MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentine Nobel Peace wants to dialogue with “Malvinas inhabitants”, ruled by a “colonial government”
An Argentine delegation linked to human rights groups is en route to the Falkland Islands with a “message of dialogue, peace and demilitarization”, hoping to meet Islanders, express support for the identification process of unknown combatants buried in Darwin cemetery, collect evidence on abuses committed by Argentine officers during the 1982 conflict, but also claim sovereignty and reject “militarization” of the Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThey are called FALKLANDERS you dummys.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse +6What's to discuss? The matter was settled 28 years ago.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse +6Nora Cortiñas ....added, ”our purpose is that we learn to know each other, face to face, so they know who we are and how we are“.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse +6If you are the same people who invaded them in 1982 then I suspect they already know exactly who you are. And if you are wholly different from the 1982 invaders then that means you are free to leave them alone and just be good neighbours. They are no threat to you so stop pretending that they are.
'...a peace spirit dialogue, including mentioning Argentina's sovereignty claim over the Falklands.'.....
Mar 11th, 2017 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse +7So what they are saying is, ...'we want your land, but we want you to hand it over peacefully'...
'A peaceful spirit dialogue' would perhaps not contain the mention of a 'sovereignty claim'. Why not speak to the Islanders as equals, treat them as people. Be humble for once, you are in their territory, their country, make friends, leave them thinking that not all Argentines want their homes.
If they mean 'Peace', then make peace, make friends, not enemies.
The minute they mention the claim, they become like all the others, no shame, morals or ethics, how can this group of so called 'enlightened' people, masquerading as human rights advocates, hold such colonial views against peopled human rights. They travel to someone elses home and start lecturing them on why their homes or country do not belong to them...
Maybe someone should accompany them to both cemeteries and point out that 'this is the result of your sovereignty claim, this is the result of your colonial ambitions and this is why the Islanders will never want to be part of Argentina'.
“inhabitants of Malvinas” and underlined that their task in the Islands was ”to help the relatives and the Argentine people to learn the identity of those who fell in the (1982) war“
Mar 11th, 2017 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse +6No, whilst the Islanders would be glad to help, their 'task' in the Islands is to run their islands, not to play second fiddle to a load of idiots who can't run their own country properly.
It is the job of the Red Cross to identify the unknown soldiers because the Argentines in 1982 refused to help in the identification, it's no fault of the Islanders.
”but there are also other very serious problems, such as the British military base in Malvinas and the beefing up programmed“.
Are these people supposed to be 'intellectuals'? I hope the Islanders point out that the defences in the Falklands are to DEFEND against an aggressor. What part of the 'defences- being -beefed -up- do- not- include -offensive -weaponry-like- Tornado GR4s and Storm Shadows' do these morons not understand?
Also, whilst the defences are primarily aimed at deterring aggression form Argentina, it is possible, whilst unlikely that another country might wish to attack the FIs as there is something worth defending. This means more security for the S A region because Argentina's depleted defences leave the area vunerable.
“We have just received a letter from the colonial government of Malvinas”
Perhaps the FIG can show these idiots how 'uncolonial' and local they are?
“ including mentioning Argentina's sovereignty claim over the Falklands.”
Message to the Islanders on this forum. Perhaps your government could discuss sovereignty by asking the Argentine delegation exactly what evidence they have to justify their claim, and then point out the myths surrounding so called Inheritance from Spain, 1833, and the exact wording of 2065/ stated remit of C24 etc etc ?
This idiots have no doubt been brainwashed at school and in my opinion should have dialogue given to them metaphorically with both barrels
And this idiot won a Peace Prize! We Have Peace and we are at Peace in our homeland! Our Peace is and has been threatened since 1982 by a greedy country with Colonial dreams who want to take us over against our freely expressed wishes - THAT is why we have a British military garrison here mate - to defend and protect us from the 19th Century Colonial ambitions of Argentina!
Mar 11th, 2017 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse +8So you blame 1982 just on a military Dictator? - So why did millions of you praise him in your streets on April 2 and 3 1982?
That's going to go well your turning up to persuade people that leaving beinga bot where they get to run their own affairs pretty well. To being 2nd class citizens in a poor corrupt country that hates them.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse +6Read it carefully - these idiots will be avoiding the FIG at all costs.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse +4What is the betting they creep around in the dark and make every effort to actually avoid talking to anyone. Like all the other no-hopers who have come here to “dialogue with Islanders”.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +5It is clear from reading the article above that this group has absolutely no idea about the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islanders and I rather suspect that like many of the Argentine invaders of 1982 they expect to be greeted as liberators.........
Mar 11th, 2017 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Ok I have been reading some history about the area. There was two British attempts to occupy colonial Argentina in 1806 and 1807 so, I think that the Argentinians believe that the 1833 incident was just another attempt to occupy a Spanish colony. Anyone have simular thoughts?
Mar 11th, 2017 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Livingthedream
Mar 11th, 2017 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +8Except that Argentina had already gained their 'freedom' from Spain, and the British and Spanish had competing claims over the Falkland Islands, with the British claim being the 1st. The Spanish were 'Johnny come latelys”.
In 1832/1833 the United Provinces of the River Plate (the Republic of Argentina didn't exist at the time), tried to steal the Falkland Islands believing that no one would notice or care. In that they were wrong. The British both noticed, sent an official objection to the UP government, stating that the Falklands were British territory, and later sent HMS Clio to remove UP MILITARY personnel. No civilian colonists were ever told to leave the Islands. That is a lie by Argentina.
Those military personnel had been on the Islands less than 6 weeks BEFORE they mutinied against their commanding officer and the UP, so it's hardly a good case for a sovereignty case.
Which is why Argentina has avoided the International Courts of Justice like the plague regarding the Falkland Islands.
They tried the military option...which failed miserably...and now they're trying the 'if we harp on about it enough people will get fed up and just give us what we want to shut us up' option, which they've tried for the last 38 years without any success.
These Argentines visiting the islands are not to be trusted. They're not interested in peace. They're just interested in stealing something that has never belonged to them, and never will.
Although I find it repugnant, part of me wishes that once the Argentine bodies are disinterred that they be sent directly back to Argentina, so these vile human beings can no longer use the dead as a political football.
What I am sure of is that these people don't care about the Argentine dead, don't care about abuse of Argentine soldiers by their superiors, don't care about the rights and freedom of the people of the Falklands and don't care about international law.
Vile people the lot of them.
At 'Livingthedream' Please elaborate on this '1833' 'incident' you mention, as your history appears to be found wanting mate.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Livingthe Dream.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Error- 1806 and 1807 - England and Spain were at war in Europe - so the English attacked the Spanish Colony in South America - NOT Argentina! Falklands had nothing to do with that.
Livingthedream
Mar 11th, 2017 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of Napoleonic France.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_River_Plate
Keeping the embers alight that's all; hoping that they'll wear Rights down.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +4LEPRecon
Mar 11th, 2017 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -7”In 1832/1833 the United Provinces of the River Plate (the Republic of Argentina didn't exist at the time), ”
1824
June 25th, Woodbine Parish sends Ygnacio Nuñez's memorial to the Foreign Office in London, together with
the responses from the other Provinces, and his own conclusions; “The United Provinces of la Plata, OR, AS THEY ARE SOMETIMES CALLED, THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC…
July 23rd, George Canning urges King George IV to recognise Buenos Aires arguing that the country had been virtually independent for many years during which time no Spanish soldier had set foot there; although a great number of British subjects had settled. Canning concludes that Parish should be given powers to negotiate a commercial Treaty which, when ratified, would amount to DE FACTO DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION.
August 24th, London instructs Woodbine Parish to negotiate a TREATY; ”... placing on a permanent footing the commercial intercourse which has so long existed between His Majesty's subjects and those States.”
So what we have there is diplomatic recognition of...as they are sometimes called the Argentine Republic…by Britain…
The FIG, I suggest, would be well advised NOT to meet with these people.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Let them have their visit and photo op, then go back to Argentina.
“An Argentine delegation linked to human rights groups is en route to the Falkland Islands with a “message of dialogue, peace and demilitarization”............
Mar 11th, 2017 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +5”....and demilitarization”....does that apply to Argentina as well ? if not, they can shove their message...
I wouldn't bother preparing an official reception for these idiots, leaving them to their own luck , and I'd also let them know there are no rooms available in the hotel...but if they want to pitch some tents in the fields, I suppose this could be arranged...
And if the idiot Esquivel insists on the Argies ridiculous sovereignty claim, he should be told - politely, of course - to f. off, and to swim back to Argentina.
Under no circumstances should these people be permitted to land in the Falkland Islands. The purpose of their visit is absurd!
Mar 11th, 2017 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +4They should be returned to the mainland on the same aircraft which transports them to the islands. Personas non gratas!
@Gordo1
Mar 11th, 2017 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Bit late for that, they'll have arrived by now won't they?
What are you so afraid of anyway? If they want to visit for an absurd purpose, that's no one's problem but their own.
And why should the FIG not meet with them, Pugol-H? Sounds like a good chance to explain their own point of view, and if the visitors aren't willing to listen then no one is any worse off.
@JB
Argentina seems to have been doing a fine job of demilitarising itself, mostly for lack of cash. Anyway, these human rights leaders would probably be very happy to completely abolish the military in Argentina, but that doesn't mean their government would actually do it.
@LEPRecon/Voice
Does it matter what they called themselves in 1833? I thought the UP and Argentina were the same country, and they just changed the name?
I think that the FALKLANDERS ought to treat them as any other tourist and not give them any special treatment. Make sure that the police know their movements.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1No doubt there will be numerous PR stories cooked up back in Argentina following this visit. How long are they staying? Will they be there on the 2 April? These people are renowned for their lies. I would seriously ensure that any meetings are filmed, recorded and minuted. I would also keep them clear of the Body ID operation going on. Reports from the mainland have suggested that they also wish to identify any evidence of British war crimes.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Voice - Britain did provide de facto recognition with the treaty of 1825. The only nation to do so. The US did not formally recognise the UP with a treaty until 1841. The problems with statehood is that a declaration of independence is not, in itself, sufficient. The recognition of only one established State is also not sufficient. None of this aided by Argentina's incessant internal wars. There was no central government between 1820 and 1826 (BA had to put a special treaty together with the other provinces just to talk to the UK); and in 1853 BA declared itself a separate country.
Mar 11th, 2017 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Existence is difficult to determine. Argentina's 'attainment' of statehood was either 1825 (Brit recognition); 1836 (decisions to abandon attempts to regain its colonies by Spain); 1859 (BA rejoining the other provinces) or 1863 (Spanish recognition) - all dependent upon which criteria for independence you wish to apply.
Of course, having finally gained independence, they now 'backdate' it to 1816.
Complicated - aint it?
:-)
Sooo....remind me of the date of the birth of the USA...
Mar 12th, 2017 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse -9Was that when Britain finally recognised it...nope...
Not complicated at all...;-)
USA? Easy. Treaty of Paris. Then they like to back date too. Go learn
Mar 12th, 2017 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse +6Ask any Yank...
Mar 12th, 2017 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse -10The Declaration of Independence in 1776 on July 4 by the Continental Congress. It declared that the thirteen American colonies regarded themselves as a new nation, the United States of America, and were no longer part of the British Empire...
The birth of a Nation...
BTW If International recognition is a criteria...The Falklands and their FIG have still yet to be born...
The Falklands aren't currently seeking Statehood Voice. As for your Yanks, as a I said they all like to back date. The important bit is the criteria of International Law and whether or not retrospectivity can give them rights that they did not have during the period between declaration and attainment.
Mar 12th, 2017 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse +4I can heartily recommend - Crawford J. The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed) 2007. Should keep you and any Yanks you know engrossed for hours (at least)
:-)
“….but also claim sovereignty and reject “militarization” of the Islands.”
Mar 12th, 2017 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse +6How did this bloke win manage to win a Nobel Peace prize?
The utterances of this delegation reflect the usual one sided view that most Argentines express regarding the Falklands. There is nothing peaceful or humane when it comes to Argentine attitudes and behaviour towards the Falklands.
Have these people stopped to consider why there is only a monthly LATAM flight to the Falklands?
One can only hope that the members of the delegation, including Perez Esquivel will receive an education during their visit and come asway with a different and more humane, point of view.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Mar 12th, 2017 - 03:03 am - Link - Report abuse -4Hepatitis!
Mar 12th, 2017 - 06:41 am - Link - Report abuse +5You are a waste of space! Do you realise that each time you post this nonsense you are going backwards? No advance at all!
H
Mar 12th, 2017 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse +4Blah, Blah, Blah
@Voice
Mar 12th, 2017 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse -2It's not so simple. There are places that have declared independence but are not recognised as states by some or all other countries.
The Republic of Somaliland is not recognised by any UN member, but they are effectively an independent country. If they ever are recognised, will that date be their 'date of birth' or will it be 1991 when they declared independence?
There's also Northern Cyprus, and the various unrecognised republics that Russia has been busy 'violating the territorial integrity' of its neighbours by supporting.
Amusingly, even the People's Republic of China, despite being one of the most powerful countries in the world, is not recognised by all UN members as the legitimate government of China. 20 countries including Paraguay recognise the ROC in Taiwan instead.
Wikipedia lists both the date of declaration of independence, and the date it was recognised, for countries where these are different. What do you consider the date of birth of Canada? They celebrate the 1st July 1867, which is when it became a dominion. But Canada wasn't a sovereign state until much later.
@Everyone else
No point replying to a robo-posting. Better just to ignore her.
DemonTree
Mar 12th, 2017 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -7I think a good yardstick would be when control was seized and independence was achieved, it is nonsense to claim that Spain controlled the UP aka republic of Argentina to it's official recognition.
Also nonsense to think that it was fine that UP aka Argentina could claim the land formally owned by Spain, but not all of the land formally owned by Spain and administered from BA...
They claimed, they colonised and they governed there is no denying those points...
Like there is no denying that at the very least East Falkland was Spanish territory...
Zzzzzz...
Mar 12th, 2017 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Voice, so why in 2017 are Argentina claiming East Falkland, West Falkland, SS Islands and South Georgia, when even you submit that Spain only had a claim to East Falkland.
Mar 12th, 2017 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +7And if, that is a big if, Argentina could convince the ICJ they inherited East Falkland claim form Spain, they surely have absolutely no claim to the other territories.
And why would it be OK for Argentina/UP to take land from Spain, but if GB (as you believe stole the land from the UP) claimed the Falkland, that is not fair.
Your simple argument is thus...., Argentina can steal land, but GB are not allowed.
Please enlighten us....
@Voice
Mar 12th, 2017 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Sounds reasonable, but apparently that is not enough, at least these days. I'm not a lawyer and I can't be bothered to read that book Roger mentioned, but I assume BA claimed everything Spain did. Modern Argentina doesn't have the same borders as what Spain administered though, does it? It's gained most of Patagonia and lost Uruguay (and Paraguay?), and didn't it also claim parts of Chile and Bolivia at one time?
@The Voice
If you are so bored, why don't you tell me about all the wonderful things Britain can do now that we are leaving the EU, since you couldn't be bothered in the other thread?
JM
Mar 12th, 2017 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -8That drivel is hardly worth responding to...
Stealing land huh...?
“Uti possidetis juris or uti possidetis iuris (Latin for ”as you possess under law”) is a principle of international law which provides that newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that their preceding dependent area had before their independence.”
Or are you saying that the US stole land from Britain...?
Are you enlightened now...?
DemonTree
I think Argentina conquered Patagonia, acceptable at the time...
Probably also tried to claim as much land as possible, but most of the original borders of different provinces were contested and resolved one way or another...
“I think Argentina conquered Patagonia, acceptable at the time...”
Mar 12th, 2017 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +7So, if you think it was acceptable for Argentina to “conquer” Patagonia in the 1870s (incidentally murdering many thousand of the original population in the process), why was it not acceptable for the British to bloodlessly “conquer” the Falklands in 1833?
Voice,
Mar 12th, 2017 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“I think Argentina conquered Patagonia, acceptable at the time...”
Precisely as James Marshall said,
“Your simple argument is thus...., Argentina can steal land, but GB are not allowed.”
You really are a hypocritical clod.
How can Argentina claim the Falklands when she has never legally owned them?
Mar 12th, 2017 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:
https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina
Ah, that'll be that ole Malvinas myth. So many people have been duped by that old chestnut.
About acceptable as the US conquering the West and eradicating the indigenous Indians...
Mar 12th, 2017 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Stupid Troy/Kanye....show me just one admission from GB that they Conquered the Falklands...
Also best look up the definition of Conquered in International Law as an acceptable form of acquiring territory...
Who was Conquered...?
Argentina...?
@Voicey
Mar 12th, 2017 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Whatever date you ascribe to Argy Independence from Spain, from 1810 onwards, it’s still long after the British claim of 1765.
Spanish administration of the “Malvinas” was run by the Spanish Navy from Montevideo, Uruguay. Not BA.
Look up the Anglo-Spanish treaty of 1771 which resolved the Falklands crisis, it proves three things:
1. The British claim is much older than “Argentina” in any form.
2. The British always rejected the Spanish claim.
3. The Spanish had to accept that.
Argentina is reduced to arguing the validity of the Spanish claim, something which the Spanish gave up doing long ago, because they have no claim of their own.
The Islands have never legitimately been administered by, or formed
part of, the sovereign territory of the Republic of Argentina.
It's irrelevant where the navy was based, Malvinas was administered from BA...
Mar 12th, 2017 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I'm pretty sure the nuke subs are based in Scotland, but controlled from London...
A claim for discovery is older, but is disputed...
Discovery without colonisation is meaningless..
French colonisation was first and legitimate therefore the Spanish purchase was also...
The islands were settled and administered by the UP whether you think it was legitimate or not is your opinion...
The last people to colonise the Falklands was actually the British...and I mean settle and colonise not stick a hut on Saunders Island for less than ten years then abandon it for nearly sixty...
All irelavent, its a British Overseas Territory protected against colonialists by the British Armed Forces. QED. Yaaawn....
Mar 12th, 2017 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +3That drivel is aimed at your level of argument and intellectual capability Voice, thus why it is simple.
Mar 12th, 2017 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +21) As Argentina/UP didn't have claim to West Falkland, why are they claiming it now?
2) Your understanding of 'conquer' seems to revolve around blood shed/loss of life etc. Just because the UP forces left without a fight does not mean the territory wasn't 'conquered' (acquired by use/threat of force). Or do you think that as GB only acquired East Falkland rather than conquer the whole of Argentina, that it somehow doesn't count on a technicality? I am sure Ukraine would love to hear your thoughts over the Crimea.....
3) “I think Argentina conquered Patagonia, acceptable at the time...”... tell me who Argentina conquered? Which country did they defeat... as you say, taking/claiming territory by force was acceptable at the time, so why was GB acquiring East Falkland through the use/threat of force, not as acceptable as Argentina taking Patagonia....
4) Why do GB have to state they conquered West Falkland, for what purpose?
5) Why is Argentina claiming West Falkland, SS Islands and S.Georgia....
Whilst Britain exists...
Mar 12th, 2017 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I wonder what the odds are on that...
LEPRecon:
Mar 12th, 2017 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -4“What I am sure of is that these people don't care about the Argentine dead, don't care about abuse of Argentine soldiers by their superiors, don't care about the rights and freedom of the people of the Falklands and don't care about international law.”
Of course we don't. We only care about kicking you Brits out, so you stop thinking you are better than us, that you are good and we are evil, and that you are superior and that is is MORALLY RIGHT THAT YOU ARE SUPERIOR and that we have to do whatever you want. Well, fuck you, and fuck you Brits that you think you had a right to kick us out in 1833. We will not stop until you leave, and stop thinking we are evil subhumans who you have to vanquish. We will not stop until you speak Spanish, and are total utter failures that have to obey our every whim. Then and only then, we will become equals to you, so you will respect us as human beings, and only then, we will respect your “rights”. But we will NEVER bend over and let you do what you want to us. We will NEVER accept you, because to accept you is to accept your superiority, which you established in 1833.
M&Ms you exemplify all the reasons the Islanders want nothing whatsoever to do with Argieland.
Mar 12th, 2017 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Magnus Master
Mar 12th, 2017 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Thank you for acknowledging in your last sentence that we established our superiority in 1833. (you ought to be more careful with your english, boludo)
Most of these self-promoters come in roaring like lions and go out mewing like pussy cats.................until they get back to their newspapers, and then they are lions again.
Mar 12th, 2017 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Lets see if they have the balls to talk to anyone.
There was a dispute between Spain and Britain Voice. The 1771 accord left Britain in the west and Spain in the east. Became the status quo. Spain failed to extend its rule into the west and Britain didn't bother to try and extend its sovereignty eastwards until 1833. Spain told the USA in October 1833 that they maintained their claims. Spain did not, however, protest to Britain. Ferdinand died and the new regime wanted to forget. Britain's sovereignty over the western islands was secured in the 30 years between 1833 and 1863 when Spain saluted the Union Jack.
Mar 12th, 2017 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Argentina was never in the game.
Pugol
Mar 12th, 2017 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Conquista del desierto...
CONQUEST, international law. The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to the submission of its empire.
Lord Ton
Britain's claim was on what...a claim of discovery...disputed...
Certainly not possession, colonisation or settlement...
The East was already settled by the time the British tried to claim, so what right in International law did they have to extend East...none...
Spain maintained their claim to all of the Spanish possessions, that still doesn't affect independence and Uti possidetis juris or uti possidetis iuris ...
Britain's sovereignty over the western islands may have been secured, but not over the Eastern Islands...
Btw is saluting a Union Jack..(must have been on a boat then) some form of treaty or written agreement...?
Your case is very weak if that's all you have...
How's it going Voice? It's been a while since I said hello so I thought I'd say it now.
Mar 13th, 2017 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse +5Hello!
Your recent posts have reminded me how entertaining you are; I've even been clicking the + button on some of them this weekend to try to lift your ratings. You are a laugh and not only that but you're extremely persistent for someone who's got nothing. I do take my hat off to you for that; most people on the hiding to nothing you're on would've given up by now.
BTW, do you know Dover Over Dover? I really miss him. Could you do him again for me? Just a little?
So I guess with all of the evidence the Argentine side of the argument has got they'll be sharing it with the world and having the Islands handed to them anytime real soon, huh. I mean you seem so confident in your posts and all... But on the bright side I suppose the Argentine Government will make the place better for us. We'll have CAT scanners on every corner and all sorts of good things.
Dove Over Dover will be back on Mercopress within the next 25 years.
Chuckle chuckle.
Weak? On the contrary. More than enough. Argentina did not inherit from Spain and uti possidetis juris is a set of political agreements forged between 1839 and 1848 when some (not Argentina) signed up to the concept (as confirmed by the Beagle Channel Arbitration panel in 1977). UPJ has no effect on extra-continental nations such as the UK.
Mar 13th, 2017 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse +4Regardless of the beginnings of our claim the issue lay between Spain and Britain. Spain registered no protest in 1833. And Pinzon's saluting the Union Jack - an act he insisted upon despite being told there was no need - was an indication of Spain's acquiescence.
Our claim is more than secure enough - sufficient for the ICJ. A fact noted in the legal opinions of 1948 and 1966.
The only 'weak' case, is that of Argentina.
:-)
MagnusMaster 'so you will respect us as human beings, '
Mar 13th, 2017 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse +4Dream on Diego... you know what they say... there is the first world, and there is the third world, and then there is Argentina...........
Jo Blogs, keep building that wall up because according to Voice it could be useful as a firing position for the next RG invasion! Great post by the way, losers can't tell when they are beaten.. ;-)
Mar 13th, 2017 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse +1Well, this is just a he said she said quagmire! Why don't the parties involved go to arbitration?
Mar 13th, 2017 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse -2I think Argentina went to arbitration with Chile for some islands down in their south back in the 80's.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 13th, 2017 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Look up the definition of Conquered in International Law as an acceptable form of acquiring territory…”
I see your blatant fraudulent practises are in fine fettle, as even after your nonsense is shown to be absolute BS. You still keep crawling out of the wood-work attempting to foist such a discredited claim.
The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by SHARON KORMAN
“...Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest
as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either
based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession,“
Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
”if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, “a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace.”
VOICE ...... 'Conquista del desierto...
Mar 13th, 2017 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +4CONQUEST, international law. The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to the submission of its empire.
OK, got it, all you have to do is name a particular exercise something with 'Conquest' in it and 'hey presto', it fulfills international law.
Right, I suggest we call the actions of 1833 'The conquest of the Falklands' they we are all good. International law adhered too, no problem, happy Voice....
Just a question. You mention 'the acquisition of a country by force', and provide the Conquest of the Desert as an example. Now far be it from me to suggest you may be confused, but....
2) If you invaded and acquired an area by force and it wasn't a country, it can't be according to you, a 'Conquest'
So can you acquire sovereignty of a territory by not invading a the whole country, just an area or island?, you seem confused....
I keep asking this question of the “ Malvanistas ” but not one has an answer. What can Argentina bring to the negociating table that the FALKLANDERS would even think about let alone agree with? Someone please answer as I can not think of anything.
Mar 13th, 2017 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +4@Voicey
Mar 13th, 2017 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +5You are wrong again Voicey, the Malvinas were administered by the Spanish from Montevideo.
NOT BA.
When the occupying force sent by UP in 1832, was evicted in 1833, the ship carrying them sailed back to, you guessed it, Montevideo.
There is no dispute about the British settlement in 1765, you will see from the below link that the official Argy version of history:
http://www.cuestionmalvinas.gob.ar/antecedentes-historicos/
Admits the British settlement took place in 1765, however it claims the settlement was done clandestinely for fear of the Spanish.
Not a credible statement give this was only a year after the end of the Seven Years War, in which the British smashed both the French and Spanish fleets.
Indeed as was seen in 1771, when the British only had to threaten war and the Spanish caved in.
The British landed on the Islands in 1690 and again 1739, issued letters patent claiming the Islands in 1741, with a copy to every Embassy in London which was how the French and Spanish learned of the Islands existence.
When the French put a settlement on the Islands in 1764, desperate to regain some of the ground lost in the Seven Years War, they violated the already establish British Sovereignty of the Islands.
And now you are down to arguing the French claim, yet the British are still arguing the British claim.
Argentina did not inherit anything from Spain, they took what they could by force, there is no document signed by the Spanish giving them anything.
However there is the treaty of 1771 proving the Spanish claim was disputed long before Argentina ever existed.
Argentina simply does not have a case or a claim, it did not exist when this was settled.
Wrong about almost everything...
Mar 13th, 2017 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Swot and come back with some facts and links ya dope...
“the system of corregimientos to mark the subdivisions of the territory was ended in 1782, and replaced with Intendencias by another ruling of Charles III. The new system was intended to re-enforce the royal authority and promote centralization. Buenos Aires had the main intendencia, and the other cities provincial ones. Cevallos reinstated in 1778 the Real Audiencia of Buenos Aires, but not moving back the one from Cochabamba but creating a new one. The Consulate of Commerce of Buenos Aires was ruled to be created the same year, but legal difficulties delayed its actual creation up to 1794.
In 1766, Spain acquired the French colony on the Falkland Islands, called Port St. Louis, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. ”
Irrelavent....zzzz We are in the 21st Century, at least in England we are.
Mar 13th, 2017 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +5@Pugol
Mar 13th, 2017 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“The FIG, I suggest, would be well advised NOT to meet with these people.”
There is the potential for the delegation to manufacture BS when they get back, but surely if they meet the FIG and relate their myth about sovereignty, that gives the FIG the mandate to tear their false history apart, assuming MLA's by now, know their own history?
So the delegation can twist what was said in Argentina and the FIG can release a statement detailing how they challenged the delegations myths?
The delegation will huff and puff when confronted by the truth, and the meeting may be unpleasant, but surely an opportunity for FIG to show its teeth?
@Jack Bauer
“And if the idiot Esquivel insists on the Argies ridiculous sovereignty claim”
There should not be an official meeting perhaps, but surely this is an opportunity for the FIG to point out the erroneous history these morons have been brainwashed with? If the idiot insists on the sovereignty claim, he should be challenged to a meeting with the FIG to trash his erroneous history and debunk that claim.
An opportunity.
They don't like it up em.
@Roger Lorton
“Regardless of the beginnings of our claim the issue lay between Spain and Britain. Spain registered no protest in 1833. And Pinzon's saluting the Union Jack - an act he insisted upon despite being told there was no need - was an indication of Spain's acquiescence.”
On the nail. How can Argentina possibly claim inheritance from Spain when the Spanish saluted the Union Jack?
And my idea of inheritance is that someone leaves a will, leaving property to someone named in the will.
How can Spain have left anything to Argentina when they did not even accept Argentina's exisitence?
If Argentina were allowed to inherit off Spain by conquest, then surely Great Britain was equally entitled to inherit East Falkland from Spain, as there was previously shared sovereignty?
@Voice
“administered by the UP”
Dates and longevity?
@DT
Mar 13th, 2017 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“Argentina seems to have been doing a fine job of demilitarising itself, mostly for lack of cash....”
Right, unvoluntarily
“Anyway, these human rights leaders would probably be very happy to completely abolish the military in Argentina”...
I doubt it....I think, that if they actually defend that, it's because they think it's what people want to hear, and use it as a means to stay in the public eye. Besides the complete impracticality of such a proposition, they'd go ahead with it because they know it would never happen...
@MagnusMaster
What a load of bs ! Am amazed so much came out of only one head....it'll be hard for anyone to outdo your pathetic, nationalistic, baseless, irrelevant rant....so keep it coming, you moron...
@Pete Bog
You're right....a golden opportunity to set the record straight....once again.
You still don't get it Voice. It was Spain v. Britain. Argentina was never in the game.
Mar 13th, 2017 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Now, if Spain had protested in 1833 and Palmerston had negotiated with them, as the Colonial Office suggested he do, the result may have turned out differently, and Spain's flag may well fly over the Islands today. Spain, however, did not protest. Ferdinand's death was badly timed, but that's Kings for you. By 1836 the Cortez decided to start the process of recognising Spain's old colonies as independent nations (providing they would agree to a suitably favourable treaty). Argentina was one of the last. By that time, Britain's position was secure legally. It has been ever since.
Come on Tink, tell us what can Argentina bring to the negociating table the FALKLANDERS can agree on, how many times do you have to be asked.? In fact there is not one Argie on this site that has an answer and we know why that is, because the FALKLANDRES are quite happy with being a BOT, and who can blame them.
Mar 13th, 2017 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +4How about Tango lessons and Corned Beef?
Mar 13th, 2017 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Well..., well..., well...
Mar 13th, 2017 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -2As MercoPress doesn't seem too eager to give the news..., I “Think” I'll better do it...
The FIG(leaf)..., aka the Local Colonial Administration in Malvinas /Falklands is on the brink of losing some £100,000,000 in already deferred taxes from them Engrish Misssissippi Bubble Oil Companies...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/premier-oil-ruffles-feathers-with-talk-of-falklands-field-tax-break-67ct6k3l2
That's about the amount of two full GDP years for them windblown Islands..., ain't it...?
Good you have that Contingency Fund..., Kelpers...
You will soon need it...
Chuckle chuckle...
El Think...
@JB
Mar 13th, 2017 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Given who they represent, I think the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, at least, would be quite happy to see no more military in Argentina.
@Think
Mercopress is usually a day behind, it'll probably appear tomorrow. I hope so anyway, because the Times is paywalled so I can't read the article.
Lord Ton
Mar 13th, 2017 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Spain was finished as a world power, through the Napoleonic campaign, it's 1795 alliance with France led to the loss of it's navy at the Battle of Trafalgar...
It was in no position to protest about anything...
Since their declared and actual independence Spain never regained any of them...
You don't get it...Spain was out of the picture the UP didn't inherit anything it succeeded the Spanish colonies and all that were administered by them...
I find it unfortunate that I have to enlighten certain posters to pertinent facts that should be clearly mentioned in your Timeline of the Falklands...
...but you seem to be quite happy for them to be misled...
If folk knew the history of the Viceroyalty of Rio de La Plata they would realise it was impossible for the Malvinas to be administered by Montevideo...
...but I'm sure you already know that...
btw...Britains position has never been secured legally...just wishful thinking on your part...
Geee...
Mar 13th, 2017 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Brexit...
IndyRef2...
Éire Aontaithe...
Bursting Mississippi Bubble in the South Atlantic...
Hard times ahead for the last remnants of Engrish Colonialism...
DemonTree
Mar 13th, 2017 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Haha...this is as much as I could get before it cut me off...;-)
Premier Oil is asking the Falkland Islands for a tax break to help to develop its Sea Lion field and deliver the area’s first oil.
The company is struggling to make the project commercially viable because of low crude prices.
Rockhopper, another oil explorer, struck oil to the north of the islands seven years ago and Premier bought a majority stake in the project in 2012, when oil was trading at close to $100 a barrel. The companies had planned to start production by this year.
The oil price crash plunged Premier into debt and made the Falklands discoveries, which had an estimated break-even price of $55 a barrel, too costly to be economic.
Premier says now that it has reduced the costs of the…
Want to read more?
Register with a few details to continue reading this article.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 14th, 2017 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0My what a frenzy of sock-puppetry we have here. Your fraud has been outed yet again. So as soon as you lose an issue you move “goal-posts” to another subject. When you can’t put a winning argument together all you’ve got left with is fallacies. Guess your claim of ’conquest’ not being a viable way of acquiring territory, is false. As it was acceptable under international law at least up to 1919 until the enactment of Kellogg. Moreover, such territories can’t be challenged through the UN Charter as it can’t be applied retroactively. After such a long, long time no international law tribunal would even entertain an application by Argentina. So I guess they’ll at least be able to ‘Dream the impossible dream.’ They better enjoy that because they're not getting anything else.
Spain was out of the picture? Utter nonsense Voice - both factually and legally.
Mar 14th, 2017 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse +1Argentina claims it inherited. I say it did not.
Which pertinent facts Voice? I'll happily include any that you can show I've missed.
As for Montevideo - go ask Uruguay. If they were administered by BA, then BA was administered by Madrid.
Argentina was never in the game Voice, and their claimed inheritance is one of the myths of their malvinista religion. If Argentina had inherited, they'd have gone to the ICJ decades ago.
Go learn Voice ..... looking forward to hearing about those “pertinent facts” :-)
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/03/11/argentine-nobel-peace-wants-to-dialogue-with-malvinas-inhabitants-ruled-by-a-colonial-government/comments#comment463348
Mar 14th, 2017 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse +1That is a pertinent fact...
Also who says that newly Independent states inherit...? What territory did the US inherit from Britain....they took...just as the UP took...if Spain had been able to stop them both factually and legally they would have...
Can you read Terry....?
Show me where I have ever said that Conquest in International Law was not a legal means of acquiring territory...now get back to your cornflakes..
You appear confused Voice. Which bit of “Argentina claims it inherited” did you fail to understand?
Mar 14th, 2017 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse +1I agree. Argentina did not 'inherit' as revolutionaries emancipate themselves and gain title to what they can hold onto.
And what is 'pertinent' about your previous statement? However you cut it, Montevideo & BA were administered by Spain. Spain. It was Spain v. Britain in the islands - remember? All you are doing is confirming what I have said.
Argentina was never in the game
Malvinas was administered from BA...BA is the capital of Argentina...Argentina are claiming the former Spanish possession that was administered from BA...not Montevideo...
Mar 14th, 2017 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse -1How many different ways do I have to say it...?
Spain was out of the picture, Spain lost its possessions and control of them from 1810 onwards...
Risible nonsense. Soledad was administered after 1776 according to the Gil y Lemos plan which laid responsibility with the Royal Spanish Navy at Montevideo. Was that navy subject to the orders of the Viceroy? Yes .... and no, as the navy Commander could also appeal to Madrid.
Mar 14th, 2017 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0This appears to have fluctuated over time, but by 1806, the garrison at Soledad was on the books of the navy as a “ship sailing.”
That BA is now the capital of Argentina is quite irrelevant. Ultimately Spain administered Soledad via its navy department.
Spain and Britain - as I said.
Argentina was still not in the game.
Now you are just agreeing with me...
Mar 14th, 2017 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0So the Spanish navy was ported at Montevideo...so what, maybe it had a better port...
It was still under the jurisdiction of the Viceroy...the Viceroy was at BA...
It is only your biased opinion that Spain had any authority over the former Spanish colonies after 1810...yet all the facts show their authority ceased...
The new kids on the block became the authority...
More nonsense. Revolutionaries emancipate themselves. They neither inherit, not take sovereignty over more than they can control. The UP proved particularly inept at controlling East Falkland. Come to that, it wasn't until 1860 that the UP's central government could finally be said to control the mainland territory it then claimed.
Mar 14th, 2017 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse +3New kids on the block? Funny.
Spain's titles remained far superior to those of the revolted UP. Titles recognised by the powers of Europe long after 1833. If there had been an ICJ back then, it would have backed Spain.
New kids on the block - my rear end :-)
As for Uruguay's potential claims; go argue with Uruguay. Makes not an ounce of difference to the Spain v. Britain game.
“Spain's titles remained far superior to those of the revolted UP. Titles recognised by the powers of Europe long after 1833. If there had been an ICJ back then, it would have backed Spain.”
Mar 14th, 2017 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse -2Are you saying that the Spanish title trumped Independence and Self Determination..?
I must remember that...;-)
What independence? Declarations and attainment are two very different things. Argentina declared its independence in 1816. Attainment? Well, depending upon the criteria laid out by supposed experts, you have 1825 (Brit recognition), 1836 (Spain's decision not to pursue attempts to take the UP back), 1853 (Constitution - albeit without BA which declared itself a separate country), 1859 (BA rejoins the Confederation) or 1863 (Recognition by the mother country of the Confederation plus BA).
Mar 14th, 2017 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse +4There was no concept of self-determination before WW1 and it only started to come to fruition in international law after 1945.
Spain's title to Soledad were undoubtedly superior. If only Spain had protested in 1833. But she did not.
As I said before Voice - you are confused
Come on Voice, tell us what Argentina can offer the FALKLANDERS that they would accept, none of your numptie friends can answer that, you are so vociferous and diversionary about other things like sovereignty ( Self determination has already decided that ) come on explain what Argentina has to offer.
Mar 14th, 2017 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse +3Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 14th, 2017 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Where I have ever said that Conquest in International Law was not a legal means of acquiring territory….”.
“Also best look up the definition of Conquered in International Law as an acceptable form of acquiring territory…” Your fraudulent implication is crystal clear, so forget your equivocations.
Roger Lorton
Mar 14th, 2017 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse -5The 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”
Can you show me where in the Nootka Sound agreement that Britain gave up its claim to the Western Falklands MoreCrap?
Mar 14th, 2017 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse +5And nothing was “left to its own fate” in 1811. Both Spain's and Britain's claims still existed. Argentina started trespassing after 1820, but Argentina had no legitimacy and was never a part of the game.
Marquitos Alejandrito
Mar 14th, 2017 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse +4This is unverifiable to the readers here as you have utterly failed to identify the source of your information - thus, this is just a figment of your juvenile imagination!
Gordo,
Mar 14th, 2017 - 07:12 am - Link - Report abuse +3“Juvenile” is correct - our Marcos is consistently the most dim witted Troll on MP.
I am convinced he is either Mike Bingham or no more than 12 years old.
This group are as false as they come they have not spoken to local folks at all they are just creeping around................at least the swimmers had the common decency to attend a presentation that was held yesterday by FIG...
Mar 14th, 2017 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse +6@Voicey
Mar 14th, 2017 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Being a bit thick here aren’t we Voicey, deliberately so methinks.
There is no dispute about the British settlement in 1765.
http://www.cuestionmalvinas.gob.ar/antecedentes-historicos/
Here is the link. In fact it admits to the Anglo/Spanish dispute of 1770 happened, not that you would recognise it without the date.
You claim inheritance, but offer no evidence of it?????
Link please!!!!!!!!
Note: when Australia became Independent an Act of Parliament defined its boundaries, i.e. including Tasmania.
I repeat, the Anglo-Spanish treaty of 1771 proves three things:
1. The British claim is much older than “Argentina” in any form.
2. The British always rejected the Spanish claim.
3. The Spanish had to accept that.
The only thing Argentina could claim to have inherited from Spain was the dispute over the Islands.
Argentina did not exist until long after all this was settled.
Oh and Spain was finished as a world power by the Seven Years War.
http://www.cuestionmalvinas.gob.ar/antecedentes-historicos/
@ Marcos Alejandro
The Falklands are not “adjacent” to S. America, by any meaning of the word.
Use of the word in the Treaty, excludes the Islands from the terms of the treaty.
This is really not that difficult.
So it seems they still have not asked to meet or talk to any of the elected members of the Government - the formal representatives of the community. Perhaps democracy is a foreign concept to these people.
Mar 14th, 2017 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Marcus
Mar 14th, 2017 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +4”..it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as ‘adjacent’ to it” - North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, International Court of Justice, 1969.
but also claim sovereignty and reject “militarization” of the Islands. ,,
Mar 15th, 2017 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse +1Who allows these twats to go to the Falkland's,
cant someone stop this brainwashed twats???
1300 HRS GMT 15 March 2017
Mar 15th, 2017 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Is anyone able to report and comment on the activities of these people? What have they actually been doing?
@DT
Mar 15th, 2017 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Reckon you're right....the mothers, or rather (now) grandmothers, would be...
GALlamosa
Mar 15th, 2017 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“So it seems they still have not asked to meet or talk to any of the elected members of the Government - the formal representatives of the community”
So they actually have no will 'to dialogue'.
If they had any sand about them and wanted to put forward their case, you would imagine they would relish the chance to argue out the sovereignty case with FIG representatives.
The fact is they still soil themselves over the prospect of meeting Islanders.
Translatable as guilt.
They know they are wrong, otherwise they would be breaking a door down to argue their case.
I was looking forward to a meeting where they discussed sovereignty with the FIG and got the truth between the eyes.
I guess the peacenics will make up a pack of lies to report to the Argentine press when they get home, which they will pretend is 'native cunning.'
@Marcos
The sovereignty of the Islands after 1771 was shared between Spain and Great Britain by treaty, not between Great Britain and the UPs/Argentina.
With Spain's absence after 1811, Great Britain were as entitled to move in on the Islands as much as Spain were, after Great Britain departed in 1774, because of prior presence.
Great Britain had as much right to inherit their own claim and Spain's, as the UPs had to inherit the Spanish claim.
Therefore if you are saying that the UPs had the right to inherit something that had belonged to Spain, then Great Britain had an equal right to move in on the Islands as they had previously shared sovereignty with Spain, i.e. Spain did not leave East Falkland by treaty to the United Provinces.
If the UPs believed they owned East Falkland, they had every chance to return after January 1833, until the Royal Navy established a presence in January 1834.
Here, if Great Britain had moved in in 1833 without prior presence on the islands, and around the Islands, the situation would be clearly different.
Seems the colonists and inmigrants are offended by the truth
Mar 15th, 2017 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -5LD
Mar 15th, 2017 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +4I presume that you are talking about Argentina in respect of immigrants and colonists.
@LD
Mar 15th, 2017 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Must be why the Argys get upset so much.
@LD
Mar 15th, 2017 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +4certainly the remaining Indigenous peoples of Patagonia are offended by the immigrants and colonists
LukeDig
Mar 15th, 2017 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Seems the colonists and inmigrants are offended by the truth
Yes, Argentina is offended,
but then most would be colonist would be,
thank god the British are there, and not you lot.
Two days after my last comment and STILL no news of their activities!
Mar 17th, 2017 - 07:09 am - Link - Report abuse +3That's because gordo1 there is no news of their activities to give. As far as we can see they have hung around the hotel, stuck a few irrelevant leaflets here and there, refused to talk to anyone who might disagree with their stance, and have generally been a waste of space. As so often all mouth and no action.
Mar 17th, 2017 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse +4I hope those who have funded them are aware, the money would have been better invested looking after poor children at home.
GAL, much better to give the money to the 33% who are in poverty.
Mar 17th, 2017 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.dw.com/es/malvinas-polémica-visita/av-37989455
Mar 17th, 2017 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Very informative Think....Not! What did that guy say outside the Catholic Church?
Mar 17th, 2017 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ gordo1; @ GAL
Mar 17th, 2017 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See Nora Cortiñas desde Malvinas: “No hay voluntad de los isleños para dialogar” at Sputnik News: “La comitiva argentina que visita las islas Malvinas a 35 años de la guerra que enfrentó a Buenos Aires y Londres por la soberanía del archipiélago no ha tenido ”ningún tipo de relacionamiento“ con los isleños ya que ”no hay voluntad“ de su parte para dialogar.”
Also Gavin Short's reply.
Of course, “no hay voluntad de su parte para dialogar”! The agenda of the “visitors” is nonsense from start to finish!
Mar 18th, 2017 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse +1Disappointing. I was hoping one of the posters here would get the chance to talk to them. It would have been interesting to see what they'd say to a real live Falklander.
Mar 18th, 2017 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From LA NACION Sunday 19-03-2017
Mar 19th, 2017 - 07:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1995484-malvinas-fria-recepcion-a-una-delegacion-de-la-comision-por-la-memoria
Great propaganda stunt
Mar 19th, 2017 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@gordo1
Mar 19th, 2017 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That was about what I expected them to say. What was that stuff about Antarctica?
And what Cortiñas said at the end: they're a captive people, they were taught not to accept us or want us (is that right?) Yes, they were taught - by Argentina. Apart from the obvious fact that armed invasion does not make people love you, and CFK caused more bad feeling by attacking the Islands' economy, does it not occur to her that she has spent most of her life protesting against the Argentine government, and trying to get justice for the actions of the Junta? Why would she expect any outsider to want to join?
“They are taught not to accept us, not to love us, to misrepresent the true history of these islands.”...
Mar 19th, 2017 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...to misrepresent the true history of these islands” ???....Besides showing off her gross ignorance and contempt for the true historical facts, her statement just goes to show that what most Argies are taught, from a young age, is just a pack of lies...
And her pathetic complaint about having to get her passport stamped when entering “her own country” is at least, offensive.....would like to have seen her refuse to present it and be turned back...stupid old bag...
And I'm sure that the Falklanders have better things to do than to waste their time on such meaningless crap as learning how to not accept those idiots.
The Argies got the reception they deserved.
@DT
People like Cortiñas are as bad as most politicians - they have no moral convictions, and they'll change sides in two seconds if it suits them....they just want to stay in the limelight...
Demon Tree
Mar 19th, 2017 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A full translation just wouldn't fit in a space only allowing 2000 characters. But, basically the silly woman is placing all the blame for the failure of their visit on the islanders reluctance to have a dialogue with her and her group of “interlopers”.
But, in a way, one has to feel sorry for them as they really have been brainwashed into believing that they hold the high ground and they cannot conceive that the islanders feel rancour towards them and have no wish to listen to juvenile platitudes!
They do seem rather out of touch to imagine they would find a warm reception and willing ears. Don't they understand that their message must necessarily be an unwelcome and even threatening one for the Falklanders?
Mar 19th, 2017 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But I'm a little surprised that no islanders tried to explain their own views and their situation - or perhaps they did and that is why she said “taught to misrepresent the true history of these islands”?
@gordo1
I was wondering what this bit meant:
Luego, en la visita al museo de las islas, tanto Pérez Esquivel como el padre Pepe y Cortiñas notaron lo mismo con una gran inquietud. “Fuimos al Museo y dice: «Nuestro próximo paso es la Antártida». Callarse la boca no ha producido ningún beneficio en estos 35 años. Ni el silencio de los muchachos que volvieron ni el silencio de los gobiernos”, puntualizó el cura villero.
La advertencia de Pérez Esquivel fue también hacia Chile: “Los gobiernos argentino y chileno van a tener que estar atentos. Lo que señalan en ese gráfico es que el objetivo es apoderarse de gran parte del territorio de la Antártida, incluyendo las bases científicas, como objetivo político, estratégico y económico”, dijo el Premio Nobel de la Paz.
They saw something at the museum about Antartica? What on earth are they talking about?
I didn't understand that part of their complaint but it translate as a complaint that Britain has its ambitions for Antarctica and that Argentina and Chile should be on guard¡
Mar 19th, 2017 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now I'm wondering if they saw a map of the British Antarctic Territory and they literally never knew that Britain also claims that area! That seems hardly credible, but don't they teach children there that it is part of Argentina, and don't mention that what they really have is a claim that is frozen by the Antarctic Treaty like all the others?
Mar 19th, 2017 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems that “ignorance is bliss” for this group of Argentine citizens!!!!!!
Mar 19th, 2017 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!