MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands prepare to celebrate 250 years since the Union Jack was first raised
The Falkland Islands are preparing to celebrate in 2015 is the two hundred and fiftieth year since Britain took possession of the Islands, when on January 23, 1765 Commodore John Byron raised the Union flag at Port Egmont on Saunders Island. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesPart of Britain for 250 years and pre-dating the Argentine constitution by 88 years. I look forward to watching, wish I could be there.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did somebody mention 1833?
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm just waiting for Paul's pathetic rant while he attempts to forget for a minute or two his pathetic miserably life.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has been my to raise their flag on the islands for 250 days let alone 250 years.
Losers!
Actually the Claim and First Flag raising on the Islands was a lot earlier - 1690 by Capt John Strong RN at Bold Cove on West Falklands.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 01765 was First British Settlement yes indeed - and a re-raising and renewal of the claim of course.
even Falkland Islands Govt are human and get it a bit wrong at times!
Visited by Desire in 1592. Claimed by Hawkins for Queen Elizabeth I in 1594. First recorded landing in 1690.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Isn't history wonderful :-)
https://www.academia.edu/9418421/Falklands_Wars_-_the_History_of_the_Falkland_Islands_
I bet it will be a good days celebration
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0And the Argentina was where?
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yea and about same they raised the flag on the American Colonies but we took it down in 1776! Whats their point? ;-P
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0@7
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0They were too busy and occupied slaughtering South Americas indigenous people to be worrying about some islands 400 km away. The penny dropped on the Falkland Islands much later, by which time we owned the title deeds. If you snooze, you lose!
Ho no,
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0don't mention 1833, the argies will drown us with epic stories for days lol
Discovered by BRITAIN in 1690. NO-ONE objects. Officially claimed in 1765. NO-ONE objects. In 1769, some useless country tries to object. 1770/71. Useless country submits and PAYS compensation. In 1820 some pirate turns up. In 1833, Britain re-establishes itself and kicks off some trespassers. In 1858, argieland finally becomes a 'country'. In the 30s and 40s of the 20th century, argieland sucks up to Hitler. Progresses on to be war criminals in so many ways. Finally summons up its courage and despatches 66,000 military (?) to try to overcome 80 Royal Marines. How brave! British forces take 54 days to turn argie “troops” into runners. Best 'argieland' has ever managed is 77 days.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argieland is an incredible example of mass psychosis. Is it surprising with so many psychotics? More psychiatrists per head of population than anywhere else in the world. A territory of nutjobs. Shouldn't be allowed. Force them to stay in the asylum. Reduce everything. No food, no fuel, no energy, no imports, no exports, no contacts. Total embargo. No-one allowed in, no-one allowed out.
Livingthenightmare’s still here I see, full of irrelevance as always.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Whats (SIC) their point?”
For you, nothing at all other than it took you eight years to get to a decision.
And from what we see from outside your country you are still fighting each other.
Anyway, enough of the idiot.
I think I can hear scweeming from the Pink Whore House, at least that’s a result.
Quote: “The Falkland Islands are preparing to celebrate in 2015 is the two hundred and fiftieth year since Britain took possession of the Islands”
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0mmm took possession of the islands? really? how can britain take possession of a land already taken?.
Conqueror, quote: “Officially claimed in 1765”.
But how can britain claim land already claimed by another power (France) that recognized the prior sovereignty right of another power (Spain)?
You british are full of lies and want to rewrite history as you like. Be my guess, fool you own citizens with that lie, i dont care, but dont try to fool the world, it aint gonna delist the islands from the colony list of the UN. Grow up and decolonize the islands.
The british were not the first to discover the islands, nor the first to claim the islands, nor the first to settle the islands, nor the first to administer the islands so i dont know what the heck are you gonna celebrate.
@13 But the Islands are a BOT. Which makes everything you say irrelevant.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can never have them. That must drive you crazy.
perhaps you would prefer if Spain celebrates the Spanish Falkland's , and Spanish Argentina and Chile,
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0whichever way you deal it, it was never argentine and never will be full stop.
Only ONE troll so far! They must be looking at THEIR “false” accounts in order to come in with all guns blazing. NABOS!
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very true ha ha .
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@13: “it aint gonna delist the islands from the colony list of the UN. Grow up and decolonize the islands.”
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The legitimate inhabitants of the Falkland Islands have exercised their right to self-determination as is required under the UN Charter.
The Falklands *are* decolonised by those rules - that's undisputable.
The only reason the Falkland Islands are not removed from the C24 list already is solely due to Argentina's representatives, who insist on pushing the Malvinas lie and demanding their claim be considered.
“You british are full of lies and want to rewrite history as you like.”
Really? We can back up our claim, Argentina can't. Hypocrite much?
Argentine trolls to Controller “ what do we do?” Controller “ Bring up 1833 again” Trolls “ But we aleady have, they keep refuting it” Controller “ Bring it up again” And so it goes on, round and round the radical road the radical rascal ran.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Liberato
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0France didn't claim the Falklands. The settlement was a private enterprise by de Bougainville. Spain then paid de Bougainville 618,108 livres, thirteen sols and eleven deniers on October 4th 1766 for them, the handover being made in 1767. The Spanish 'governor' then left the islands less than 4 weeks later. If the islands were Spanish why did they pay for them? why not just boot the French out. The British re-iterated their claim on 22nd Jan 1765 stating “..tho' they had been before taken possession of by Sir Richard Hawkins in the year 1593”.
Liberato - Quick one then.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What date did Spain -hoist its flag and formally claim the Islands?
What year please?
Britain landed and did it in 1690 - Historical logged recorded documented fact.
@liberato (13) - “Grow up and decolonize the islands”
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess your recommendation is the British “decolonising” of the Falkland Islands and then the colonising of Argentina?
14: The islands are a bot only to the british eyes. International status of the Malvinas are a non self governing territory.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 015: Chile and Argentina was in fact spanish. We are not refusing history like you.
18: The islands can only be decolonized under UN rules for decolonization. Not by rules that the colonial power thinks apply to its inhabitants in the islands. And the UN decolonization committe cant decolonize the islands as long as there is not a solution to the sovereignty dispute.
20: In 1764, the french formally claimed sovereignty for the king Louis XV and the bougainville expedition was under their king's instructions. This is also recognized by british texts.
The french recognized a spanish prior right under a family pact with Spain, and Spain compromised to pay for the enterprice maid by France in stablishing the colony.
21: in 1766 if i recall correctly. But Spain didnt need to hoist its flag. By the treaty of ultrech and the papall bull those islands were recognized as part of the spanish crown.
@23 Liberato
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How did the Argentines claim Patagonia? Ans: Through Conquest and Subjugation a perfectly legal mode of acquiring title to territory right up to the early 20th century. Then add 'Treaty of Peace of 1850' 'immemorial possession' 'Extinctive Prescription' and 'Acquiescence' and there you have it - no sovereignty case just an illegitimate claim.
Liberato
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lie number 1: The international community does not recognise the “malvinas” as a non-self governing territory.
The International community recognises the Falklands (Malvinas) as a Non-Self-governing territory.
Lie Number 2:
Most importantly and ignored by you....The UN decolonization committee tried (AND FAILED) to make a sovereignty dispute a block on resolving decolonization. THIS WAS REJECTED BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITY OF THE UNGA....60 votes to 40 in 2008. Sorry you missed it.
So, with the sovereignty dispute REJECTED as a reason for “self-determination” not to be applied, it is therefore the UN Charter that is applicable.
tHE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FULLY SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO SELF_DETERMINATION OF THE PEOPLE OF NSGT's.
FULL STOP.
The people of the Falklands have elected to be a British Overseas territory by 99.8% to 0.02%.
It could certainly be argued that Spain and France at various times had sovereignty of the islands. It could BE ARGUED.
NONE OF THESE ISLAND INHABITANTS EVER BECAME ARGENTINE...NONE.
Where else on the planet has someone claimed “inheritance” from someone who could only argue they had sovereignty, based on NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE INHABITANTS becoming a civilian of the new country.
Ludicrous claim.
Noboby on the islands wants to be Argentine
Argentina has never had sovereignty except by force in 1832 for six weeks and 1982 for 6 weeks“
Argentina did not ”inherit” the islands from Spain
No islander was evicted in 1833
your history is full of lies...even stuff which has happened in the last few years
Yes. Still British today. Looks like they are planning on being British for a long time to come too.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jog on, Argentina. Jog on!
@ 25 Monkeymagic
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina has never had sovereignty except by force in 1832 for six weeks and 1982 for 6 weeks“
This is not the case.
Argentina only took possession for the six weeks may be true for 1832 but not 1982. Possession is not sovereignty and the argies were repulsed (or as I prefer it: handed their arses on a plate) from the islands so uti possidetis (which would tend to confer sovereignty) does not apply.
23 Liberato
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SIMPLE
no argument , no fuss , no lies , no bullshit,
SIMPLE LIBERATO,
TAKE IT TO THE ICJ
simple is it not....
1690 was a good year for Viscount Falkland.....324 years ! The area which is now Argentina, still belonged to the inhabitants in 1690 ,...but who,sadly ...have ...all disappeared ! just like the 35'000 who went missing in the 70's
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some still say,
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0that Sir Francis drake landed their in the late 1590s,
who knows...
Still only ONE troll! And, boy, has he taken a battering - no wonder none of the other NABOS are daring to show their presence.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 024:QUOTE: “How did the Argentines claim Patagonia? Ans: Through Conquest and Subjugation a perfectly legal mode of acquiring title to territory right up to the early 20th century”.
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you admit that conquest and subjugation was the way britain took the islands?. Conquest and subjugation was not a legal way to adquire sovereignty.
Treaty of Peace of 1850?. What about the recognition of the argentine independence in 1825 without making a protest for the argentine claim and administration of the islands before the british invasion?.
'immemorial possession'? 'Extinctive Prescription”? Acquiescence?. There was no immemorial possession of the islands by britain, nor an extinctive prescription nor an acquiescence. Its been 181 years since the british invaded, and its administration of the islands was not unprotested or without any interruption from Argentina. So no acquiescence, no immemorial possession and no extintive prescription.
What is clear is that, for more than 50 years, the spanish and later the argentines administered the islands alone without british government, protest or military forces until 1833, the day when the invasion of britain started.
Cheers
@ 32 Liberato
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1850 Treaty of Peace prevails along with 'extinctive prescription' and 'acquiescence.' Your politicians keep rattling on about an usurped population in 1833 (4 settlers that chose to return to SA), and as I have clarified , Conquest and Subjugation was a perfectly legal mode of obtaining territory back then. Argentina has had 92 years to take its case to the PCIJ/ICJ and has failed and no longer has a case just an illegitimate claim. The right to self-determination prevails and has now been regarded as 'jus cogens' by the UN International Law Commission.
Liberato
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whether or not the Spanish administered the islands is irrelevant...NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE SPANIARDS BECAME ARGENTINE...NONE.
Argentina did not administer the islands...it is a lie.
The Vernet community is not Argentine. Vernet left in 1831 leaving two Britons in charge, it was a business, with permission from both Argentina and Britain to be there. STOP LYING.
The only Argentines representing the government were the crew of the SS Sarandi who arrived in November 1832. They mutineed, murdered, raped and were evicted after six weeks.
You know your argument is weak, that's why you lie...LIAR.
Shame you are a LIAR.
@32
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was no protest about the Argentine claim and prior administration in 1825, because there was no Argentine claim or administration in 1825. A claim was only made by Vernet in 1829, which fact is recorded in the submission of the Argentine delegation to the C24 in June 2012.
Not that any of this is relevant in the light of 20th century international law.
Liberto
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'A State which has ceased to exercise any authority over a territory cannot, by purely verbal protestations, indefinitely maintain its title against another which for a sufficiently long time has effectively exercised its powers and fulfilled the duties of sovereignty in it.' Former Jurist and Head of the ICJ, Charles de Visscher. It's called extinctive prescription - you have 30 years to present a case and Argentina's time was up 30 years after the formation of the world courts in 1922. Nooooo case, just an illegitimate claim.
Liberato - none of your fellow citizens/trolls even bother to support your mythical claims. I wonder why? Could it be that your claims are totally absurd?
Dec 03rd, 2014 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Libertard - can I just refer you to the title of the article?
Dec 04th, 2014 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0-Falklands prepare to celebrate 250 years since the Union Jack was first raised-
In 250 years Argentina has done nothing, achieved nothing. Don't you think it is time to go quietly into the night? You have failed. Time to accept it, and move on. You could achieve so much more if you didn't spend so much energy on a battle that you can't win.
If not, you are welcome to look foolish and weak for another 250 years. When you are done, come back for another 250 years. I expect though, that another 25 years of your normal economic cycles will be enough to destroy Argentina, as we know it now...
Collective madness, on your part.
Look forward to another Type-45 Destroyer arriving in the South Atlantic soon.
I look forward to more impotent posturing from your Gov.
Such fun!
You guys are exactly as your government. You have no idea of history and the law when you claim that conguest and subjugation was legal at that time. Your government claim sovereignty based on self determination rights, while in the whole history of the dispute they tried everything. First they tried discovery, it didnt work becouse Davis or hawkings accounts of events were vague and inaccurate. Without mention that Spain discovered them earlier and while many discredited the spanish discovery too, the only discovery well documented and recognized by both parts was the one of Sebald De Weert in 1600.
Dec 04th, 2014 - 03:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0First claim and occupation. The first to claim and settle the islands were the french, that recognized spanish prior rights and ceded the colony. So the british could not claim discovery either.
The british settled in the islands for a few years while the islands were not empty and left in 1774, so they cant claim Res nullius either.
From 1774 to 1811 the spanish administered the islands alone without british protests. From that date on, in 1820, jewett takes formal possesion of the islands in the name of Argentina, delivering a proclaim to all ships in there. James Weddell when back in London informed the government. London of course did not protested and signed a treaty of amity commerce and navigation with the new independent state in 1825 without mention again, no british rights or claim over Malvinas.
The first british protest came in 1829. 1829 are 55 years since they left their brief and secret settlement.
So as discovery, claim or settlement did not favour the british story, they tried with acquiescence. But acquiescence is what they did with the british acquiescence of more than 50 years of spanish and argentine administrations without a british protestm while argentine not only protested since they were invaded but they also interrupted the british colonial administration in 1982.
So as it did not work either, now they sustain in a selfdetermination rights.
History is just that, history.
Dec 04th, 2014 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's 2014. Catch up with the current world Liberato.
The Islands are British and not Argentine.
There is no plausible scenario where the Islands will become Argentine.
None. So suck it up and celebrate this 250th anniversary.
5 Lord Ton ”Isn't history wonderful :-)”
Dec 04th, 2014 - 04:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed Roger indeed :-)
Written in England:
The British Empire
“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 who tried to limit the whole-scale slaughter of seals which were in danger of being made extinct on the islands. A penal colony was also established on the island”
History, natch!
Dec 04th, 2014 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Look at the current situation. The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory.
Fact.
Current Fact.
What can Argentina do?
Nothing.
Nothing militarily or nor politically.
So try the ICJ, it is the last chance.
Fine, do it. The UK would welcome it.
The Argentines can continue shouting in the dark whilst their economy collapses, none of their 'lat-am brethern' cares.
Argentina is alone.
Blah blah blah Marcos.
Dec 04th, 2014 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's 2014. Pull your head out of your arse and see the reality of TODAY.
The Islands are British. And there's NOTHING you can do to change it.
@35 Liberato Under the law of the time, 'the Law of Nations' in order to claim territory you have to have a 'settlement' . Jewett merely visited the Islands and Vernet set up 'his settlement' not UP's. And then the settlement must be in place 'for a number of years.' Again in reference to Vernet, he had British permission to set up a business venture and then when he was given 'status' by the UP the British protested so in this respect, Argentina's claims are irrelevant. Just another reason why Argentina has not taken its illegitimate sovereignty claims to the ICJ. 92 years is a lot of acquiescence and certainly qualifies as 'extinctive prescription.'
Dec 04th, 2014 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0As has been explained in great detail by other posters, the Falkland Islands had been ‘discovered’ claimed , settled and disputed by France, Spain and Britain a long time before 1820 when the ‘declared’ independent United Province of La Plata made its first attempt to join the queue and establish a presence on the islands. By this time the Falklands were already claimed by Britain (vigorously) and by Spain, although Spain never reasserted her rights after withdrawing her settlement in 1811.
Dec 04th, 2014 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina asserts that the Spanish rights have passed to her but this is just an assertion; there was no direct transfer by Spain of any rights to the Islands. So Argentina has no rights to the Islands and attempts by the United Province to assert rights were just an illegal attempt to ‘implant a population and to squat.
Various attempts by Vernet to found a colony failed partly because foreign vessels operating from the Islands refused to accept the authority of the United Province. Thus the Ups claim was disputed diplomatically by Britain and on the ground by the itinerants who refused to accept that, suddenly, their exclusive rights to cattle and fisheries in the Islands was being challenged by a ‘country’ that, at the time, hardly anybody recognised.
The country that eventually became Argentina was trying to take territory that didn’t belong to it and no amount of spin. myth and misinterpretation of treaties and agreements change that.
It was Argentina that attempted piracy and squatting, but, as always, failed badly!
no other
Dec 04th, 2014 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Single Sky: EU members respond to bid for Gib exclusion with call for Anglo-Spanish solution
resulted in Britain being pushed towards talking with Spain
Spain wants the entire agreement to reflect the position as at the time of the 1987 Airport Agreement – Gibraltar out unless it agrees Spain shares use of the airport under the terms of that long rejected arrangement.
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=35107
As long as we are in and under the control of our European masters,
Are we seeing the last years of British control over Gibraltar,
Will the weak British government cave in, and give Spain some control,
Will Gibraltar throw this out,
If Britain is bullied and cajoled into submission over Gibraltar, who will be next,
Or is this just bluster from Spain, and will we and Gibraltar have nothing to worry abt,
Interesting future,
Just an opinion..
perhaps Argentina will yet get its chance..
@39, @41, @45
Dec 04th, 2014 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0A newspaper report of a sailor's claim of a pirate captain claiming to have claimed the islands on behalf of a country recognised by nobody does not confer sovereignity under any sane legal system.
If there had been some official follow-up by the UP, the claim argument might have some validity, but as things stand there was no UP claim until British tenant Vernet got himself appointed UP governor in 1829, at which point the UP was immediately warned off.
Entertaining though all this may be, none of it is relevant in 2014. Whatever happened in the 1820's was rendered moot by the Treaty of 1850, by Argentina's signature of the UN Charter in 1945, its signature of GA 1514 in 1960, its repudation of GA 2065 in 1982, its refusal to seek legal redress since 1922, its lost war of aggression in 1982, and its refusal of dialogue with the population it seeks to annex.
47#
Dec 04th, 2014 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interestingly, in 1831 after Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington arrested the Argentines on the Islands, destroyed the battery and armaments and declared the islands free of all government (on the grounds that UP had no right to the Islands), Vernet resigned his UP granted position as governor and told the British Consul General in BA that he would like the British Government to take his settlement under their protection. This is exactly what happened.
“and its refusal of dialogue with the population it seeks to annex.
This is undoubtedly Argentina’s biggest mistake, its belligerence towards the Islanders has convinced them that they have no future with Argentina and without the islander’s acquiescence; Argentina’s territorial ambitions in the Falklands and south Atlantic are doomed.
42: The current international status of the islands is that the islands are a non self governing territory, a colony which sovereignty is dispute between Argentina And the uk. Regardless of what the uk says, even the US recognize there is a de facto government. Do you know what de facto means?.
Dec 04th, 2014 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 044: britbob, Argentinas right of sovereignty did not came as a separate state from Spain. It is a derivative from the spanish crown colony. however, Argentina reclaimed the islands in 1820 and continued the spanish settlement.
The british settled the islands for a few years while they were occupied by another power. Whats that tells you?.
45: Not only spanish rights was transferred through uti possidetis, but the british recognized our independence after we reclaimed the islands and after more than 50 of no british presence or protest with respect to the islands.
47: you are a little bit confused. I recomend you to go to the UN webpage and search res 1514, 2065 and read them both and then investigate who voted against those resolutions and who voted in favour of those resolutions. It will makes you a picture of who was favoured by those resolutions and who was not.
Sr. Liberato: I have a question for you, if the government of 1833 was so fanatical about the Falklands/Malvinas, why did they do absolutely nothing about it after the Sarandí troops returned to Buenos Aires? There was no British military presence in the Islands until 1841, so we had 8 years of totally free time to implant an Argentine population on the Islands. Why did we do nothing about it?
Dec 04th, 2014 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Could it be that we really had accepted that the Brits had (and still have) sovereignty????????
@49
Dec 04th, 2014 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, I don't know. When your aim is to subject a people to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation, it's not too clever to sign up to a text that says :
“1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Likewise, it's not too bright to respond to a resolution calling for dialogue and peaceful settlement by starting a war because you don't like what you're hearing in dialogue.
@50
It's also telling that the 1850 Treaty was signed a mere 17 years after the supposed usurpation, and there is not even a hint of any reservation, far less this righteous outrage of two centuries later.
@49 Liberato
Dec 04th, 2014 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was no established settlement on the islands in 1820. Jewett only visited the islands and Vernet set up ''his'' settlement only later receiving an appointment from the UP in BA. Spain was not in a position to hand over sovereignty to Argentina because it had abandoned its settlement and was not in a position to hand over sovereignty to something they did not possess. Uti possidetis juris was never recognised by the European Powers nor Brazil. UPJ has never been applied in any international tribunal 'without the consent of both parties.'
92 Years of inaction through the competency of the world courts system means that Argentina has acquiesced to British possession under 'extinctive prescription' and has no sovereignty case.
Liberato
Dec 04th, 2014 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are lying again...please stop.
Argentina DID NOT CONTINUE THE SPANISH COLONY. That is a lie.
Not one single solitary one of the Spaniards became Argentine...Not one....Not a continuation then
Not a single solitary Argentine lived on the islands at all in 1821-1826...Not an Argentine colony then
Vernet was a businessman, who left in 1831 leaving two British guys in charge. If he was Argentinas representative, he left the British in charge voluntarily...Are you sure you want to go that way...?
So, as always the only official Argentine governor sent to the Falklands is Esteban mestevier, who was murdered by his own crew. This crew was evicted by the British in Jan 1833 after 6 weeks.
There are flaws in the British claim, but then there are signidficant flaws in the Argentine claim for Argentina, especially Patagonia...but all of it. There are flaws in any claim anywhere in the Americas.
However, there is NO ARGENTINE CLAIM. It is nonsense, 6 weeks in 1832, including a mutiny a murder and a rape...
Should be a source of humiliation, no asource of national obsession
Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington arrested the Argentines on the Islands, destroyed the battery and armaments
Dec 04th, 2014 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 049---should you guys not be hating the yanks as well, for attacking argentines and kicking you off....lolol
or are you just to cowardly to pick on the big guys,
and just pick on the little guys like Britain,lol
@ 54 Briton
Dec 04th, 2014 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I just WISH these craven cretins would pick on the British but only when we get somebody with working balls instead of the present lot.
Sometimes I find it difficult to see any light between Cmaoron and several of the argies. They ALL seem to be lying shit filled cretins.
@ 49 Liberato
Dec 04th, 2014 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentinas right of sovereignty did not came as a separate state from Spain. It is a derivative from the spanish crown colony. however, Argentina reclaimed the islands in 1820 and continued the spanish settlement.”
The Spanish garrisons on the Falkland Islands were supplied from Montevideo.
Is Montevideo in Argentina?
If Jewitt claimed the Islands for the UP, why did he later fight for Brazil against Argentina? Odd behaviour?
“The british settled the islands for a few years while they were occupied by another power. Whats that tells you?.”
It tells me that after the Spanish evicted the British from Port Egmont in 1770, to avoid a full scale war with Britain, they signed a treaty that shared the islands with Britain-therefore Spain were entitled to be on the Islands at the same time as Britain-in the agreement, third parties were not to be allowed on the Islands.
In 1832, the United Provinces (as they were not Spain) were a third party.
Please explain that if the Spanish transferred possession of the Falklands to the United Provinces, why Spain did not recognise the United Provinces/Argentina till the mid 19th century, and perhaps you can explain why in 1863, the Spanish visited Stanley and saluted the Union Jack-all rather strange behaviour for a country that had transferred the Falklands to Argentina?
“but the british recognized our independence after we reclaimed the island”
Your first claim (according to your presentations to the C24) was Vernet's in 1829 which was protested by the British (and ignored by the United Provinces).
The British recognition of UP independence was in 1825, when there was no settlement of the Islands.
“nd search res 1514, 2065 and read them both”
What part of 'with the implementation of independence for colonial peoples' do you not understand?
Liberato
Dec 04th, 2014 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain may or may not have discovered the islands. argentina certainly did not
Britain may or may not have made the first landing on the islands. Argentina certainly did not.
Britain may or may not have sovereignty of some or all the islands in the 18th century. Argentina certainly did not.
All of the British who lived on the islands in the 18th century remained British, not one of the Spanish on the islands in the 18th century became Argentine.
Therefore based on every single possible measure, the islands prior to 1811 are FAR FAR more British than Argentine. 1-0
In 1820 it is claimed that Jewitt landed on the islands and claimed them for the UP, and then left. In the 1820s numerous British ships landed on the islands and maintained British claims. 2-0
In 1829 Luis Vernet accepted the title of “pseudo governor” for the UP, whilst also maintaining a stance to the British that his interests were only commercial and he took no position on sovereignty. I'll give you that one, Vernet was dishonest and a charlatan so had greater Argentine characteristics. 2-1
In 1831 Luis Vernet left the islands voluntarily and passed control of his interest to two Britons Dickson and Brisbane. 3-1
In November 1832, the only ever Argentine governor arrived, and took control of the islands. 3-2
In December 1832 the crew of the Sarandi murdered Mestevier, mutineed, and raped the governors wife in front of his children, killing the Argentine authorised person. 4-2
In January 1833, the HMS Clio arrived, evicted the crew of the Sarandi and returned control of the Vernet business to Brisbane and Dickson, and restored British sovereignty. 5-2
In 1841 a full British colony was restored on the islands. 6-2 to Britain
Between 1833-1982 there were 150 years of peaceful settlement of British sovereignty on the islands 6-0
In 1982 Argentina invaded the islands leading to the deaths of 1000 people.argentina committed war crimes. GAME SET MATCH
55 ChrisR
Dec 05th, 2014 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0you may well be right,
it will be interesting to see how much cutbacks this government has in store for the military, if they get to power,
considering they will ring fence the NHS.
we hope they don't get back in.
@58 And who is the “ we ” Are you speaking for the whole of the UK, we could do worse , we could have Ed Milliband as leader. Anyway the electorate of the “ whole ” of the UK will decide in May
Dec 05th, 2014 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0We could have Ed Milliband as leader
Dec 05th, 2014 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At the rate we are going,
We could well end up with Nicola Sturgeon,
But remember, none of them are any bloody good,
British MPs in the last couple of decades are of self interest only,
A case of,
Sod you im all right jack…lol
.
Yes, we could have the Labour Party who led us earlier and deeper into recession than any of our Western European counterparts, or the Conservative Party who who led us out quicker and stronger than any of our western European Counterparts.
Dec 05th, 2014 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its a toughie.....
Who ever wins,
Dec 05th, 2014 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and we all hope its the one you voted for,
we will have to put up with them for 5 years ...
@ 61 Monkeymagic
Dec 05th, 2014 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Its a toughie.....”
It certainly is when you realise that Osborne is still floundering though he reckons that “in a few years” the current losses will reduce and not keep adding to the biggest debt we have ever had, except that will be the case with the interest we have to pay. Cracking, except he was convinced from the start that he would pay down the debt. I think he must have been the ONLY ONE who thought that.
And STILL they don’t want out of the EU!
UKIP, I am convinced, will hold the balance of power after the next elections: the UK can then leave the idiots in Europe to their own fate.
@63 ChrisR
Dec 06th, 2014 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, the Conservatives are convinced that a vote for UKIP will result in a Labour government, however, they ignore the fact that Labour are also losing votes to UKIP so it is quite possible that UKIP might hold the balance of power and I doubt Labour would enter into a coalition with UKIP.
@ 64 Pete Bog
Dec 06th, 2014 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pete! Who would have thought The Cunt Brown © Jeremy Clarkson 2010 would have made a pact with the Lib-Dems which is exactly what he tried?
IF Labour get anywhere, and that seems unlikely at the moment, they will grab Farage with both arms.
Both the main parties have demonstrated all they want is to get in power at any price, Farage and UKIP are on a winner here.
We thinks the conservatives went out for a drink,
Dec 07th, 2014 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0got pissed , and thinks they have recovered,
they have not, they are still drunk and in love with the imaginary EU,
by the time they wake up ??
it will be May, the election will be under way, and it will be far to late to alter or change anything,
if , buts , come may, we will all find out,
but for my pennies worth, I want UKIP to have an influence in the outcome...
For liberato
Dec 08th, 2014 - 02:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0You may be interested to read this
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/Outdated-GettingItRight.pdf
gordo1, that “getttingitright” that would be a british somehow “correction” of the argentine claim has so much incorrections, with part of history hidden, with part of history distorted, that i could be all day describing you the errors in that fanatical paper made by those british indoctrinated fools.
Dec 09th, 2014 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Starting with the picture in page 1 and its description, those ruins do not belongs to the first permament settlement of the islands and do not mention the first in claiming the islands or the first in dicovers them. It shows the supossedly first british settlement of port egmont that was made hidden from the one France created and hidden from Spain who considered them theirs. And mention John Byron who was not the first claiming the islands, was not the first to settle them and was not the discover of them nor the representant of the nation who discovered them.
So only in the first picture, that pdf documents shows a moment of history that is totally irrelevant to claim or legitimate sovereignty rights.
68# “So only in the first picture, that pdf documents shows a moment of history that is totally irrelevant to claim or legitimate sovereignty rights.”
Dec 11th, 2014 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Getting it right” is not claiming that the ruins depicted in the picture were the first settlement on the Falklands, but it is proof of the first permanent British settlement on the Falklands. This settlement predates the first attempt by Argentina to establish a permanent settlement by around 60 years. In fact a strong argument can be mounted that Argentina has NEVER been able to establish a permanent presence on the Falklands, it failed because the Islands were already spoken for and its somewhat feeble attempts to implant a population were short lived and vigorously opposed diplomatically and on ground in the Islands.
“spanish rights was transferred through uti possidetis..”
There is no point in just quoting uti possidetis as if merely naming this principle is sufficient argument for Argentine claim to the Falklands. How does this principle apply in a dispute between Britain and Argentina? You need to explain yourself, join the dots, otherwise your readers will believe that you are mindlessly regurgitating Argentine propaganda.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!