MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina invites UK to resume Falklands question negotiations
Argentina has again invited the UK to resume negotiations on the Falklands/Malvinas question, following on UN assembly resolutions, and urges an end to unilateral activities related to exploration and exploitation of renewable and non renewable natural resources in the disputed area, as well as to the British military presence in the South Atlantic. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNot even an admirer of imperial power like Mauricio Macri can afford the political cost of ignoring the Malvinas issue--not that he hasn't tried.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse -10Wasn't the June 10 1829 declaration subsequently rendered 'null and void' by the next United Provinces Government that took power just two weeks later that same month?
Jun 10th, 2017 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse +11Wasn't the United Provinces Government on June 10th in power illegally at the time?
Are we to believe that the present Argentine Government has such a selective memory when all this information is available to read in the National Archives in Buenos Aires?
“Argentina has again invited the UK to resume negotiations on the Falklands/Malvinas question”.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +9What Falklands question?
HaHa,what dispute? The UK respects the will of the FALKLANDERS to be a British Overseas Territory, so what is the dispute as the FALKLANDERS have decided as to their future.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +9Both the United Nations and the United Nations International Court of Justice have confirmed that all non self governing territories - including the Falkland Islands - have the “universal and inalienable” right to self-determination under the UN Charter. No amount of “dialogue” or “negotiation” can change that.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +9http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/153
So 10 June is “Celebration of Argentine Imperialism and Colonialism Day”?
Jun 10th, 2017 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +6I recall that several years ago I proposed that my agent in Patagonia, Sr Think, and I would use our profits from the South Atlantic Oil bubble to set up an online Estate Agents selling title to plots of land on the islands to patriotic Argentinian and other Latin Americans citizens (for a small fee per sq metre). These deferred possession deeds would be recognised by the Argentinian government and come complete with election and referendum voting rights. Despite funding having dried up due to the lack of oil, I feel that having read Stoker's post above the time for this idea has come again. Better be quick though, before Mr Elsztain and Mrs Zucker open up their own Estate Agency in the West Store and beat us to it.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -7As pointed out above, the 1829 Decree was declared 'null & void' by the new Rosas administration a couple of weeks after it had been passed. Indeed all of the Lavalle administrations decrees were so declared.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +9In fact June 10, 2017 is the 227 anniversary of Spain's attempt to usurp the Falklands from the British when they ejected a British settlement on West Falkland.
As for the annual suggestion of negotiations, Argentina needs to be reminded that the matter is settled. There simply is nothing to discuss.
Seems to me that without acknowledging the invitation, the Falkland Islands Government should issue an invitation to the Argentine Government to discuss Argentina's illegal occupation of the Islands, what kind of apology the Argentine Government will publish and how much the Argentines are going to pay in reparations.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +10Argentina should invite a commission from the Falklands to hold bilateral discussions concerning natural gas development and gravel quarries in Tierra del Fuego, since that area is within the Falklands' own continental shelf.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +8Great image, but totally spoilt by that bloody awful flag fluttering in an Argie rant to resume negotiations. They never learn that there is no possibility negotiating the Falklands.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +7They'll keep knocking on doors and windows hoping someone will answer the door; but the sign says- No Hawkers.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Hahaha I love the timing of this statement, as it is a quite diplomatic spite and laugh off at the anarchy that “reigns” in the United Kaos (pun intended).
Jun 10th, 2017 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -11That country is just a schizophrenic mindless foobaloo. They can't even figure out left from right, and think they sky is pink. The world is just laughing so hard at this total self-implosion.
Enrique Masott
Jun 10th, 2017 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +7“Not even... Mauricio Macri can afford the political cost of ignoring the Malvinas issue--not that he hasn't tried.”
Quite correct, Enrique.
Very much to his credit that Macri sees the truth and indeed tries very hard to stay within the realm of reality.
Only the brainless indoctrinated and the dishonest politicians and Communist ideologues push this agenda.
Which one are you?
“Very much to his credit that Macri sees the truth and indeed tries very hard to stay within the realm of reality.”
Jun 10th, 2017 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -11We can lend you Macri if you would so like. Between Tony “the Dossier” Blair, David “the Brexit” Cameron, and now Theresa “the DUPed” May, I don't think you have had a single leader in the entire CENTURY that has looked at the world with the eyeglasses of reality. One concocted a war, the other split your society, and the current one destroyed your negotiating power.
As we say in Spanish, you didn't like GuateMALA, so you went to GuatePEOR.
@AustrOllOpithecus For all your ranting about the political upset in the UK, I suggest you take a look at how the British are behaving. “Keep Calm and Carry On” is the order of the day. The Falklands and Gibraltar are British and this is not negotiable. Pretty much business as usual.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Argentina clings onto UNGA 2065 XX from 1965 because that's all she has. The world has
Jun 10th, 2017 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Falklands - UNGA 2065 XX
https://www.academia.edu/10573354/UNGA_2065_XX_Question_of_The_Falkland_Islands_16_Dec_1965
@AustrOllOpithecus
Jun 10th, 2017 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You forgot Gordon “We have saved the world” Brown. It's kind of sad that he may be our least disastrous PM this century, and he made up for it with some terrible decisions as Chancellor.
Please feel free to keep Macri, we have enough politicians hiding their money in tax havens already.
PUMAS 34 ENGLAND RESERVES 38
Jun 10th, 2017 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Argentina reminds us more and more every day of the similarity to its comparatively more successful neighbour, Bolivia.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +5RSVP No idea what question that is. PS Argentines are reminded to please remember to pay your new increased landing fee when you visit the islands.
Jun 11th, 2017 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse +4Oh Marti I have always said Argentina was finished in history and was never coming back.
Jun 11th, 2017 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse -6I admit the reality, always have. Always called the Falklands Falklands, always stated they belong to the UK(aos).
So just admit the UK is in total dysfunction now. Or are you saying all the newspapers all over the world are seeing it all wrong? Are the last 24 months of hole digging unexpectedly some sort of brilliant and grand British plan that no one else can fathom in it's astuteness and cleverness?
Probably not. Sometimes thinks are what in fact they look like they are. The UK has no clue what it's doing or what it wants quite frankly.
You've got it wrong, AustrOilOpithecus
Jun 11th, 2017 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Here we are, Sunday afternoon, and everything is functioning quite normally. The politicians, I can assure you, will sort something out and by next Sunday all will be well.
We know what we want and we will get it - don't forget WW2 when we started alone and look what happened by 1945.
@TTT
Jun 11th, 2017 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Not sure what 'finished in history' is supposed to mean but even if you think your own country is a basket case, wishing countries you envy to join it in the trash is just infantile.
The U.K. is not finished by a long chalk. We have had darker times in our history and pulled back. In recent history the 70's (an era Corbyn is keen to drag us back to) was simply dire. We borrowed money from the IMF, had rolling blackouts, constant shortages of essentials and three day working weeks as the Unions attempted to destroy the country. BUT we pulled it back.
How many times? Stop basing your opinions on what you read on the internet. Papers tell their readers what they want to hear to make money out of them. The reality of life here is very different. Work hard, save up and see with your own eyes. You can them form an opinion not based on what you are told to think by the newspapers.
I can confirm that you have always supported the self-determination of the Falklands and you have said so on numerous occasions.
PithyCuss,
Jun 11th, 2017 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Or are you saying all the newspapers all over the world are seeing it all wrong?”
Evidently, some are interpreting the newspaper reports all wrong, wallowing in their own hyperbole, Schadenfreude, deliberate ignorance, fool's game reliance on misleading media, and wishful thinking. But then, it's unlikely that you really know much about the UK anyway, or have ever been there. Or to any of the serious countries, for that matter.
@ Roger Lorton, Pascoe and Pepper maintain that the Argentine government that issued the decrees was not legitimate and that Rosas declared all the acts performed by the government of Lavalle null and void.79 For a variety of reasons, the United Kingdom cannot invoke the “nullity” of the decrees passed to create the Political and Military Command and to appoint Vernet. Firstly, there was no such nullity, and even if it had been declared by the subsequent government, it would not be opposable in the international sphere, by virtue of the principle of continuity of the State.80 Secondly, because the government that followed that which issued the decrees on June 10th, 1829, including Rosas', continued to act in accordance with the content of those decrees. Suffice it to note the official correspondence exchanged between the Political and Military Commander and the government of Buenos Aires between 1829 and 1831, as well as the attitude adopted by the latter when Vernet captured three American ships, and later over the actions of the Lexington.81 Thirdly, if the decrees were hypothetically null and void, the only State that could invoke such nullity would be Argentina. This conclusion can be reached by applying the provisions of the law of treaties relating to the violation of internal law by analogy to unilateral acts of State.82 What is more, the British protest of November 19th, 1829 had as its sole objective the decree dated June 10th of the same year. At the moment the protest was raised, the change in government of the Province of Buenos Aires had already occurred. Such an action would not make sense if it were directed to a government which did not recognise the validity of the act being protested. All this shows the futility of the efforts of the British pamphlet, as other British sources had previously attempted, to detract from the importance of the Decree of June 10th and the creation of the Political and Military Command of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
Jun 11th, 2017 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Is it possible that Malvinense 1833 is, in fact, Marcelo G. Kohen, Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Switzerland and Member of the Institute of International Law?
Jun 11th, 2017 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Malvinense 1833 (Kohen) should possibly read the 1882 Senate decisions as to the legality of the PROVINCIAL (not national) decrees of Buenos Aires in the 1820's. He has however, obviously read Caillet-Bois who came up with a similar argument as to the belated recognition of the Rosas administration in 1830 and 1831. If that is the case, them Malvinense 1833 will also have noted the responses by the Rosas administration in December 1829 and in 1830 when they declined to publicly support Vernet's position - admitting to “certain difficulties.”
Jun 11th, 2017 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +7I should also point out that the declaration making the 1829 Decree 'null and void' fell after the instruction regarding the protest by Britain (to Parish) had left London. It was not the internet age back then - messages took time.
Whatever.
The FACT that the 1829 Decree was declared null and void is undeniable and I deal in facts.I actually accept that the later actions of the Rosas government reversed that position, but then all the acts of the Rosas government were themselves, declared 'null and void' after his fall.
Such is the way of Argie politics.
Invited the UK to resume negotiations ?? Why do the Argies insist ? hasn't the UK already made it painfully clear that it is not interested in their little schemes ?
Jun 11th, 2017 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Malvinense 1833
Jun 11th, 2017 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“Argentine government that issued the decrees was not legitimate” The decrees weren’t since Argentina cannot avail herself of the authority under international law.
As she is explicitly explicitly barred under prior Anglo-Spanish treaties from ever holding sovereignty. Under Utrecht and Nootka Spain had promised NEVER to cede any of her territories, and gave permission for the UK to continue further development in Islands, in the event of a third parties' intrusion. Along with shared sovereignty of the islands from the 1771 Declaration. But even if these prior conditions didn't exist and the UK simply sailed over the ocean blue and took them, it was perfectly legal in 1833 to wit:
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST
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,
presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty
of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.10 That the tribunal's decision in this
arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish
a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states
as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...”
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
The Nootka Sound Convention 1790?
Jun 11th, 2017 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“It was the first express renunciation of Spain’s ancient claim to exclusive sovereignty over the American shores of the Pacific Ocean and the South Seas. It marks the beginning of the collapse of the Spanish colonial system.” [Manning 1905]
“... the upshot of the Nootka Sound incident – a Spanish capitulation to Pitt's ministry on most relevant points by October 1790 – signified a larger humiliation of France, just as surely as had Madrid's retreat over the Falkland Islands less than two decades before. Once more the Spanish had looked to their Bourbon confederate for support in the face of British naval and commercial expansionism – and once again, the French had failed to assert themselves.” [Stone 2002]
Kohen & Rodriguez assert that the Nootka Convention favours the arguments in favour of Spain. In reality, the complete opposite is true.
Self-Determination is compelling law. But still the Argentinians pretend...
Jun 11th, 2017 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Falklands – Self -Determination: https://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page_
1) clarification roger lorton is not in the original text.
Jun 11th, 2017 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -52)I'am not Marcelo Kohen
@ Terence Hill:
d) Pascoe and Pepper recognise that the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial or Nootka Sound of 1790 was applicable to the Falklands/Malvinas
The British pamphlet makes a considerable, though unsuccessful, effort to undermine a key treaty for the recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands and Britain’s obligation to respect it.
This is the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial of 1790, also known as the Nootka Sound Convention, signed by Great Britain and Spain at El Escorial on October 28th, 1790. Notwithstanding their efforts, Pascoe and Pepper have no choice but to recognise that the Treaty in question applied to the Falklands/Malvinas and that consequently Great Britain undertook not to occupy the islands.
The dispute arose in 1789, when a Spanish naval officer, commissioned by the Viceroy of Mexico, apprehended two British ships at Nootka Sound (near Vancouver Island) and ordered the transfer of their captains and crews to San Blas port, in Mexico. Spain claimed that the British subjects had violated the laws of the Spanish Crown, and Great Britain requested a salute to their flag before discussing the substantive issue. In order to find a solution to this incident and avoid similar incidents in future, the two nations concluded the Treaty of 1790.
Article IV reads:
His Britannic majesty engages to take the most effectual measure to prevent the navigation and fishery of his subjects, in the Pacific Ocean or in the South-Seas, from being made a pretext for illicit trade with the Spanish settlements; and, with this view, it is moreover expressly stipulated, that British subjects shall no navigate or carry on their fishery, in the said seas, within the space of ten sea-leagues from any part of the coasts already occupied by Spain.
Read more here: http://www.malvinas-falklands.net/avada_portfolio/chapter-i/
Quoting Kohen's comic?
Jun 11th, 2017 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +6P&P accept that Nootka applied to the Falklands.
What is important is what it was that applied.
1) Nootka applied to both the English AND the Spaniards. Where the English were banned, so were the Spanish.
2) The preamble to Nootka actually included an early version of a 'sovereignty umbrella' - “, setting aside all retrospective discussions of the rights and pretensions of the two parties,..”
3) Nootka contained a complaints procedure which was never invoked as Spain declined to ever complain knowing that England wished to reopen discussions regarding Falklands sovereignty [ Leeds to Pitt November 21, 1790, Add. MSS.28066, fo.348].
Nootka favours the British as my quotes above demonstrate.
Go read Nootka but go read ALL of it
The prohibition is crystal clear, as is the fact that at the moment the Treaty was signed, Spain was in sole possession of the Falklands/Malvinas. By that time, Spain had already appointed the 13th Governor of the Malvinas. The prohibition undoubtedly included the Falkland/Malvinas islands, a fact recognised by Pascoe and Pepper.
Jun 11th, 2017 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -9As Julius Goebel asserts, “the terms of the sixth article by inference forbade any landing at the Falklands as they were a place already occupied by Spain.”37 This was the Spanish authorities’ understanding when they took all necessary measures to protect their shores. A concrete example that can apply to the islands is the note dated March 4th, 1794 written by the Governor of the Malvinas, Mr Pedro Sanguineto, addressing the Viceroy Nicolás Arredondo and informing him that he had performed a 41-day navigation to carry out patrol and surveillance activities over the archipelago.
In the note, he informs the Viceroy of the presence of vessels of different nationalities (some British), which were cautioned and informed of the prohibition of landing and fishing, save in a situation of “wreckage or shortage of water.”
Unable of deny the evidence, the British authors attempt to split hairs. In order to do so, they come up with the idea of emphasizing an aspect that not only does not justify the British position, but in fact further bolsters the Spanish/Argentine thesis. It is Article VI
Malvinense 1833
Jun 11th, 2017 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“The prohibition is crystal clear, as is the fact that at the moment the Treaty was signed, …”
The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
Have you chaps nothing better to do than go over and over again all of history, it is 2017 and the FALKLANDERS have made it quite plain and in Queens English that they want to remain a BOT. They WILL remain a BOT until the FALKLANDERS wish for something else.
Jun 11th, 2017 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +4@ friend Terence: The key point is that the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial or Nootka Sound of 1790 clearly demonstrates that at the moment the Argentine independence process began in 1810, the Falkland/Malvinas islands belonged to Spain and that Great Britain both recognised this fact and undertook to respect Spanish sovereignty.
Jun 11th, 2017 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -9In spite of the fact that the islands were under Argentine possession in 1833, Great Britain could not possibly ignore the fact that for Spain the islands, as indeed all the territory of the newborn Argentine nation, were still part of its empire of the Indies.
There are a variety of reasons why the secret clause could not be invoked against Argentina. Firstly, because Argentina succeeded to Spain’s rights over the Falklands/Malvinas; at the moment in which it recognized Argentine independence and the two nations established diplomatic relations and entered into a treaty of amity in 1825, Great Britain had the obligation to respect Argentina’s territorial integrity. Secondly, even if the secret clause were in force and opposable to Argentina – which is not the case – because Argentina has succeeded to Spain’s rights, there was no settlement established by “subjects of other powers”, but only a continuation of Spain’s rights.
British sources concur on the fact that the Treaty of 1790 prevented Great Britain from settling in the Falkland/Malvinas islands. No serious British author, nor the British government itself or its officials considered the secret clause to be applicable after Argentine independence.
Kohen , Marcelo
Rodríguez , Facundo.
Too late now to be gnashing your teeth over what happened two centuries ago. It's 2017 and the Falklands are British.
Jun 12th, 2017 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse +6Stay Calm
and
Get Used To It.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Jun 12th, 2017 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse -9Malvinense 1833 - Before Nootka Spain claimed all the territory of the Americas. After Nootka, all Spain claimed was the site of a settlement and 10 leagues either side.
Jun 12th, 2017 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse +4As art.6 makes plain. The prohibition with regard to islands applied to BOTH parties.
“Article 6: It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.”
As a result, all Spain claimed in the Falklands was Soledad and a section of coast 10 leagues either side of that.
As Manning said in 1905 -
“It was the first express renunciation of Spain’s ancient claim to exclusive sovereignty over the American shores of the Pacific Ocean and the South Seas. It marks the beginning of the collapse of the Spanish colonial system.”
Malvinense 1833
Jun 12th, 2017 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse +5“In 1810, the Falkland/Malvinas islands belonged to Spain” Poppycock! other than you’re saying so, there was no relinquishment of the Anglo-Spanish accord of 1771.
There is no international law that supports such a contention. While the UK can place its reliance on the treaty of Utrecht and Nootka and the further support of 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.
@ AustrOllOpithecus I am assuming the butt hurt for you is bad at present. The UK will be fine, we have survived worse and no doubt we will survive this. You obviously do not have a clue about industry and trade in Europe or the UK. We are the worlds 9th largest exporter and the worlds 4th largest importer. Our main export destinations are the US, China Germany and the Netherlands. The UK is the EUs largest export market. So do you think they are really going to try and damage us. Its all bluster and bravado. Anyway on more important issues, cricket, how's the Champions Trophy Campaign going for you? Oh sorry it isn't, we dumped you out of it.
Jun 12th, 2017 - 04:21 am - Link - Report abuse +6Spain only claimed ONE island in 1811. Something that Argies prefer to ignore. Spain still claimed that island in 1833.
Jun 12th, 2017 - 04:25 am - Link - Report abuse +7Argentina was never in the game
And when the Antarctic Treaty expires, Argentine colonies will be removed from the British territory there as well.
Jun 12th, 2017 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Get used to it.
> Argentina reminds us more and more every day of the similarity to its comparatively more successful neighbour, Bolivia.
Jun 12th, 2017 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +3At least Bolivia has the good sense not to constantly bitch about its one-time territorial claims to northern Chile. Unless Latinos claiming other Latinos is a different sort of claim than Latinos claiming Anglos. Argentines couldn't be racist, could they?
Can we invite Argentina to a meeting to discuss donating Buenos Aires to the British Crown and the payment of an annual fee of one billion argentine pesos (£1.50) to the exchequer for no better reason than we like the idea?
Jun 12th, 2017 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +3R Ben: “ Argentines couldn't be racist, could they?”
Jun 12th, 2017 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The most racist in the Western hemisphere:
” Los mexicanos descendieron de los aztecas, los peruanos de los inca, los cholivianos de los monos. Y los argentinos, de los barcos”.
Champions Trophy in Cricket?
Jun 12th, 2017 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -7You know how many people in Argentina even know about this? hahahaha. I did not even know and I know EVERYTHING.
Now that the EU will take out the Falklands and Argentine Antarctica out of their maps, it is just a matter of time that this and the dropping Pound will force the pullout of all British invaders from the White continent.
Austro, no idea where you get your information from but it is probably a Russian site as they do not know what truth means.
Jun 12th, 2017 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3@AustroLLPrikelus
Jun 12th, 2017 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +4What about rugby ? does yesterday, in San Juan, ring a bell ? England 38 x Argentina 34.
You have fielded teams with talent and depth lately. So I give you credit in the Rugg.
Jun 13th, 2017 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ Hello Terence: Conquest? Thank you for acknowledging in a single word that the Malvinas Islands were never British, anyway look -As Sharon Korman explains in her book on conquest as a means of acquiring territorial sovereignty:
Jun 13th, 2017 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse -5It is reasonable to suppose that if the mere use or threat of force in the absence of war had been recognized in the nineteenth century as a lawful means of acquiring territory or of establishing a title by conquest, Britain would have appealed to that title as a means of putting an end, once and for all, to the disputed status of the territory (...). But Britain – contrary to what would have been the advice of some present-day international lawyers – did not put forward the claim of conquest precisely because it had not been at war with Argentina, and war, in the traditional international system, was the only lawful means of acquiring rights to territory by force.
Marcelo Kohen - Facundo Rodriguez
@ Hello Roger: “As art.6 makes plain. The prohibition with regard to islands applied to BOTH parties.” No Roger, not! the islands were already occupied by Spain and even had Governor !!! The prohibition is crystal clear, as is the fact that at the moment the Treaty was signed, Spain was in sole possession of the Falklands/Malvinas. By that time, Spain had already appointed the 13th Governor of the Malvinas. The prohibition undoubtedly included the Falkland/Malvinas islands, a fact recognised by Pascoe and Pepper. As Julius Goebel asserts, “the terms of the sixth article by inference forbade any landing at the Falklands as they were a place already occupied by Spain.”
Marcelo Kohen -Facundo Rodríguez.
Malhechor 1833
Jun 13th, 2017 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse +3Resulta difícil argumentar hoy que los pequeños acontecimientos del siglo XIX tengan importancia en estos asuntos en el siglo XXI. Las islas son británicas, y británicas serán, hasta que los habitantes mismos elijan otra forma de gobierno. Sentirás mucho mejor cuando te acostumbres a eso.
Malvinense 1833.
Jun 13th, 2017 - 04:35 am - Link - Report abuse +5You miss the point. Nootka was imposed upon Spain - Spain complained bitterly that it was forced into a corner as, yet again, France refused to go to war with Spain. ALL Spain got was the location of its settlement and 10 leagues either side. I should add that, geographically, Port Egmont lies to the north of the Soledad settlement.
And no, while Pascoe & Pepper agree that the accord applied to the Falklands they also see it as an erosion of Spain's traditional claims and they recognise that it acknowledged British rights in the area.
You may be interested in the words of the Spanish minister just after Nootka was signed:
“… the purpose of the Convention was to avoid a war in the present unhappy circumstances, reserving it for a more favorable time, if it should become necessary. It did not involve an absolute renunciation in case Spain chose not to observe it. It was shown that by a strict interpretation of some of its terms the Convention could be made of little value to England and little loss to Spain. In the stipulations that granted to English subjects privileges of commerce and settlement north or south of places already occupied, attention was called to the expression “already occupied.” The word “occupied” did not mean nearly so much as “inhabited” or “peopled” would have meant, and “already” did not mean “actually” or ”now.” If a place had been once occupied and then abandoned this expression could be made to apply to it. The implication was that formal acts of taking possession where there had been no thought of making an actual settlement could be made to come under this head. Such acts had been performed practically all along the coast. Such a construction would have almost nullified the privileges granted to England. ... it was proposed it was proposed to observe the Convention only so long as it should be to the advantage of Spain to do so. Whenever she felt strong enough to assert her ancient rights she could still do it.”
Jack Bauer
Jun 13th, 2017 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse +2Just to remind you that the English XV which won the match with the Pumas was the second team or reserves - there are 14 Englishmen amongst the Lions touring New Zealand.
When I say “France refused to go to war with Spain” I meant - alongside.
Jun 13th, 2017 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse +6I had also run out of space above, but I think it is important to emphasise that Art.6 applied to both the parties to the Convention. Both England AND Spain.
The Nootka Convention marked the start of Spain's retreat from the America's and, in particular, the Falklands.
After 1790, the visits that Soledad paid to Egmont reduced until they ceased completely. In 1801/02 the negotiations between England and France recognised English dominance in the western Falkland Islands. In 1806 the Spanish Navy even changed its accounting procedures to list the garrison site at Soledad as a “ship sailing.” In 1809 Spain gave up its arguments with Britain in the initial peace treaty following Napoleon's annexation of Spain and, as we know, in 1811, Spain left Soledad claiming only that one island.
Your mistake, Malvinense 1833, is to follow slavishly the nonsense written by Rodriguez & Kohen, who have proven to be poor researchers and poor historians. The Gods alone know how good they are as lawyers, but the evidence suggests that they are far too prepared to twist legal realities to suit their distorted arguments.
Go do your own research Malvinense 1833.
When Argentine governments have governed Argentina for a few years “respecting the way of life of its inhabitants and in conformity with International Law”, someone might believe they'd do the same thing anywhere else.
Jun 13th, 2017 - 07:19 am - Link - Report abuse +5Just a passing thought - does anybody know if Argentina used the 'Uti Possidetis Juris' argument with regards to the Beagle Channel dispute when it was put before the ICJ and if so what the ICJ said about it?
Jun 13th, 2017 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse +1Terence Hill
Jun 13th, 2017 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0I humbly submit that I am a visionary and sage, as well as a genius.
Jun 13th, 2017 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse -4I have been here since 2012. From the very beginning I have pounded upon the idea of a brewing “Anglo Supremacism”, WELL BEFORE Brexit or Trump were even possibilities. In the last year, ALL major publications of magazines, newspapers, most news organizations, and even many editorials and thinktanks are also picking up on this idea. But when a LATE NIGHT SHOW finally gets to it, and to boot a show whose host is ENGLISH, then you know you were right all along.
Here, ladies and gentlemen is what I have been been saying for 5 years, resumed in a profession TV show by an Anglo himself:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a55578/john-oliver-brexit-exceptionalism/
I REST MY CASE, your honor.
A Weltanschauung based on late-night television comedians. Now there is a true argentine intellect.
Jun 13th, 2017 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Austral
Jun 13th, 2017 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3You get funnier with everything you post - referring to a US program from Esquire TV whose ratings in the US are so low that they are unmeasurable and which is being shut down in a couple of weeks is truly hilarious even by your pathetic standards -
Voice you really must tell your elves that they really must up their game because they are making you look ridiculous
Malvinense 1833
Jun 13th, 2017 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Thank you for acknowledging in a single word that the Malvinas Islands were never British”
I haven’t at all, I have merely shown that in the absence of any prior legal claim of three treaties, two diplomatic protests. Subsequent Argentine acquiescence by her failure to respond.
“..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
Thus, without these, simple conquest would still legally have conferred sovereignty to Briton.
”..It is therefore not surprising that the UN General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modem prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'..” Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk.
“But Britain .. did not put forward the claim of conquest ..and war, ...was the only lawful means of acquiring rights to territory by force.” Wrong!
”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.” General theory of law and state by Hans Kelsen
Terence Hill
Jun 13th, 2017 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The question has arisen therefore as to the basis of British title. It was originally argued that this lay in a combination of discovery and occupation, but this would be questionable in the circumstances. It would perhaps have been preferable to rely on conquest and subsequent annexation for, in the 1830s, this was perfectly legal as a method of acquiring territory, (Shaw, M. International Law 6th Edition, quoting Lindley, Acquisition).
Great outer space image of S America unfortunately spoilt by the god-awful white blue and white flag cluttering up the coastline imagery.
Jun 13th, 2017 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Oh yes, Darragh and Marti the typical Anglos, an excuse for everything: everyone else is wrong, everyone else hates us, everyone else has it out on us (which is what essentially Trump says: ”oh poor USA, we are taken advantage by every single country in the world, we are the Mother Theresa of Nation states, whah whah whah!), and which is what Brexit is about (those EUians taking all our money, and we get nothing, imposing their laws and we never get special treatment ... lol, look at all the migrants as if the EU mainland had none... oh poor us).
Jun 13th, 2017 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Always someone else. Never them.
Any wonder Trump and May are Persona Non Grata in every corner of the world. The Earth is done with Anglo whinging and preciousness. You are not special, in fact no one even needs you. So live by the rules everyone else does, stop crying, stop diva complexing, stay quiet, ask for nothing... or get out of the world! Everyone, literally, is not only holding the doors open (EU to UK, Asia-Pacific to USA), but they are begging you to get out.
GO ANGLOS, OUT!
hahahaha, what a harsh reality.
But reality it is
How things have changed.
Amazing.
Bye bye bye!
Bob
Jun 13th, 2017 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +3There is so many levels that the UK holds indisputable legal title as many of us know.
Austro, you really need to see a doctor or don't they have proficiant doctors in Argentina, Please explain “ GO ANGLOS OUT ” Out of where? THE ANGLOS will still be here after you are dead and buried and that also applies to me.
Jun 13th, 2017 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Mars is all there for the taking. Though you would fit better with the environment of Venus.
Jun 13th, 2017 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0AustrOllOpithecus
Jun 13th, 2017 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Do you live in a “dreamworld”? Oh, yes, of course you do! ARGENTINA!
@gordo1
Jun 13th, 2017 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Just to remind you that the English XV which won the match with the Pumas was the second team or reserves - there are 14 Englishmen amongst the Lions touring New Zealand.”
You are right, but saw no point in rubbing it in. Nevertheless, a good game.
Pithycuss: “... and Marti the typical Anglos, an excuse for everything: everyone else is wrong, everyone else hates us,...”
Jun 13th, 2017 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +31. Marti isn't anglo, just as not all the thieves in Rosario are descended from Sicilians. Though in the argentine mind, apparently this “anglo” label is what one assigns to anyone who has lived here long enough to recognise that scruple-free Argentina is a bowl of bosta.
2. The “everyone hates us” observation, while certainly correct, is a point of pride among the argentines. It is the result of Argentina's deliberate and pervasive national endeavor to give the nations and peoples of the world good cause to detest the country, for argentines thrive on their much-deserved reputation as incorrigibly corrupt and inconsolably arrogant. That the neighbours would describe Argentina as a mere “gang of thieves, from first to last” is perhaps one of the kindest and most charitable opinions one can hold about Argentina.
Austro
Jun 13th, 2017 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0certainly rattled your cage didn't I - hahahha
Jhanta!!!
Oh Marti!
Jun 14th, 2017 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse +1I just guess that you are running out of your prescribed self esteem pills.
Jack Bauer
Jun 14th, 2017 - 05:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0My lack of respect for ANYTHING Argentine compels me to “rub it in”!
@AustrOllOpithecus you really must have suffered some really bad butt hurt in your life to be such a resentful wee tike. Today is a good day, it is the 35th anniversary of serious argentine butt hurt when 90% of the glorious argentine invasion force surrendered without having fired a shot.
Jun 14th, 2017 - 07:37 am - Link - Report abuse +4It also marks the last time the UK won a war and was not humiliated by roving bands in the desert, and forces into a purposefully very quiet yet nonetheless humiliating withdrawal.
Jun 14th, 2017 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse -7Grow up Austro, and grow a pair. You and I know that all Argentina can do is moan about us “ Brits ” Look at helping your country to become successful if possible.
Jun 14th, 2017 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Tobias the silly infantile troll
Jun 14th, 2017 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +4What's that I smell? Desperation? Hopelessness?
How's your dream of the great socialist Argentine empire stretching from Atlantic to Pacific and throughout all of South America?
Not going well? Gosh I'm shocked? Why don't all your South American 'brothers' want to be part of an Argentine empire?
Is it because just about all of their country's are more successful than Argentina? And more powerful than Argentina!
It must destroy you every day when all these other 'lesser' countries (in your eyes at least) are so much better than Argentina.
Maybe Macri can pull Argentina back from the abyss, or maybe he'll give in to temptation like EVERY single President you've ever had, and just start lining his own pockets instead.
Time will tell.
As for the Falklands. They're British. Get over it...or don't. Either way it doesn't affect the British at all.
And that really gets to you as well, doesn't it?
A loser, from a country of losers, crying because the majority of you are too lazy to be anything else.
@AustrOllOpithecus I don't see the Argentine armed forces helping out in far flung foreign places. Would you care to expand on why you are a mealy mouthed lot and won't help the international war against terrorism?
Jun 14th, 2017 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Wow, did I impact on a nerve bundle? You all are quite befuzzed.
Jun 14th, 2017 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Befuzzed?
Jun 15th, 2017 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse +4What on earth is the pithycuss saying here?
Not that he makes any sense in any other entry.
AustrOllOpithecus I suggest very strongly that you do some research Operation Enduring Freedom was a UN/Nato operation involving some 58 nations, notable not including Argentina or anyone from South America. You seem to have forgotten Gulf War 1. Gulf War 2 and the subsequent occupation was not as you suggest a defeat. 9 Nations were involved in the latter.
Jun 15th, 2017 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse +3Gordo1
Jun 15th, 2017 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Shouldn't you be more concerned about “cladding” use and praying for the victims instead of a game?
@AustroLLPrikelus
Jun 15th, 2017 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1While John Oliver is obviously too smart for his pants, and says exactly what his (naive) public wants to hear, those who swallow up his sarcasm as the undisputed truth, forget that it is exactly the systems that you (and he too,) criticize, that make it possible for him to blow his mouth off and get away with it.....can't imagine anyone taking the piss out of CFK on public television, and getting away with it, scot-free....what was the name of the last person who said 'nasty' things (the 'truth') about CFK, publicly ? the name “Nisman” comes to mind...
@Marcus Alejandro
WTF R U talking about ?
“While John Oliver is obviously too smart for his pants,...”
Jun 15th, 2017 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There are very few argentines who can begin to grasp the distinction between “late night entertainment” and “news reporting.”
Marquitos Alejandrito
Jun 15th, 2017 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +3To what the hell are you referring? You juvenile idiot!
London fire and fifth world construction gordo, juveniles are the ones that gave your Tory lady candidate a humiliating defeat:-)
Jun 15th, 2017 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Marquitos Alejandrito
Jun 15th, 2017 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Your comments are the vilest I've seen on Mercopress in all the years that I have been following it. First of all, you make two very mistaken assumptions 1) that I have had no reaction to the dreadful event of yesterday in London and 2) that Mrs May received a “humiliating” defeat - she didn't! Many more people voted for the Conservative party than voted for the Labour Party and in Parliament the Conservatives have 317 seats whilst the opposition Labour have only 262 seats. The Conservative party received a total of 13,667,213 votes whilst the Labour party received 12,874,985 votes - hardly a humiliating defeat, you silly little man!
Marcos Alejandro
Jun 15th, 2017 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“London fire” Is not the first instance, as there has been similar fires in Australia and Paris. If your referring to the last British election the ruling party didn’t lose, otherwise they wouldn’t be in power. Such subtles I understand are beyond your comprehension. But, knock yourself out if showing the world you're an ignorant buffoon is your goal.
Gordo, I wasn't exactly talking about Theresa horrible day and future I was talking about your city conservative incumbent lady humiliating defeat against a much better labour candidate. Clearly you know little about banking but nothing about construction..
Jun 15th, 2017 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Marquitos Alejandrito
Jun 15th, 2017 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +3You now try and change the subject, you silly little man! You really should take those pills that have been prescribed for you. I have no idea what you are babbling about!
Marcos is once again- the stupidest troll on MP.
Jun 15th, 2017 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Marcos
Jun 15th, 2017 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +3What a piece of pond slime you are.
Jhanta
“ Argentina invites UK to resume Falklands question negotiations ” since when did the UK and Argentina talk about sovereignty before? To resume you must have started in the first place.
Jun 16th, 2017 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Marcos Alejandro
Jun 16th, 2017 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1After your string of nonsensical crap, I think you are the argy equivalent of the Brasshole....you both share the same talent.
“A loser, from a country of losers, crying because the majority of you are too lazy to be anything else.”
Jun 16th, 2017 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -1No, we cry because there are still people like you who think we are inferior to everybody else.
MouseMaster,
Jun 17th, 2017 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse +1I am not convinced that the Argentines are necessarily inferior to all others, though I must say that nowhere in the world is the implausible enormity of the argie ego so bereft of the slightest justification.
There is of course some truth to the view held by Argentina's neighbours and a great deal of the espanish-espeaking world, that the argies are mostly implanted mafiosi who speak a rudimentary sort of espanish, expect the elevated salaries of the Americans, wish to live as the cultured English, give speeches like hallucinating French communists and vote like the rural Sengalese. The argies by and large think like rag-picking leftists and wish to live as the bourgeoisie. The few clever ones worship the enterprising nature of the Canadians but continue to organise as if they were Bolivians, admiring the exquisite order of the Swiss but practicing the sort of criminal disorder of the Somalians. The principal endemic disease from which Argentines seem to mercifully suffer is a profound degree of deafness, for it prevents them from appreciating how much the rest of the world is laughing at their folly.
Magnus, you carry on crying ( is that what you think that you are inferior?) and I will keep smiling, now who feels better? I have to admit, when I worked there I found the locals lazy and has a 2 hr siesta in the afternoon. Having had the siesta they took some time to get back to the job in hand.
Jun 17th, 2017 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse +1golfcronie, I guess you worked in the interior. Nobody takes a siesta in Buenos Aires. At least not people who have a job.
Jun 17th, 2017 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0golfcronie: “....a 2 hr siesta in the afternoon...”
Jun 17th, 2017 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Only two hours? In some places here it's 3-4 hours.
Lots of shops/businesses in Bs As don't even open until 1000, some not until 1100. For others the open-hours may be 8:00 to 12:00 and then 14:00 to 18:00. Call that break “lunch” or “siesta” or whatever.
SATURDAY, 17 JULY 2017
Jun 17th, 2017 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With much delight! And, of course, rubbing it in!
PUMAS 25 ENGLAND RESERVES/SECOND TEAM 35
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!