolate the islands has not stopped tourist ships visiting the islands (though it has stopped some of them from visiting Argentina), nor has it stopped investment in oil exploration. Nor has it stopped Islanders setting up more businesses.
The isolation means that the Islanders cannot buy Argentine goods, services or labour, but they simply buy those from somewhere else, and Argentina misses out on income which could assist its Southern economy.
Therefore it is Argentina who is the loser.
Argentina's attempt to as you put it 'paralyse' the Islands economy have not prevented the Islanders from having a higher income per head of population than Argentina.
There are no fuel shortages in the islands like there are in Argentina, which are nothing to do with any blockades by the British, but fiscal incompetence from Argentina's rulers.
The refusal by Argentina to accept any shipping to do with the Islands has meant the Islands now have another floating port being constructed and in the future there will be a permanent deep water port-maybe Port Smyley.
This will not economically isolate the Islands, on the contrary it will allow the Islands (slowly at first) to compete with Southern South American ports.
As for the Islander's health resources, any Islander in the country (camp) can be flown to Stanley by Islander (aircraft)or military helicopter, (or a doctor flown out to the settlement) and per capita the healthcare in the Falklands is FAR FAR superior to Brazil's.
You don't understand British mentality-Argentina's efforts to islolate a community which has for 180 years been used to isolation is like pissing in the wind-the Islanders have British logic, they just find a way around any problems, caused by Argentina, even if those problems lead to inconvenience.
(101) lsolde babykins....
May 05th, 2014 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sweet Solveig was indeed born of Norwegian parents on the disputed Georgia del Sur Island...
I “Think” you should widen your research with other sources than your old High School Macquarie Australian Dictionary...
Maybe you could ask a person who knew sweet Solweig...
Any questions? :-)))
Get real, Isolde...
l know you English can do better...
No wonder your Country is losing influence in all fora.
Comment removed by the editor.
May 05th, 2014 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0106 Think
May 05th, 2014 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ewww, creepy !!
If these so called clever intelligent intellectual informative historical, historians know what they say - can prove what they say,
May 05th, 2014 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then we say, The ICJ is waiting and willing to here from you,
go on, do the right thing, give em a ring...lol
@97 Macocs a littleone
May 05th, 2014 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All the opinions from various sources you quote mean very little. opinon is not fact. take it to court....
@106
May 05th, 2014 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Miss Solveig was not born on a disputed island. She was born on South Georgia on October 8, 1913. Argentina did not announce a claim to South Georgia until 1927 at the International Postal Bureau in Bern.
This makes Miss Solveig a most prescient proto-Malvinista, especially for a Norwegian, but probably charming company for the German Vernet and the American Jewett in the gallery of preposterous Argentine sovereignity citations.
Just get over people. Our young men were used, were killed, for nothing but a barren land. It s cruel, but is the only true. Stop feeding these islanders's ego, they are nothing but pariahs crying for a Nation that ,actually, despise them and that , eventually, will release their hand. Heaven help them, then, we won t. Because we are “ arrogant bastards” . Go cry Queen mamma cuz this time, even your cousins will help you. WE HAVE LITHIUM, BABE, AND THEY WANT IT ALL :) Be prepared.
May 05th, 2014 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0?????????????????????????????????????????????
May 05th, 2014 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Wibble.
May 05th, 2014 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@111 HansNiesund,
May 05th, 2014 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You beat me to it, Hans.
But yes, you are correct.
There is now a dispute over South Georgia, but there was none when Miss Solveig was born.
lt was undisputed British territory & Think the Fink knows that.
He either was just chancing his luck or his malvinista logic is so twisted, that he can't tell the truth.
You will notice that he parrots what other people say-no imagination of his own. Sad case.
@108 Troy Tempest,
lts just Think, trying to drive me from these discussions.
lt wont work, but l do worry what he is doing to himself in his own home.
@106 Think,
You need to get out more, Think.
There's a big world outside of your finca.
Is it just me or is Think's logic that anyone who is born on British territory and moves to Argentina is therefore Argentinean?
May 05th, 2014 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorta spoils the whole headline.
I suppose it should read: ARGENTINEAN RUNNING FOR MAYOR OF A SANTA CRUZ TOWN.
(115) Isolde
May 05th, 2014 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“There is now a dispute over South Georgia, but there was none when Miss Solveig was born.
lt was undisputed British territory & Flinke Think knows that.”
I say...:
But there was already a dispute, babykins….
You evidently never read my link to that ANGLO book at (65)…
....I’ll repost it just for you, buttercup…:
Page 165…:
”…When Ernest Swinhoe to his great surprise discovered an Argentinian whaling station on the best site in South Georgia, he submitted a written protest to Larsen on the 28 September 1905, demanding that he should leave the Island which he personally had leased in its entirety by a contract of 1 July.
Swinhoe despatched a copy of his protest to the Governor (at Port Stanley), insisting that the establishment of the whaling station had taken place with the consent of the Argentinian Government and as a PART AND PARCEL OF THAT COUNTRY’S CLAIM TO SOVEREIGNTY…”
goo.gl/ZyPc8b'
See?
91 José Malvinero
May 05th, 2014 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The first definitive discovery goes to whom mapped it accurately.
“Portuguese cartographer Pedro Reinel in about 122- the very first map to show the Falklands”
Getting it right ... Pascoe and Pepper
Treaties define the the legal status of the Islands as per Peace of Utrecht, Declaration of 1771, and the Nootka Convention. Which because of the illegal encroachment Argentina triggered the “secret article”, allowing Briton to reestablish her earlier claims, which until then had been put on hold.
There is nothing under international law that supports succession from Spain. The settlement in SG in 1904 was a lease arrangement between a Norwegian and the UK.
In the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, Article 76, does not support the view that coastal states have sovereignty over islands above the continental shelf. On the contary it laid down doctrine that islands had their own “continental shelves,”
UK arguments for SG are based conclusively on the well documented principle of first discovery, which was long before Argentina's belated claim.
97 Marcos Alejandro
Wow! this is your chance to head over to the ICJ, as your sure to win aren't you?
@117
May 05th, 2014 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did you read as far as page 166?
“Pedro Christophersen and a representative of the Argentinian Admiralty paid a visit to the British Minister in Buenos Aires and expressed their willingness to pay an acknowledgement rent for the concession they hoped to obtain from the Governor. The issue of sovereignty was not even mentioned, they were interested in one thing alone - to obtain a lease from Britain for the ground on which their station thad been set up. In the subsequent dispute with Argentina on sovereignty, this provided the British with a very important argument to the effect that Argentina at that time recognised British sovereignty over the Falkland Island Dependencies.”
Perhaps you could intimate when for the first time there was an official Argentine claim communicated to the world at large?
Turnip at (119)
May 05th, 2014 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course i did...
Have great difficulties to follow the Anglo author's “Logic” that the payment of a bribe to some unwashed Engrish pirates by a private citizen constitutes, in any way, “a very important argument to the effect that Argentina at that time recognised anything”...
Ps...:
Perhaps you could intimate when for the first time there was an official British claim communicated to the world at large?
@120
May 05th, 2014 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“a representative of the Argentinian Admiralty paid a visit to the British Minister in Buenos Aires”.
I'm sure you've already read wiki, but just in case I'll quote it for you :
“The South Georgia archipelago was first claimed for Great Britain by James Cook in January 1775 ... however, the British did little to enforce this claim until 1843, when Letters Patent were issued to provide for the government of the islands, which were to be governed as a Falkland Islands Dependency. These were revised in 1876 and 1892.
In 1908, following enquiries regarding the sovereignty of the area currently covered by the British Antarctic Territory from the Norwegian government, the British government stated that the islands were British, and issued Letters Patent to include ”South Orkney, South Georgia and South Shetland islands, and Graham Land situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude and lying between the 20th and 80th degrees of west longitude“ as Falkland Islands Dependencies. It was made clear at this time that the association with the Falkland Islands was intended as an administrative convenience.”
I know it's not uncommon for Malvinistas to post links that undermine their own case, but you really dropped it with this one.
Turnip at (121)
May 05th, 2014 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) A representative of the Argentinian Admiralty “may or may not” have paid a visit to the British Minister in Buenos Aires...
But Pedro Christophersen was surely forced to paid the bribe to the unwashed Engrish pirates to keep its business running...
2) Woooooooooow..... A couple of Engrish “Letters Patent” from the 19'th and 20'th century!!!
I see you with a couple of Papal Bulls and the Tordecillas Treaty from the 15'th century...
Get real, Turnip!
118
May 05th, 2014 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not you and the Secret Article.... again.
Shhhh!
This is a secret.....the Secret Article doesn't mention the Islands...only the coast of South America....
Don't tell anyone....keep it to yourself....
A nod's as good as a wink.....to a blind man..
...I never told you.....Mum's the word....
@25 Liberato ...“But by law, all islanders that were born there are entitled to argentine citizenship by right of been born on argentine territory”...
May 05th, 2014 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What law ? some stupid law in Argentina that actually has the nerve to pretend that the Falklands are RG territory ??? And even if such a stupid law DOES exist - which, knowing the RG government - would not surprise me, which Kelper in their right mind would ever want to become an Rg ?? Not in this century, numbnuts !
123 A_Voice
May 06th, 2014 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's already been interpreted by experts in both countries and their views are in the public domain. So once again the UK's position is supported both by treaty and experts. Whereas, Argentina's is supported only by your unqualified opinion, namely sophistry at it's worst.
”The Nootka Sound Convention (El Tratado de San Lorenzo), 1790
...and both Britain and Spain agreed not to form new establishments on South American coasts situated south of coasts or islands already occupied by Spain (Article VI). ... ... and more importantly, an extra secret article removed the restriction on new establishments if any other power did make an establishment south of “the parts of those coasts already occupied” by Spain.5 In the late 1820s ..., Argentina did in fact form an establishment at Port Louis in the Falklands, south of coastal areas already occupied by Spain in 1790. By a strict interpretation of the Nootka Sound Convention, Britain therefore became entitled to form an establishment in the Falklands as soon as Argentina had become established there.
Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain’s reassertion of sovereignty in 1833 ... ...was an exercise of Britain’s rights under this clause.6 In the opinion of Professor Dolzer, the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain,which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way.7
5 Complete text of the Nootka Sound Convention, in the original French and in English translation, in Dolzer 1993, pp. 246-251.
6 Molinari 1961, pp. 47, 54 and 71.
7 Dolzer 1993, pp. 58 & 59.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas
by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
125
May 06th, 2014 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0“interpreted by experts in both countries and their views ”
in other words...opinions....
and now for my next trick.....
instead of quoting parts of the Secret Article....
be a devil and quote the whole secret article....
What's is that we will see....or rather not see......that's right....the deliberate omission of the islands that were mentioned in VI.....
..and surprisingly enough this secret article is the only part that mentions other powers (Argentina)...pity it doesn't mention the islands...
irrelevant....
....no cigar Terry......
”I see you with a couple of Papal Bulls and the Tordecillas Treaty from the 15'th century.
May 06th, 2014 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you are saying SG & SSI are Portuguese?
126 A_Voice
May 06th, 2014 - 05:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Article VI expressly states where neither nations subjects can form any establishment, and the secret article releases the UK from such an undertaking. Thus its a thumbs up thanks to the Argentine triggering.
Nootka Convention ARTICLE VI
“...parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention
Opinions certainly, but by those with legitimate expertise, of which here is more concerning the intent of the convening parties.
“But it CANNOT be inferred from this article that the British right to settle and to trade was restricted to the north¬west coast........Thus, Spain had been unable to obtain a British promise not to settle in other unoccupied areas. This interpretation is borne out by a secret article concluded on the same day. It stipulated that article 6 of the Convention was to be valid only so long as no third power made any establishments in that area. Neither of the contracting parties was prepared to allow another power to control the passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.....”
JÖRG FISCH: The Falkland Islands in the European Treacy System 1495—1853 106; German Yearbook of International Law 1983
As D.W. Greig writes in his “Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis” on Nootka. “Falklands, which equally undoubtedly were islands adjacent to coasts”
Still nothing in writing that confers any entitlement to Argentina, only treaties denying any claim whatsoever.
So no single cigar just the whole enchilada.
@122 Think
May 06th, 2014 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm trying to get real, really I am. The problem is, unless you're squinting myopically at the text through anglophobic lenses, it's to see why an event reported on page 165 should be the copper-bottomed, unalloyed, God’s own Argentine truth, whereas an event reported on page 166 can only be false, since allegations can be made concerning the personal hygiene of one of the alleged participants.
Or something.
And then you attempt to refute a formal British title established almost 100 years before Argentina began sneaking around behind the British back, with some hopeless Popery 400 years old, which actually gave the territory to Portugal.
You’re such an entertainment on those all too rare occasions when you try to justify your generic anglophobia by tackling specific points.
You are hopeless, Think, you really are.
May 06th, 2014 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Larsen was a Norwegian who took out British citizenship on a British lsland.
Just because his business was registered in Argentina does not give Argentina any “rights” or “sovereignty” over the land that he was operating in.
lf that were the case America could claim sovereignty over Brazil because GM make cars there.
You'll have to do better than that Turnip-farmer.
l know you would like it to be so, bu 'tisnt.
We can see through your new country's ambitions, Think.
You are johnny-come-latelys who thought that they could expand at our expense, aided & abetted by our spineless Foreign Office.
lt should have been nipped in the bud way back when you opportunist shower of arrogant misfits began your shennanigans.
Normally l look aghast at Conqueror's posts, but now, with the way things are going, l have to concede that he has some good points.
Read into that what you like.
And as we will never do as you want, we will never have peace with you.
(and WHY should we do as you want?).
C'est la guerre.
Boo Hoo hoo as she cries for sympathy,
May 06th, 2014 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0yelling and screaming - its mine, all mine,
well, you can cry , scream , threaten , bully , blockade , intimidate , beg the UN ,
even plead to the pope,
but the fact remains the Falkland's are British, and they don't want you,
so-
either come and get them,
or grow up..
78 HansNiesund
May 06th, 2014 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Apart from the Falklands, you seem to believe you have a natural right to the entire South Atlantic and indeed Antarctica. You don't.”
Actually, it's far worse.
Argentine nationalists followers of Juan Manuel Rosas' doctrine (like Leopoldo Galtieri and the military junta of 1976) and a fraction of peronists think they have natural rights to Southern Chile, Southern Brasil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia. All the regions that were part of the old Vice-Royalty of River Plate.
Thankfully they are a minority now .
128
May 06th, 2014 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a case of reading things into a treaty that simply are not there....
Article VI does indeed mention the islands....but so what..this was a treaty between Spain and the Britain and is irrelevant as far as any other powers (Argentina) are concerned...
The secret article and I quote your words...
“Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind,”
If this was the case, then it would most definitely mention the islands as VI does.....but it doesn't...it only mentions the coasts of South America.....
Could this be a stupid omission and error by Britain.....
It leaves a huge hole in the validity of this treaty concerning credible evidence....
The only part that mentions other powers but not the islands.....
If....Getting it Wrong: a biased interpretation of the history of the Falklands/Malvinas
by Peter Pepper picked a peck of pickled Pascoe
...was so convincing then why doesn't the US...Australia and just about every other nation in the world not back Britain's sovereignty claim....?
Argentina really needs to grow up, accept the Falkland's and concentrate on their own economy..
May 06th, 2014 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@133
May 06th, 2014 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain doesn't have a sovereignity claim. It has sovereignity. It's Argentina that has a sovereignity claim. The status quo needs no backing, it's the country that wishes to overturn the status quo that needs backing , especially when the country in question declines to take its claim to the only body in the world that could adjudicate meaningfully upon it. But as we have seen, repeatedly, most of the other countries in the world couldn't care less about Argentina's sovereignity claim. This is why all that Argentina has ever managed to obtain from the UN are resolutions calling for “dialogue” and “peaceful settlement”, these being the lowest common denominator recommendations that nobody could possibly object to (apart of course, from Argentina itself).
Perhaps the UN should pass Resolution stating that all sovereignty claims should be taken to the ICJ within 12 months of a claim, or lose that entitlement to that claim forever..
May 06th, 2014 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0response's ?
133 A_Voice
May 06th, 2014 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All the experts I have shown all support the interpretation that Argentina is a barred third party. Simply proffering your unqualified biased opinion doesn't change the situation one iota. Especially as the treaty of Utrecht and Nootka are specific as to Anglo-Spanish intentions.
Argentina nor it's supporters can even rely on any interpretation of Nootka as they were never a signatory to it. “... in the opinion of Professor Dolzer, the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way.7
7 Dolzer 1993, pp. 58 & 59.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas
by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
The one and same representing Argentina at the London presentation in 2007.
Moreover, what the the secret article does is unfetter Briton from any of the prior restraints contained in article VI, which is attributable to the Islands. Thank you Argentina.
Still no concord, treaty, or known international law that Argentina can use in her spurious claim.
(133) A_Voice
May 06th, 2014 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“If...Getting it Wrong: A biased interpretation of the history of the Falklands/Malvinas
By Peter Pepper picked a peck of pickled Pascoe
...was so convincing then why doesn't the US... Australia and just about every other nation in the world not back Britain's sovereignty claim....?”
I say...:
Well..............
Maybe because “Experts” Mr Peter Pepper Picked a Peck and Mr. Pickled Pascoe are mostly known in English circles for 1) Arranging the buffet, 2) Serving the drinks and 3) Taking the pictures at the Falkland Islands Assosiation meetings in London...
By the way..... The same “Falkland Islands Assosiation”that, in their “Resources” page links to MercoPress as being a “FALKLAND ISLANDS NEWS AGENCY” ... ;-)
@138
May 06th, 2014 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now that's a return to form. Keep it snide and avoid anything substantive.
@122 and several other posts, you, THINK, are just one disrespectful SOB. Your only talent - if YOU consider it a talent - is to try to ridicule everyone that does not agree with your one-sided view on everything...the 'brainwashed idiots' side. “I say...you say...blah, blah, blah..”
May 06th, 2014 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@126 Voice , yr ““interpreted by experts in both countries and their views ”.....in other words...opinions....
YES you creep....”OPINIONS”....when and IF _ a big IF - the Rg's have the guts to take the Falkland's sovereignty issue to the ICJ, when the decision is taken once and for all in favour of self-determination, that will be based on the judges, what ?? ...OPINIONS !!...what an old fool you are.
@102, Brasileiro, you too, are a 2nd class fool. Pls shut your stupid mouth. Thanks.
Ooooops, forgot to include the link to the Falkland Islands Association at post (138)...
May 06th, 2014 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.fiassociation.com/index.php/resources/links
Ps...:
ANYBODY in here that can provide “Anything Substantive” about this “Dr. Graham Pascoe and Mr. Peter Pepper” guys....
Seems that the ONLY thing they have EVER published is that..: “Getting it Wrong: A biased interpretation of the history of the Falklands/Malvinas” piece of brainwash...
38 Think
May 06th, 2014 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess you've conceded the issue, since your resorting to an ad homino argumenta. Pascoe and Pepper have never claimed to be unbiased, after all their treatise was a rebuttal to what they believe was falsification of the issues by Argentina. But, whatever their faults inaccuracy isn't one of them, as none of their critics have found anything factually incorrect.
Vox populi has absolutely no legal effect, the only credence it gives is to Argentina's infamous reputation as practitioners of viveza criolla. If there was ever to be a legal determination the only admissible evidence of support would be that in 1833. So it doesn't matter one iota in international law what any countries' opinion on the Islands are at present, as they are excluded from any legal consideration. Which were British sovereignty was universally accepted, while not one country recognized Argentina's claim.
140
May 07th, 2014 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who are you calling a creep you little keyboard warrior fanny......
Call names safely whilst hiding behind a screen...now that's what I call a creep...
You would sh!t yourself in person.....
Now...should I print this in BIG letters so you might understand.....
ALL DECISIONS ARE BASED ON EVIDENCE NOT OPINIONS...YOU FRIGGIN NUMBSKULL.....
BTW...WTF are you doing on here...you never debate...you never have anything of interest to say and you have sh!t for brains...so what is the point...?
Do the thread a favour and fcuk off......
137
“the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain”
Exactly...which means it has no bearing on the Argentine claim and cannot be used as evidence of a British claim.....
....inadmissible as evidence.
143 A_Voice
May 07th, 2014 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the contrary in spite of your sophism the UK could rely on Nootka as evidence of entitlement. So you have tacitly conceded, that Argentina doesn't have one single solitary treaty or a recognisable claim supported by international law, to justify her attempted usurpation.
@141
May 07th, 2014 - 07:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Might I suggest you try the Argentine government, which has now accepted at least two key elements of the Pepper & Pascoe thesis, namely that no civilians were expelled in 1833, and that there was no Argentine claim before 1829?
That should alleviate any legitimate concerns you may have.
What has all this , to do with a cowboy on a horse hoping to be elected.mayor of a Santa Cruz town, its up to him,
May 07th, 2014 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if elected he might even put Santa Cruz up in support of the Falkland's, stranger things have happened..lol
This is excellent news and proof that despite everything geography, and common humanity, is bringing the mainland and the islands closer together. Another win for Cristina's peaceful and anti-imperialist politics =)
May 07th, 2014 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#1 “It would be like calling Timidman a Ukrainian instead of an Argentine citizen, just because he happened to be born in the Ukraine”
If you mean Timmerman, he is the son of a very great Argentine dissident Jacobo Timmerman, sometimes the rightwing Argies on here say he's betrayed his father's legacy (which they probably didn't support in his father's day!), so I doubt he was born in Ukraine. But he might have Ukrainian Jewish ancestry, I don't know, though in fact all Jewish people have every reason to be concerned for Ukraine at the moment with Nazis in the government, put there by the western powers...
@147 “British”? Kirchnerist
May 07th, 2014 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can well see where Argentina gets its dysfunctional warped view of history and supposed entitlement: basically you're just a Southern European (plus other stragglers) immigrant nation with little or no connection to your land in the real historical, folk sense.
Rather funny to see and hear the emotion of people like KFC or Galtieri crying and chest beating about events that happen over century before their ancestors even arrived in South America! No wonder the need to make it up and create some sort of 20th century nation building “malvinas myth” with the need to slay the 'Inglish Pirate Dragon' and all. Funny people you are.
144
May 07th, 2014 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“On the contrary in spite of your sophism the UK could rely on Nootka as evidence of entitlement.”
Evidence of what...?
A treaty between Spain and Britain only (VI)
A Secret Article that excludes other powers from building settlements on the Coast of South America....How many times do I have to tell you...it SPECIFICALLY doesn't mention the ISLANDS.....
How is that admissible evidence...?
You just won't accept the FACTS....it's there plain to see for anyone to read it....
You don't know when you are beat......
Britain has Zero claim to East Falkland, but squatting on it from 1833 onwards and the settlement of East Falklands with an Argentine Governor precedes that....
FACT FACT and now for something different.............FACT!!!
FACT--ICJ.
May 07th, 2014 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You got that right Briton....never happen, nothing trumps self determination these days...;-))
May 07th, 2014 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In spite of being deliberately obtuse, once again Argentine interloping released Briton from from the restraints of article VI.
May 07th, 2014 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of which the parameters are clearly laid out, moreover, fact Argentina's only claim is that of a trespasser since she has no basis
to make any legal claim. Your interpretation is absolutely unsupported by any qualified experts. If push came shove, an adjudicator would consider the interpretations of the experts I have proffered, and your unqualified meanderings wouldn't get the time of day.
Your interpretation is also entirely contrary to the generally accepted view of treaty interpretation, and is an attempt to make an absurdity of the parties intentions .
”The general rule is that a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose.
Introduction to International Law, Robert Beckman and Dagmar Butte, page 4
http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/intlawintro.pdf
We think all countries with a dispute or claim, should take it to the ICJ within one year of registering that claim, or lose that right forever,
May 07th, 2014 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0seems fair to me,..
So now we have it from the horses’ mouth: @ 151 A_Voice about The Dark Country going to the ICJ: “never happen, nothing trumps self determination these days.”
May 07th, 2014 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So just to summarize the topic: YOU LOST!
The Falklands will rightly, as far as I am concerned, remain as they are!
Oh goody, glad we got that sorted out.
154
May 07th, 2014 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have never claimed Argentina would be able to win at the ICJ...as I said, the self determination card appears to trump everything these days....
That is why the UK are pushing it and have stopped referring to the pre-history claims...
I have lost nothing on the topic...without self determination the UK do not have a case of sovereignty based on the treaties concerning East Falkland...all they have is squatting for the last century and a half.....
Just interesting..
May 07th, 2014 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Skylon (spacecraft)
Skylon is a design for a single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane by the British company Reaction Engines Limited (REL). A fleet of such vehicles is envisaged
16 July 2013 the British government pledged £60m to the project
If all goes to plan, the first test flights could happen in 2019, and Skylon could be visiting the International Space Station by 2022
almost 45% more than the capacity of the European Space Agency's ATV vehicle
George Osborne
Said- Just seen SABRE -a rocket engine that cools air from 1000 degrees to -150 in fraction of a second. We're backing the future
SKYLON – Operations
http://vimeo.com/42682980
Watch the video,
Another great British invention.
UK Space Agency
http://vimeo.com/42682980
Another great British institution that ARGENTINA will no doubt try to claim sovereignty over..
Space Admiral CFK at your service..lolol
154
May 07th, 2014 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also in case you thought I'd missed it......
“So just to summarize the topic: YOU LOST!”
...(Also, especially British, sum·ma·rise.)
....bit of an unusual slip for a Brit...don't you think...?...;-)))))
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLIerfXuZ4
DR-WHO
May 07th, 2014 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That who I am.lolol
sorry just had to add that,
A bit of light topic...lol
155. You might want to look up the term squatter and the legal implications that they have under Argentinian ( and most other countries) law.
May 07th, 2014 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can't squat for 150-200 years.
Legally squatters are able to take title after a certain time period or continued occupation of the property.
and I can assure you it it much less than 150 yrs.
155 A_Voice
May 07th, 2014 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's true the British only have treaties that relate to the Islands while Argentina has none. In the scheme of things you totally lost as your humble opinions are unable show any qualified support. Without such support your just another nobody crying in the wilderness. The UK at least can proffer treaties, and international law, while Argentina's claim is based on a failed attempt of theft, as you have tacitly acknowledged. Also you have conceded that your treaty interpretation is refuted by messieurs Beckman and Butte,
The UK doesn't even have to reveal any number of legal rights she can rely on. As you correctly asserted, self-determination being a Charter right is itself a trump card.
@ 157 A_Voice
May 07th, 2014 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please see “Defining features”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling
Voicey @143, touched one of your feeble nerves, didn't I ? in case you didn't understand the first time, YOU are being called a creep. And in your case, being called a creep is hardly an offense, it's more of a compliment.
May 07th, 2014 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And btw, if I ever shat my pants, it wouldn't be because of you...Not that I need the shelter of a screen to feel safe from you, it's just that your screen personality is quite despicable, and sure doesn't bring out the best in anyone....one thing for sure though, if I ever got to know you personally - God forbid - I would definitely not socialize with you.
As for debating with you, there IS no debate...you think are always right, you always have to have the last word....and anyway, this Falkland / Malvinas issue has already been exhausted ....there's no more to talk about - with you RG supporters , it's all just speculation and wishful thinking...Until - and if - the RG's take their claim to the ICJ they should keep quiet.
160
May 07th, 2014 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Also you have conceded that your treaty interpretation is refuted by messieurs Beckman and Butte”
What..???..no I didn't....
”The general rule is that a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose.
Introduction to International Law, Robert Beckman and Dagmar Butte,
There is no mistaking the meaning here....
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.
There is no confusion as to where this refers...THE EASTERN AND WESTERN COASTS OF SOUTH AMERICA
This is referring to the mainland only...
Compare this to article VI....
“It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America AND THE ISLANDS ADJACENT,”
157 A_Voice
May 07th, 2014 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh! how the mighty have fallen, such is the price of arrogance. Well done 161 ChrisR, what's that old adage about those that can do, and those that can't teach. Thats the best chuckle I've had for a long time.
164
May 07th, 2014 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now what are you talking about...?
Did you mean my post @157 where I happened to catch a supposed.... educated in England, Brit through and through using a Yankee spelling.....
It really isn't possible for a Brit of a certain age and English education to slip into Yankee spellings.....
Yet.....
You are just sore because it is plain to anyone that is unbiased..that the Secret Article is totally irrelevant....
Live with it......and try to remove the blinkers.....
#148 The whole point of my post to which you said you were replying, is that Cristinita is the opposite of Galtieri...
May 07th, 2014 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#156 “Space Admiral CFK at your service..”
She'd look good in that role, no? Remember when we discussed if she was more a Padme or a Leia =)
163 A_Voice
May 08th, 2014 - 05:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ah! sophistry yet again as the Secret Article is an subordinent clause to the convention itself, it is an “attachment clause” as it is not a numbered article. Therefore it cannot override the the main convention itself it can only act as to its purpose which is a release of one the parties from all prior treaty constraints. Other wise it would result 'in a meaning incompatible with the spirit, purpose, context for the clause or instrument in which the words are contained.“
Moreover, the secret article states ”Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated...“
Which my dictionary defines stipulated as; ”demand or specify (a requirement),... ...ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from Latin stipulat- ‘demanded as a formal promise,’ from the verb stipulari.“ So the clause itself acknowledges its deference to article IV.
”...the textual approach was adopted in the articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention: the subject of interpretation is the intention as expressed in the text, which ,,shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty“7, unless this ,,results in a meaning incompatible with the spirit, purpose, context for the clause or instrument in which the words are contained.”
http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/99818/treaty-interpretation-in-international-law
167
May 08th, 2014 - 06:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0....that's right...try and weasel out of it with your OPINIONS
“the Secret Article is an subordinent clause ”
“it is an “attachment clause”
” it cannot override the the main convention itself “
Whilst you have your dictionary out why not look up this....
”This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention:”
What part of same force didn't you understand...?
Would that be the same force as article 6.......;-)
It doesn't override article 6 it adds that no other powers shall....blah de blah on the SA mainland only.....
That's what it says ...plain as day......Should've gone to Specsavers....;-)))
Give it up...
It's only opinion that says it means something else.....Are you Johnny Foreigner and can't understand plain English...?
“Same force” isn't “overriding” it means equal, and it is still by the acknowledgment of “Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated...” Which is 'demanded', which means 'peremptory', which means 'Law not open to appeal or challenge'. This convention was written by lawyers for lawyers, these meanings where intended otherwise they they would have chosen something else.
May 08th, 2014 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0But it's rather a moot-point as the only other party that could have a right to advocate such an interpretation is Spain. She chose not to, and as they say the rest is history.
#169 Terence Hill, # 162 Jack Bauer162 (and others):
May 08th, 2014 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“As for debating with you, there IS no debate...you think are always right, you always have to have the last word....and anyway, this Falkland / Malvinas issue has already been exhausted ....there's no more to talk about - with you RG supporters, it's all just speculation and wishful thinking...Until - and if - the RG's take their claim to the ICJ they should keep quiet.”
What we are seeing here is the systematic destruction of Argentina’s historical claim to the Falkland Islands. All the bluster, aggression and shallow arguments based on lies and the incorrect interpretation of various historical treaties and UN resolutions, by the RG supporters is being exposed as a shameful sham. In the end Argentina’s claim comes down to the premise that: “The Islands are ours because they are there and we want them”.
The increasing hysterical posts from the usual suspects on this site are a sure sign that they know they have lost the argument.
If a couple of posters (who have the back ground and ability to argue the legal case) on this site can achieve this, just think what will happen to Argentina’s case if they ever took it a jurisdiction like the ICJ.
This is before we get to the issue of the human rights of the Falkland Islanders, specifically their right to self determination enshrined in the UN charter.
squatter
May 08th, 2014 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0To be fair here,
if we are what argies say, and thus should remove ourselves,
then surely everyone out side of Europe are Squatters on somebody else's land,
and if you with to go further, then everybody out side of Africa must also be squatters,
unless one is only concerned with the British bit, then this would in all fairness be just anti British and raciest[-nasty word-] at worst, what you say..
#171
May 08th, 2014 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“unless one is only concerned with the British bit, then this would in all fairness be just anti British and raciest[-nasty word-] at worst, what you say..”
Sadly, from the point of view of the Argentines who propagate the squatter argument (and that appears to include their president), that is exactly what it is, anti-British sentiment writ large. The inflammatory language that the RGs use when they attack Britain and the Falkland Islander’s says a lot about their attitude towards Britain and the Falklands and the ill will that they harbour.
The status of the original inhabitants notwithstanding, after nearly 200 years of occupation they are no longer squatters but owners, on the other hand, the scant three months that the representatives of the United Provinces of La Plata spent trying to pacify and control the population of the Islands in 1833 means that, at best, they are burglars or usurpers.
But this isn’t about the legal arguments; the smarter Argentines must know that their claim to the Islands from a legal standpoint is specious. This is all about a tiny English speaking territory situated about 300 nm from Argentina in the South Atlantic Ocean that somehow offends their sense of security and stirs up nationalistic hatreds. The fact that the Falklands are blocking their colonial expansion into the South Atlantic and parts of Antarctica further inflames their anger and makes them even more obnoxious. If the Falkland Islands were situated anywhere else in the world (off the coast of Canada, the Caribbean for example), there would be no problem, it is Argentina and their extreme nationalism that is causing the problem.
downunder@172...WELL SAID !
May 08th, 2014 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think, how many generations back can you trace your ancestors in South America?
May 09th, 2014 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 025 Liberato (#)
May 10th, 2014 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0So does this also mean that any Argentines born in so called Argentina become a native of the indigenous people that your lot removed.
Hardly and it certainly does not apply to the Islanders.
As it happens to be British until proven otherwise the Falkland islanders are and will remain part of their British Birth Right.
Argentina has never owned the Falklands they tried to colonise them but that can't be true either because you Argentines are trying to remove so called colonialism are you not.
If you spent as much time caring for your own Country you would not need to try and conquer mine. You are all in our eyes among the greediest people on the planet . You are like spoiled kids .
I believe that even if all of the British territory of the Falklands had not existed your lot would have tried to take something else from a people. That is what you have always done and will likely always be the case. As the saying goes a leopard never changes it's spots.
@174 Don Alberto,
May 10th, 2014 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0lf Think can be believed(& thats a risk we'll have to take, because he's such a lying old scoundrel), he's a first generation RG.
l think he said his parents were Danish.
Knowing Think, the whole lot is probably a tissue of lies, for all we know his parents could be from Outer Mongolia.
@ 176 lsolde
May 11th, 2014 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0The squatter “Think” - or should it be “Thunk”? - does read and write Danish reasonably well, but according to his own criteria he doesn't belong in South America, as a first to fourth generation squatter he is a member of an implanted population - or is the expression 'implanted pollution'?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!