MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Despite Falklands issue, Argentina interested in bilateral trade agreement with UK
Argentina would be interested in negotiating a bilateral free-trade agreement with the U.K. as it prepares to leave the European Union, potentially turning around harsh relations between the two countries. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesGood heavens. A whole article where the mythical “Malvinas” word wasn't mentioned. Someone in Argentina must be feeling unwell today
Dec 16th, 2016 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse +6Argentina has already been working bilaterally with the U.K. on a number of matters but, before launching trade negotiations, pending issues related to a long-standing dispute over the Falklands Islands need to be solved, Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra said in Buenos Aires.
Dec 16th, 2016 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse +7What is in dispute?
Falklands: 1833 Usurpation & UN Resolutions:
https://www.academia.edu/21721198/Falklands_1833_Usurpation_and_UN_Resolutions
On 20 October 2008 the United Nations General Assembly rejected a motion from Spain and Argentina to place restrictions on the right to self-determination determining that it was a fundamental right. - the islanders get to determine how and by whom they are governed.
Why do they want a bilateral deal rather than going through Mercosur? Not sure there's much point try to make a deal with Argentina when it's only a matter of time until another hostile government is elected, and any agreement scrapped.
Dec 16th, 2016 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“ but, before launching trade negotiations, pending issues related to a long-standing dispute over the Falklands Islands need to be solved, Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra said in Buenos Aires.”
Dec 16th, 2016 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +5What needs to be solved is Argentina's head stuck in the sand. It needs to be extracted so they can see through their own bullshit. You can't get sovereignty over the Falklands amigos, because everything you claim is built on a foundation of sinking sand. Every part of the claim can be countered, legally, historically and according to UN beaurocracy. That's why Argentina gives the ICJ a wide berth. Therefore according to that there won't be a trade agreement. Ah well, same as, same as. Carry on folks.
Just because its Christmas, does not mean Argentina will get the early Christmas present
Dec 16th, 2016 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +4it thinks it will get,
the only way the Falkland's island dispute will be settled, is if Argentina drops its fake claim,
Perhaps Argentina should give the islanders the best present ever and drop its claim forever.
Merry Xmas...
Argentina has in the recent past made formal agreements with the UK involving the Falklands in which both parties specifically excluded any linkage to sovereignty over the islands. If Argentina were to get some responsible adults in government, the same sort of limited-scope agreements could be achieved again, and for the benefit of both parties. This isn't rocket surgery, pibes.
Dec 16th, 2016 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Mercopress Error- please correct: No agreement that allows flights from Argentina agreed nor likely to happen.
Dec 16th, 2016 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +6What was agreed was the possibility of an additional weekly flight to the Islands from either Brazil or Chile(by a non Argentine airline) - which would - once a month- do a landing each way at an Argentine airport on that route.
The UK should not commit too much effort to establish a relationship with Argentina until that sad nation agrees to withdraw its claims to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. After all, the claim consists of fairy tales, myths, lies and mistaken interpretations of historical events. They even believe that a “bula” of Pope Alexander VI - the Borgia pope - which “awarded” the newly discovered lands of America to Spain and Portugal is a valid part of their claim¡
Dec 16th, 2016 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Would that be the Papal Bull that the British adhered to concerning the rest of South America..?
Dec 16th, 2016 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Or have you never wondered why the British claimed only the Northern parts of the Americas...
“but, before launching trade negotiations, pending issues related to a long-standing dispute over the Falklands Islands need to be solved, Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra said in Buenos Aires.”
Dec 16th, 2016 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Is that “Argentine speak” for, ‘we are dropping our fraudulent claim to the Falklands and we apologize for the way we have treated the Islanders’ Because that is the only way long lasting rapprochement between the UK, Argentina and the Falklands is going to occur.
That Papal Bull covered ALL the Americas - do try to learn before spouting Voice
Dec 16th, 2016 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +4@ Voice
Dec 16th, 2016 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +4No, I've never wondered that since Britain also had colonies in Guyana, Belize, and a lot of Caribbean Islands. The Americas were never the Pope's to give away anyway.
What a fitting name for anything that came of Europe since 1492...
Dec 17th, 2016 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse -6BULL.
That pretty much sums up the European nations and their contributions to the world since that time and up to 1945. And like I've said in the past, and people like Elaine and others said I was daft, the relative “quiescence” of the period after 1945 is just a blip on a lurid 3000 year history of endless war, persecution, and genocide in that mostly forsaken continent.
No one could deny now that what we are seeing all over Europe are the pre-shocks of the next Big One.
Britain adhered to it alright...
Dec 17th, 2016 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse -6Papal bulls from 1450's to 1490's
First British settlement...1607...Jamestown pretty close to South America...not...
What was stopping them...?
Any suggestion of Britain's adherence to papal anything in New World colonisation is just bull. The initial concentration of British effort in the northern hemisphere coincided with its limited ability to compete in large-scale military confrontations with Spain.
Dec 17th, 2016 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse +5Britain provided assistance to then-Spanish colonies that helped to release them from Spanish control, and then to some degree took the place of Spain in the economies of the new republics in Latin America. Britain provided capital investment, expertise, technology, and markets throughout most of the continent while generating wealth and thus gaining much of the value of “empire” but without the unnecessary costs and burdens of formal control and governance of large regions.
So nothing at all to do with... at the time of the bulls England was a Catholic country and recognised the papal “auctoritas” of the medieval system which gave the Pontiffan ascendancy over the Christian princes....?
Dec 17th, 2016 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse -4Or..
Treaty of Madrid ofJuly 8118,1670.
Article 8 thereof provided that the subjects of the British king shall not navigate nor engage in commerce in ports and places held by the Catholic king and vice versa..
Treaty of Madrid of March 27, 1713. This was a preliminary treaty of peace which followed the well-known Assiento Treaty of March 26, 1713 by which the South Sea Company had been given the monopoly of slave trade in Spanish America. Article 14 thereof provided that the British Crown had agreed to promulgate the strongest prohibitions “under the most rigorous penalties, that no ship of the English nation shall venture to pass to the South Sea” or engage in commerce in any places in the Spanish Indies except for slave trade which could be carried out only in the northern ports and in Buenos Aires..
@ Voice
Dec 17th, 2016 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse +3“ First British settlement...1607...Jamestown pretty close to South America...not...”
No. Wrong. First British settlement in South America was 1604 along the Waiapoco River in what is now the frontier between Brazil and French Guiana.
What a rabbit hat full of cock of bull.
Dec 17th, 2016 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse -5Well, Britain may have helped some other countries in Latin America with their independence, who knows, what we all know is that Britain wanted to COLONIZE Argentina. Marti Llazo as usual displaying his ridiculous veneering of history. Britain tried twice and got their asses kicked twice, pleading for truce on the 2nd attempt under humiliating terms (they couldn't even keep their ensign flag!).
The defeat was not perpetrated by the Spanish, who has basically left the River Plate to fend for itself, but it was a bunch of civilian militias, which wold become Argentines only 3 years later.
So please stop the rewriting of history. That may work in British and American schools which are notorious for their atrocious accounts of historical events, but doesn't work outside the Anglosphere.
Failed settlement...A privateer Charles Leigh in search of El Dorado..
Dec 17th, 2016 - 03:08 am - Link - Report abuse -5“The combination of hostile Spanish and Portuguese authorities, Dutch commercial rivalry, disease and unpredictable local populations doomed the early settlement.”
You do spout some cock & bull voice. Try educating yourself - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/2-1480-to-1768.pdf
Dec 17th, 2016 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse +3'...why the British claimed only the Northern parts of the Americas...' well, looking at the modern North and South America, I would say someone had a crystal ball in the C17 and clearly saw into the future, so I guess they were right to concentrate mostly on North America ;-).
Dec 17th, 2016 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse +4Question time - who were the first two countries to breach the Pope's Bull? :-)
Dec 17th, 2016 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse +3Lord Ton
Dec 17th, 2016 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I am not going to follow your own link and add more visits than you deserve for your biased interptetation of events...
If you have an argument along the lines of...England wasn't a Catholic country at the time...or England sent objections dismissing the Papal Bulls as wrong or not applicable...
...but you don't, do you...?
...answer your own question, but I'm guessing it wasn't a Catholic monarchy one...
Or better still, tell us how many years Britain didn't breach or object to the Papal Bull...
Over a century...?
In a historical context it was just as valid or binding as any other treaties...
So it is not nonsense to mention them and was the whole basis of why the French had to relinquish the islands to the Spanish and why the Spanish removed the British from the Islands..
Voice- back in those eras nobody from Europe really bothered about what some old fart from Rome had spluttered.
Dec 17th, 2016 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +6It was a case of which old European Country wanted to grab what and what suited that Country at the time and which one had the biggest sword and musket.
That was then- 300-400yrs ago.
Today in the 21st century civilized nations have moved one - and what some old fart said 500 yrs ago about lands not even discovered is irrelevant - instead the Democratic Principles of SelfDetermination and the Wishes and Rights of peoples who live in a place are kingpin.
Oh how convenient eh. Europe took all the wealth and land from everyone else, killed and genocided left and right, because somehow it was OK back then? No it wasn't ok back then either. And yet now somehow we all have to move on now... because the Europeans supposedly have (false anyways, otherwise they would give up their claims on Antarctica for example).
Dec 17th, 2016 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I'd say no, it's not time to move on. By that I am not advocating the Falklands be taken by force, by that I am simply saying that if Asian, Arab, or even African countries decide to wage war on Europe, I for one won't be demanding they respect the DPOSDATWAROP in Europe. They never did those of others, why should they be afforded that?
Islander1
Dec 17th, 2016 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I don't disagree that times have moved on, I am simply discussing the historical context of the Spanish claims and why South America is almost totally divided between the Portuguese and Spanish...
These claims aren't from yesterday they are from centuries ago and help to explain the Latam position, and should not be dismissed as irrelevant...
Very few claims concerning Sovereignty are not historically based...
Toby you must be 100% South American Indian otherwise you would have a tough time justifying why you are still there....
@ Voice
Dec 17th, 2016 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Which Papal Bull is it that divides only South America? The ones I have heard of divide the entire non-Christian world between Spain and Portugal.
England and later Britain established colonies where it could, which was mostly where other countries had not already settled.
@Fidel_CasTroll
Doesn't matter what you think. It's not like the UN can actually prevent wars. Europe is defended by NATO and the various countries armies, and we've seen in Ukraine that it doesn't get any special consideration.
DemonTree
Dec 17th, 2016 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -3There's a few, but they all appear to concentrate by the obvious concentration of occupation, on land South and West of the Azores even though it should include North, but never mentions it...
Never heard of any occupation above it...
So far as I know they just divided up the world on lines of longitude, not referring to north or south. And looking at the map Portugal took a whole lot more than they were supposed to; most of Brazil is outside the line.
Dec 17th, 2016 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Anyway I don't think they'd discovered much of North America at the time, so they were concentrating on the Caribbean and South America. That's where all the valuable colonies were anyway, with lots of gold and silver, and cash crops like sugar cane. Britain and the other countries had to take what was left over, or what we could steal from Spain. Most of South America was already colonised and well defended, which is why Britain, Holland and France only got a small bit each.
I saw a different slant on this issue from The Guardian (a noted left wing slanted rag in the UK). “Argentina has signalled that it wants to strike a trade deal with Britain if there can be a resolution to the Falkland Islands dispute.” So... we give back the Falklands to Argentina and they will think about doing a trade deal with the UK.... Hmmm. Let me think... I have heard the expression “win-win” but in this case it is very much a “lose-lose” situation for the UK. It is so childish an offer that it ain't going to happen bubbas.
Dec 17th, 2016 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +5does this mean we could soon go and hunt and behead pirates, pedophiles murderous scum of the earth and send them back to their homeland in UK ? good thing the european president in Argentina will not last long in power we need all those british illegal aliens deported like the Mexicans.
Dec 17th, 2016 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Mr Pirates Hunter
Dec 17th, 2016 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“european president in Argentina”
What a stupid comment!
You sound like Nostrils-Fidel, one of the other dumbass anti-British trolls.
Please explain why you call him “Euro”.
He is born and bred Argentine.
Just like the bi-polar witch CFK
DT - Caribbean and Central/ South America is where the gold came from - hence thenpreocvupation with those regions.
Think/voice just likes to argue to deflect and hear himself speak.
Roger Lorton,
“Voice” (Think/voice) will never click on a link to your material - he is afraid it will give away his IP and make him trackable.
“Lord Ton
I am not going to follow your own link and add more visits than you deserve for your biased interptetation of events...”
Yeah, sure.
Pilates hunter - beheading pirates would probably reduce the Argentine population by a significant amount. As for Macri being european... hahahahahahahahahahaha! Wow! Do you need a proper education or what?
Dec 17th, 2016 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +2DemonTree
Dec 17th, 2016 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Yeah you've pretty much got it..
Though my real point in answer to the mocking of the Papal Bulls is that they were of great historical relevance in the shaping of the New World and delayed British expansion by at least a century...
Therefore they cannot be dismissed as nonsense...
Troy...
I have already read everything that Roger has written...
....and as I've mentioned before my IP address is not static so I click on most links..
There is never any need to track me, I will meet anyone if they are ever in my neck of the woods...which of course I never hide.
Plus I don't tell porkies, I am where I am, what I have, I do have all verifiable...
...and keyboard warriors are no threat to me...;-)
btw...you do realise that typing is silent...see myself type would be more accurate...
A few hundred years ago all people read aloud...was on QI once....
Your idiocy is showing Voice. The Papal Bull(s) were not a treaty. The Tordesillas Treaty breached the Bull and the Pope refused to recognise that treaty for 12 years. But you are right that the treaty was as legal as any others - in that it bound the parties who signed it and nobody else. Spain & Portugal were the first to breach 'God's will' - no other country paid any attention.
Dec 17th, 2016 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Grown up little man, and if you are afraid to learn the truth from me, there are plenty of other sources. I found them.
First of all I never said they were a treaty...I quote myself...
Dec 17th, 2016 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -6“In a historical context it was just as valid or binding as any other treaties...”
Second...
”at the time of the bulls England was a Catholic country and recognised the papal “auctoritas” of the medieval system which gave the Pontiffan ascendancy over the Christian princes....?
The same with France...
Unless you wanted to run the risk of being excommunicated you adhered to them...
Britain was no longer a Catholic Monarchy when they were breached and neither were the Dutch...
You should learn a little more instead of spouting your myopic views...
Confucius say “when in hole, stop digging” Voice - you should take heed.
Dec 18th, 2016 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse +6The Borgia Pope's Inter caetera of 1493 (amended twice over 2 days following Portuguese objections) was supposedly the word of God. Portugal remained unhappy and so negotiated the Treaty of Tordesillas - a deal the broke God's supposed edict. So, the two main players immediately ignored the head of the Catholic Church .... that's how important the Pope's Bull was.
It was of no importance 5 minutes after it was written. As for England, there is evidence that the “men of Bristol” were fishing off Newfoundland before Columbus discovered the Caribbean. We certainly felt no restriction, as Henry VII issued Letters Patent to John Cabot in March of 1494 for an expedition to the Americas. Spain protested and was ignored by the English King.
You are half-witted Voice. Too thick to actually go learn before you spout your nonsense. You make yourself look foolish. And I should add that you haven't read everything I've written simply because I'm still writing it. Two editions each year around the end of March and the beginning of September. The last added over 100 pages of information - from both sides. I've even included comments from Kohen's latest book.
The myopia is all yours lad
Nostrils/Fidel/Castro etc.
Dec 18th, 2016 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse +5Identity challenged, self-declared moron.
“By that I am not advocating the Falklands be taken by force,”
Well that's very Argentine of you! Especially as you lot have tried that and had your sorry arses kicked.
You ignore all the evidence in your attempts to rewrite history to support your claims..
Dec 18th, 2016 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse -8The colonisation of South America between Spain and Portugal to the exclusion of all the Catholic monarchies was a direct result of the Papal Bulls...the treaty of Tordesillas was merely an amendment to the Papal Bulls in the form of a treaty...and that is FACT
The FACT that Britain never breached them for a CENTURY merely illustrates how valid they were...
Only the half witted..with an agenda like yourself ignore the hard evidence...
Simply because it suits your propaganda...
It's Simply thus....Did the Papal Bull split South America between Spain and Portugal...to the exclusion of all others?
Yes..
Was South America split between Spain and Portugal and excluded all others...?
Yes...
There's your evidence...
The evidence of Britain not colonising South America is self evident...
Next you are going to claim that you are not biased...
An Englishman that lived in the Falklands...that supports British sovereignty...can't be anything but biased and therefore everything you write will also be thus...
Like I said myopia...
@ Voice
Dec 18th, 2016 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse +7“Did the Papal Bull split South America between Spain and Portugal...to the exclusion of all others?”
No, it split the whole world between Spain and Portugal, excepting only the christian nations.
“Was South America split between Spain and Portugal and excluded all others”
No. Britain, the Netherlands, and France all had colonies there. Some of the South American continent is today part of France, it's in the EU and uses the Euro.
“The evidence of Britain not colonising South America is self evident...”
Britain made two attempts to annex one of Spain's South American colonies, but failed. It did manage to take some of Spain's possessions in the Caribbean, and in North America. Nothing to do with South vs North or Papal Bulls, and everything to do with military success or failure.
So it split the Americas...so what, it still prevented either Britain, France or the Dutch from attempting any colonies for over a century...
Dec 18th, 2016 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse -7...and was the reason why France had to relinquish the Falklands to the Spanish...
Military success or failure is merely speculation on your part there is no evidence for that...
Or are you saying that neither France, Britain or the Netherlands were powerful enough to go against the Spanish or Portuguese...
One word........Armada...
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Dec 18th, 2016 - 03:48 am - Link - Report abuse -7The defeat of the Armada was a fluke, with home-court advantage and weather playing almost as significant a role as English tactical wizardry and superior cannon. The English could not have mounted such a successful attack if they had had to take such a the fight to Spanish waters. Drake's raid on Cádiz that delayed the assembly of the Armada was an example of the necessary hit-and-run confrontations since the English could not mount a major force-on-force engagement with any hope of success. The 1589 defeat of the English naval forces of Drake and Norreys reminded England that Spain was still very much a sea power to be reckoned with in spite of the earlier defeat of the Armada.
Dec 18th, 2016 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse +5But all of this talk of historical events is mostly nonsense if we are considering the current Falklands situation. Papal pap and papeleo of past centuries is not going to redraw any boundaries in the South Atlantic.
ML
Dec 18th, 2016 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse +4“But all of this talk of historical events is mostly nonsense if we are considering the current Falklands situation. Papal pap and papeleo of past centuries is not going to redraw any boundaries in the South Atlantic”
Yes, pure deflection on the part of the anti-British trolls.
Of course Argentina wants trade and investment from the UK.
Obviously, the new government is aware that the ridiculous Falklands policies of the previous CFK government were akin to shooting themselves in the foot.
Still talking crap Voice.
Dec 18th, 2016 - 06:30 am - Link - Report abuse +4The word of God cannot be “amended” - Fact. The Pope was so annoyed he refused to recognise Tordesillas for 12 years.
Century? Ridiculous. We were going to the Americas from 1494 and while Portugal & Spain believed that the americas were divided amongst them, nobody else gave a damn. We certainly were not “excluded.” Try opening a history book Voice.
You are still digging in that pit of yours - and looking dafter all the time laddie. LOL
The sad thing is people like Roger Lorton are actually proud that they didn't give a damn about the “partition” of a continent that already had PEOPLE, CULTURE, and SELF-DETERMINATION. The same principles he wants everyone else to abide by. He should be lamenting the UK had such an unfortunate and shameful role in one of the greatest genocides in human history, right up there with those same Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, Russians, and Danes (Germans, Belgians, and Italians in Africa as well.)
Dec 18th, 2016 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse -6Unless you are Britain of course.
Nostrils,
Dec 18th, 2016 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse +3“The sad thing is people like Roger Lorton are actually proud that they didn't give a damn about the “partition” of a continent that already had PEOPLE, CULTURE, and SELF-DETERMINATION. ”
I might remind you, Tobi, that the ethnically pure and distinct from Europeans, Jewish people have done just that in Palestine, though the evil British tried to stop you.
Furthermore, if you are to be believed, you and your Hebrew scholar brother are wilfully profiting from occupying a region ruthlessly cleared of its indigenous peoples, for settlement. That would be the SA 'Indians' you hold in disdain, by your own admittance.
Right?? :-))))))))
Oops, look at that signature - I must really be ThinkVoice:-)))))
Nostril, you claim to come from Mendoza. I'm confused, is it famous for wine or whining?
Dec 18th, 2016 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse +5All these arguments about ancient history are mildly interesting but ultimately irrelavent. The Falkland Islands are British, and will remain British because thats what the overwhelming majority of what British people want. Papal Bulls - irrelavent. Argentinian colonial ambitions - irrelavent. Quisling opinions - irrelavent… . End of…
Couple of things worth mentioning before my boredom threshold is reached.
Dec 18th, 2016 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse +3a) The Bull/Tordesillas didn't divide a continent because they didn't know they had a continent. It was a division of the world and the Bull spoke of the line running from pole to pole (yes, they knew the world was not flat by then).
b) Spain & Portugal in 1535 signed the Treaty of Zaragoza which put a Tordesillas style line through the Pacific. If only they known, Spain got half of Japan, and Portugal got most of Western Australia.
If Voice thinks any of these had the status of law and bound other countries then it'll just be easier to leave him to the men in white coats - or possibly the Japanese. Not that any of it is relevant to the Falklands in any case ..... after all, Argentina is not Spain.
:-)
@ Voice
Dec 18th, 2016 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse +3Certainly I would say that England was not powerful enough to go up against Spain during the time you are talking about, when it was still a Catholic country.
Those Papal Bulls were issued shortly after the end of the Wars of Roses in England, when it was in no state for adventures abroad. This was followed by a couple of dynastic alliances with the Spanish kingdoms. The Armada came after the country had become a Protestant one, and was considered a great victory because there was a serious risk of invasion. Remember this was during the time when England was sponsoring privateers, because the crown could not afford a regular navy.
And the Netherlands were actually part of the Spanish Empire themselves during this time, then they were rather busy fighting for independence from Spain.
And no evidence for military success or failure? Why was Jamaica British until independence? Same for what was French Canada. What about the many territories that changed hands multiple times depending on the result of wars?
Why do you think the French were able to settle in Guiana anyway? It's in South America, and France was still a Catholic country at the time.
@ Fidel_CasTroll
You make no sense. How would respecting the partition of the Americas between Spain and Portugal mean giving a damn about the people already living there? It seems like quite the reverse. Pope-determination instead of self-determination?
Anyway, what have you ever done to show you respect the native peoples and cultures of Argentina, and their self-determination?
Fidelito, in what ways did the indigenous people of South America behave differently from others? When the Selknam and Yamana came into contact, they would beat one another's brains out with whatever advanced technology they could conjure. That was pretty much the norm for many encounters between competing indigenous groups all over the continent. Groups like the Inca were famous for their territorial expansion and empire-building, subjugating other groups and imposing their language and culture. There is even some Inca-empire influence remaining in Argentina, much as you might wish to ignore it.
Dec 18th, 2016 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Well im sure that Richard the lion heart arrived in the Falkland's in the 11th century on his way to the crusades,
Dec 18th, 2016 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +3some say he got lost, landed on the Falkland's and then returned,
but hey, I might be wrong but who cares,
the Falkland's are British today are they not...lol
Merry Xmas.
I can see ya'll having problems grasping the concept of cause and effect...
Dec 18th, 2016 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Cause...Papal Bulls...
Effect...Total domination by Spain and Portugal of the New World for at least a century...
Unless of course Roger the Dodger can come up with a British or other colony in the New World within a century...
I won't hold my breath...
In 1479, the Pope issued a Bull giving northern hemisphere territories (excluding Europe) to Spain, and those in the southern hemisphere to Portugal, the dividing line being slightly north of the Tropic of Cancer (Canary Islands), but the one that divided the Americas between Portugal and Spain, was the 'Bula Inter Coetera', issued in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI, at Spain's request, to try to protect her new-world discoveries (and what was 'still to be discovered') from Portugal, after Cristoforo Colombo's voyage in 1492, when he landed on the Bahamian island today known as Samana Cay. The Bull initially divided the Americas, by an imaginary longitudinal line, 100 leagues west of Cape Verde, giving Portugal nothing but ocean...so Portugal protested ; in order to avoid hostilities, Spain agreed to have the line extended further west (to 370 leagues, or 1,180 miles west of Cape Verde), cutting present-day Brazil at Belem do Pará in the north, and at Laguna, Santa Catarina, in the south (approx 50° west of Greenwich), still a relatively narrow sliver of Brazil's current eastern portion. This was ratified by both countries in June 1494, and was known as the “Tratado de Tordesillas. When the Portuguese and Brazilian explorers (”bandeirantes”) started their push westward, they ignored the line (unknowingly, or intentionally ?) and over the years more than doubled Brazil's territory.
Dec 18th, 2016 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Other European powers, mainly Holland, France and England never recognized this treaty between Spain and Portugal, and in 1539, after a series of disagreements between Henry VIII and the Pope, the former finally broke away from the Catholic Church, terminating the Pope's authority over the Church of England, and appointing himself as the leader of the (Anglican) Church of England. So the treaty never really hindered England's intentions regarding the new-world.
Why are you fixated on colonies Voice? We were traders. Didn't become colonists until later. We still breached the Pope's Bull every year from 1494.
Dec 18th, 2016 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“... by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents, should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be
discovered towards the west and the south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole, namely the north, to the Antarctic pole, namely the south, no matter whether the said mainlands and islands are found and to be found in the direction of India or towards any other quarter, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde. With this proviso, however, that none of the islands and mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, beyond that said line towards the west and south, be in the actual possession of any Christian king or prince up to the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ just past from which the present year 1493 begins. ... Furthermore,., we strictly forbid all persons of whatsoever rank, even imperial and royal, or of whatsoever estate, degree, order, or condition, to dare without your special permit or that of your aforesaid heirs and
successors, to go for the purpose of trade or any other reason to the islands or mainlands...”
Clarified on Sept 26, 1493 - “... navigating, fishing or exploring the islands or mainlands or for any reason or under any pretext whatever..”
Of no legal application.
Cause & effect my ar*e LOL
@ Voice
Dec 18th, 2016 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Sure. Not the only cause, but they did have an effect.
It's all the other stuff you wrote that I disagree with.
That was a lot of text Roger to say there were no colonies established by anyone but Spain and Portugal for over a century....
Dec 19th, 2016 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse -5A simple...there was none...would have done...;-)
I suppose you are also going to say that France and the Dutch were not colonists either...
I expect everyone must have been petrified of the mighty Spain...
So I'm going to reiterate my original point...
The Papal Bulls were instrumental and a major, if not the major factor in the shaping and subsequent history of the new world and cannot be dismissed as nonsense...
...or do you have another reason why the French relinquished the Falklands to the Spanish...?
Rubbish and nonsense as usual voicey. As we remarked earlier, during the 16th and 17th centuries Spain was at the peak of its power and British colonisation opportunities were restricted by the lack of ability of the British to reliably project sufficient formal military force into regions controlled by Spain, or initially even the Dutch territories, since the Dutch in the 17th century had a navy that was superior to that of the British (although the Dutch allied with Britain in the War of Spanish Succession). It was that war, and in particular - some say - the Battle of Blenheim with its 30,000 French dead, that seriously diminished France's military abilities and ultimately its formal, large-scale naval capabilities. And with this it lost much of its ability to maintain overseas territories such as the Falklands.
Dec 19th, 2016 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse +6Nothing to do with papal papeleo and nothing to do with the original topic, either.
The topic was the legality or otherwise of the Papal Bull Voice which Britain ignored as did everyone else - including Spain & Portugal. The issue of who had what colony when is quite irrelevant. But you are just too thick to recognise when you have lost the argument.
Dec 19th, 2016 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse +7So no, the Papal Bulls were recognised as nonsense even back then and were not a large factor in the development of the Americas.
“ ...or do you have another reason why the French relinquished the Falklands to the Spanish...?”
Dec 19th, 2016 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse +5There were lots of reasons.
As has been explained by other posters on this thread, the papal bulls and the subsequent modification of the bull by the Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portugal were intended to avoid a war between Spain and Portugal by defining spheres for discovery and colonisation. While, for obvious reasons, Spain may have put great store by the papal grant and the treaty, they were not accepted by the other European trading nations. In effect, therefore Spain’s claim to the exclusive possession of most of America was acknowledged only in so far as she could maintain it by force. Over the centuries, Spanish hegemony of the new world was challenged by the English, French and Dutch who established themselves in lands which Spain claimed as hers but from which she was powerless to expel the so-called intruders.
The Spanish protest against Bougainville’s settlement at St. Louis in east Falkland rested on the close relationship that existed between France and Spain at the time, the Family Compact, the fact that the settlement was prejudicial to Spain for it would be the signal for the British to undertake a similar expedition and on legal grounds, the theory of territorial proximity.
The fact that the Spanish paid ‘liberal compensation’(1) to persuade Bougainville to abandon his settlement, indicated that the Spanish were none too sure of the validity of their protest.
Therefore, with the possible exception of Spain (and it seems that even it had doubts) the papal bull was, in practice, - bullshit.
(1) Goebel, The Struggle for the Falkland Islands, p228
My comment here is totally off topic.
Dec 19th, 2016 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse +4@Voice
Dec 19th, 2016 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse +5If the Papal Bulls had an effect it was letting Spain and Portugal build up their colonies and entrench their power in certain regions. After your century was over other countries no longer saw them as binding, even still-Catholic France.
If they did, why didn't they hand over all their New World possessions to Spain or Portugal?
No wonder this “Voice” chappy doesn't want anyone to know who he is - he's a dingbat!
Dec 19th, 2016 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse +2Hey, “Voice”, did you waste your whole weekend with your family, pursuing your fruitless argument, just to be knocked to the ground?
The simple reasons that the French handed their settlement on the eastern island over to Spanish were the Family Compact and the French King's desire to maintain good relations with his Spanish cousin. And, of course, that the Spanish would have to deal with the English saving the French the bother.
Dec 19th, 2016 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse +4And it wasn't just a handover. France set conditions, the first to compensate Bougainville and the second that Spain must retain a garrison in an attempt to deter English expansionism (France knew the Brits were already in the western islands). Win win situation for France which saw Spain picking up the costs.
Spain's King agreed to both despite his ministers whinging about it and Spain kept to its part of the bargain right up until Napoleon stabbed them in the back. Cousinly love. Not that Spain proved very effective in keeping the English out .... but they were well past their peak by then.
Right - boredom threshold reached...... anything happening elsewhere?
Bored?
Dec 19th, 2016 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How,about this… http://www.dunoon-observer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10816:cairndow-roadworks-planned&catid=1:news&Itemid=19… ..
Discuss!
Thanks, The Voice.
Dec 19th, 2016 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My friend in Greenock considers Dunoon to be very remote and somewhat pities the inhabitants.
One resident was recently honoured, but far too humble to be “Voice”.
Accolades for Alex:
Alex was still overwhelmed by the award some days after the presentation.
He said: “I found it very hard to take in, and that people really thought that much of me. But I’m very grateful, and very honoured. I just hope I’m worthy of it.”
http://www.dunoon-observer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10801:accolade-for-alex&catid=1:news&Itemid=19
Hahaha...are you having a laugh...no one from Greenock can pity anyone...
Dec 19th, 2016 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -4oh it's bad...
Know Alex very well...kinda short of work now that McColls has gone...Scottish old music hall type entertainer...
Know the previous winner too...Paul Kerr has a Falkland, South Georgia connection he accompanied and monitored the fishing quotas from the licences issued to Chilean fishing boats...former Royal Marine...has MS now and can barely walk, but still swims across the Clyde... Dunoon/Gourock for charity...
I know everyone....;-)
Nice try at derailing the subject...
Tell us more, if you can.
Dec 19th, 2016 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Mr. Voice...
Dec 19th, 2016 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Keep running rings around them Turnips..., lad...
It's fun to read...
B the way... have a nice holiday..
ElThink
@Voice
Dec 19th, 2016 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +4What do you mean 'Nice try'? He succeeded in changing the subject, or did you just not want to reply since you're losing the argument?
In Dunoon...you are kidding. Anyway heres a subject for everyone to get their teeth into. Has promise because it would no doubt overwhelm the deep fried odour that pervades in that area... http://www.dunoon-observer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10519:three-weekly-bin-collection&catid=1:news&Itemid=19
Dec 19th, 2016 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +3'Bagger Voice,
Dec 19th, 2016 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +3”I know everyone....;-)“
Ha ha, but do they know ”Voice“?
If he lived there, and if they knew ”Voice”, we can be sure they would be embarrassed and appalled by what he says.
DemonTree
Dec 19th, 2016 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Oh were you expecting a reply...?
“@Voice
If the Papal Bulls had an effect it was letting Spain and Portugal build up their colonies and entrench their power in certain regions. After your century was over other countries no longer saw them as binding, even still-Catholic France.
If they did, why didn't they hand over all their New World possessions to Spain or Portugal?”
Catholic France...?
I'm sure I mentioned the formal recognition on the part of France of the Spanish rights to the Islands...why else would they relinquish them...?
Did Spain send a request to France just saying.......“You know those Islands you have settled on? We would quite like you to give them to us...if it's not too much trouble...because we have decided we like them”
....and when they did transfer them...where was the British diplomatic protests...?
I thought Britain claimed them...
As for new possessions in the new world...subsequent treaties were made recognising them and in return...Treaty of Madrid ofJuly,1670.
Article 8 thereof provided that the subjects of the British king shall not navigate nor engage in commerce in ports and places held by the Catholic king and vice versa..
Which I have already mentioned...
you are just making me repeat myself...
I can't help it if ya'll want to deny the evidence that exists and spin it you own way...
Old Dodger won't accept anything that doesn't fit with his biased history...
Merry Christmas Mr. Think...;-)
@Voice and all the rest of you whiners. Possession is nine tenths of the law. So blow it out of your ears (I'm sorry - I think I might be a bit dyslexic with that last word)
Dec 19th, 2016 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +4@Voice
Dec 19th, 2016 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“I'm sure I mentioned the formal recognition on the part of France of the Spanish rights to the Islands...why else would they relinquish them...?”
You said it was due to the Papal Bulls, which France had clearly ignored when building the settlement in the first place, as well as in the case of their many other colonies. Do you have any evidence that they were cited in the handover?
As for why they would relinquish them; because they were allies with Spain at the time and did not consider that particular settlement worth fighting over? No doubt Spain claimed the islands were theirs due to some treaty or other, and no doubt France would have ignored that if they had thought it worth doing so.
And why were treaties made recognising France's other possessions if Spain supposedly owned everything? Presumably because France no longer cared about those Papal Bulls and was building colonies anyway, and Spain was unable to stop them.
DemonTree
Dec 19th, 2016 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I've tried searching for the initial correspondence between Spain and France, there is plenty of the actual handover...but I imagine they they were along the lines of “WTF do you think you are doing settling our territory...”...in Spanish...;-)
Even the most ardent supporters of British Colonialism look at map of South America and wonder how the British managed to get a colony off the coast of Argentina...legitimately...
Sneakily I would say...
Yes, after Henry VIII the Popes power and influence was definitely on the decline...
Totally irrelavent. Since early 1800's Falkland Islands in British hands. Argentininian colonialists ejected in 1982 after a failed invasion.
Dec 19th, 2016 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Worry about your bins… lol!
@ Voice
Dec 19th, 2016 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +5But there was nothing about these Papal Bulls in the actual handover? Anyway it's quite probable that Spain said something of the kind, but so what? They hadn't even settled the islands at the time. Jamaica was Spanish territory until England took it, and they did have settlements there. They never got that island back, and aren't likely to now.
And I don't see how the Falklands is any weirder than the Channel Islands, or St Pierre et Miquelon, or that Caribbean island that's split between France and the Netherlands. Actually I think France sharing a border with Brazil is weirder than all of those.
And since when has sending a warship been considered sneaky?
“Even the most ardent supporters of British Colonialism look at map of South America and wonder how the British managed to get a colony off the coast of Argentina...legitimately”
Dec 23rd, 2016 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Pitcairn island is not off the coast of Great Britain either, nor is Bermuda, or the Cayman Islands, or Ascension Island. they are all British.
The Faroe Islands are off the Scottish coast, but they are a dependency of.........Denmark.
Is Greenland anywhere near Denmark?
How near to the US Coast is Hawaii?
St Pierre et Miquelon-why is that not Canadian?
Reunion Island is east of Madgascar, but..... it's French.
The Northern Marianna islands belong to the USA, they are no where near the USA coast.
Ceuta is a Spanish colony, on the coast of Morrocco, not the Spanish coast.
Can't explain these can you?
So what if the Falkland Islands are off the South American coast?
Think we’re talking abt different things. To me, ‘crazy cults’ are small groups in isolated communities, where their leaders’ ambitions are about domination at the expense of their ‘sheep’…nationally, they are irrelevant.
Dec 24th, 2016 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, the insidious manner in which other larger groups try to influence society, I agree.
As to (1) trying to ban the teaching of evolution – see no reason to ban it, altho, presume the RCC opposes it (2) trying to ban sex education in school – delicate issue. Can understand why some parents might be against it.; anyway, I’d think that those who’d resist it, other than die-hard conservatives (with a fair dose of ignorance), would be the liberals who look for things to be offended about, or to cry ‘victim (3) bringing back school prayers – laudable move…and quite frankly, the US is a Christian country, as that was the faith upon which the foundations of the country were built on. Besides professing religious freedom…I’d like to see the Saudis allow a Church to be built in Mecca…so much for Islamic tolerance (4) I think it’s silly to be anti-science, as are parents who don’t want to vaccine their kids…they have the moral obligation to not put other’s lives at risk. (5) nothing wrong with supporting Israel, an important ally in the ME, but no need to go overboard with it ; (6) gay sex - couldn’t care less what goes on between 4 walls ; (7) abortion : every woman is the owner of her body, and within medical limits, it’s her call.
The ‘live and let live’ concept should be respected by all…no interference from radicals, of either side.
Re drugs, I say legalize them, but don’t expect State help / leniency if you get addicted / commit a crime while under the influence. Why should taxpayers pay for their stupidity ?
Public toilets : BO bought the gay-rights agenda, and pushed it .
“Ze”: the students' union at Oxford Univ. has now backtracked, saying they only 'ecourage' the use of the gender-neutral pronoun at meetings etc..uh ?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!