MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 25th 2022 - 17:10 UTC

 

 

Falklands' Museum incorporates naval journal with accounts of Port Egmont 250 year ago

Friday, August 18th 2017 - 09:50 UTC
Full article 144 comments

Two hundred and fifty years on, the story of a bold Falklands naval adventure has been purchased for the local museum in Stanley. Friends of the Falkland Islands Museum and Jane Cameron National Archives (FIMA Friends) executive committee member Alexandra ‘Zaz’ Shackleton was browsing at the regular antiquarian travel book fair at the Royal Geographical Society in London, when she came across a volume that she immediately knew belonged in the Falklands. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Voice

    Amazing the English language...

    “until the two countries hammered out an agreement effectively allowing the Spanish to remain at what is now Port Louis, while the British maintained their colony at Saunders Island.”

    Biased much...?
    Let's try it the proper way round...

    “until the two countries hammered out an agreement effectively allowing the British to remain at Saunders Island, whilst the Spanish maintained their colony at Port Louis.”

    Aug 18th, 2017 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • gordo1

    Voice

    What a really petty stance to take! ¡Nabo!

    Aug 18th, 2017 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Voice

    gordo1

    ....but true...;-)

    Aug 18th, 2017 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    Wrong again Voice. Spain was on the back-foot as France wouldn't support the notion of going to war - so Britain dictated the terms.
    Much the same as 1790 in fact. Spain has so much to thank France for.

    Aug 18th, 2017 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • DemonTree

    Considering the Spanish never left their settlement, while the agreement allowed Britain to return to theirs, Voice's version makes a lot more sense.

    Aug 18th, 2017 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Voice

    Yeah we all know the real terms...we'll allow you back to save face...but you have to fcuk off of your own accord...
    and lo and behold...they did...
    ...facts speak for themselves...no matter how you try to twist them...

    Britain had a small claim to Saunders Island...

                       ...and that's it...

    Aug 18th, 2017 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Roger Lorton

    You appear to know very little. I suggest that you do some research.

    The 1771 Convention refers to West Falkland (Great Malouine) - NOT Saunders island.

    “... his Catholick Majesty engages to give immediate orders, that things shall be restored in the Great Malouine at the port called Egmont, precisely to the state in which they were before the 10th of June, 1770:..”

    And no, we did not 'fuck off' - we withdrew a garrison, nothing more.

    “Be it known to all Nations, That Falkland's Island with this Fort, the Storehouses,
    Wharfs Harbours, Bays and Creeks thereunto belonging, are the sole Right and
    Property of his Most Sacred Majesty George the third, King of Great Britain,
    France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. In Witness whereof this Plate is set
    up and his Britanick Majesty's Colours left flying as a mark of possession by S. W.
    Clayton, commanding officer at Falkland's Island. 1774 A.D.”

    December 4th, 1789

    “... it may justly be concluded that the Government of this country has never acknowledged any Right in the Crown of Spain to the Sovereignty of these Islands or relinquished any Claim we may have to them. ”

    [TNA BT 5/5 at 424.]

    And that's it :-)

    Still all gob Voice.

    Aug 19th, 2017 - 01:10 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Voice

    Another piss poor effort by the deluded fantasiser Roger the Dodger...

    “And no, we did not 'fuck off' - we withdrew a garrison, nothing more.”

    A garrison is all there was there...Did they stay after all or did they indeed...“fcuk off”
    ...they did.

    I wonder if Port Egmont is in the Great Malouine...?
    I wonder if Port Egmont is on Saunders Island...?
    I wonder if Port Egmont is on Saunders Island in the Great Malouine...?
    I wonder if things were restored at Port Egmont on Saunders Island in the Great Malouine...?

    ““... his Catholick Majesty engages to give immediate orders, that things shall be restored in the Great Malouine at the port called Egmont, precisely to the state in which they were before the 10th of June, 1770:..” ”

    Yes it says they were...

    ..and that's all it says you stupid man...can you not understand English...in no way does that quote imply that the British has possession of Great Malouine (West Falkland)
    It merely states that Port Egmont is located there...

    As usual you have nothing to refute what I state...all you can do is twist facts...to give a meaning that was never intended...

    ....of course I'm all gob...I'm a Voice...D'oh...

    Aug 19th, 2017 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    As in - Gob Shite Voice.

    The matter is simple enough, and I suggest that it is you that cannot read English (but then you aint English, are you?).

    “His Britannick Majesty having complained of the violence which was committed on the 10th of June, 1770, AT the island commonly called Great Malouine, and by the English Falkland's Island, in obliging, by force, the commander and subjects of his Britannik Majesty to evacuate the port by them called Egmont; a step offensive to the honour of his Crown; - the Prince de Maserano, Ambassador Extraordinary of his Catholick Majesty, has received orders to declare, and declares, that his Catholick Majesty, considering the desire with which he is animated for peace, and for the maintenance of good harmony with his Britannick Majesty, and reflecting that this event might interrupt it, has seen with displeasure this expedition tending to disturb it; and in the persuasion in which he is of the reciprocity of sentiments of his Britannick Majesty, and of its being far from his intention to authorise any thing that might disturb the good understanding between the two Courts, his Catholick Majesty does disavow the said violent enterprize, - and, in consequence, the Prince de Maserano declares, that his Catholick Majesty engages to give immediate orders, that things shall be restored IN the Great Malouine at the port called Egmont, precisely to the state in which they were before the 10th of June, 1770: For which purpose his
    Catholick Majesty will give orders to one of his Officers, to deliver up to the Officer authorised by his Britannick Majesty the port and fort called Egmont, ...”

    The status quo was restored. We even insisted that Spanish officer go to Egmont for the restitution and not Puerto Louis. Just to drive the point home.

    184 years later WE ARE STILL THERE

    You are refuted - idiot

    Aug 19th, 2017 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Voice

    Still Struggling with English i see...
    Are you sure you are English...?

    “AT the island commonly called Great Malouine”

    Merely states where the violence took place...
    Was it Malouine (East Falkland) No..it was AT Port Egmont AT Great Malouine...

    Is it more specific further to clarify...
    ...yes

    “that things shall be restored IN the Great Malouine at the port called Egmont, precisely to the state in which they were before the 10th of June, 1770”

    At Port Egmont IN the Great Malouine...
    ....that's pretty specific...

    I am not seeing anywhere a passage that restores “the Great Malouine” (West Falkland) to Britain...
    Probably because the British only had a Fort and Garrison AT Port Egmont IN Great Malouine...

    I have a property IN the US this does not imply that I own the US...
    I have another property AT or even IN the Isle of Bute IN the Western Isles this does not imply that I own the Western Isles...

    If you think that that agreement implies that the Spanish gave sovereignty to the British of the Great Malouine (West Falkland)....then it is you that is the obvious idiot...

    Aug 19th, 2017 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Clyde15

    I am not getting involved in a slanging match, but I have never currently heard of Bute being in the Western Isles...similarly with Arran and the Cumbraes.

    They are known as the Clyde islands. Yes, they were described as the Western Isles about 5 centuries ago but that has long disappeared from use.

    I am sure the expression now means the Outer and Inner Hebrides.

    Aug 19th, 2017 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Roger Lorton

    Poor Voice - not understanding simple English. Perhaps that's because you're a north of the border gob-shite.

    Port Egmont IN the Great Malouine. No mention of Sauders Island Gob-shite. That was because it was not known as Saunders island. Just a part of Great Malouine - which we call West Falkland Island. And the situation was 'restored' - Spain GAVE us nothing we did not already own.

    Have I ever mentioned that, in 1811, Spain only claimed ONE island?

    That would be because in 1771 - Spain recognised Britain in West Falkland.

    That 'only' idiot, is you - Gob-shite Voice :-)

    Aug 19th, 2017 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • DemonTree

    I probably should stay out of this, but Voice, you are not a king or sovereign country, and you don't have a military force in any of those places either. You bought those properties under the laws of the relevant countries. It's not at all comparable.

    @Roger Lorton
    “Perhaps that's because you're a north of the border gob-shite.”

    Is this really necessary? It's hardly relevant where he lives and he won't reveal his nationality.

    Where do Spain say they only claim one island? And if Britain and Spain each claimed one in 1771, why do we have both today?

    Aug 19th, 2017 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Voice

    “because you're a north of the border gob-shite.”

    It doesn't take long for the true colours to be exposed...
    Should we read his drivel and believe it isn't biased...?
    When he obviously is...

    All he has established is Port Egmont is IN/AT Great Malouine...
    ...and his quotes only establish that the restoration is limited specifically to Port Egmont which is located on what the British call Saunders Island...
    Come on Dodger...show us a document where the Spanish restore Great Malouine to Britain...
    Britain had never possessed any more than Port Egmont until the 1833 land grab of the former Spanish possession of Malouine (East Falkland)

    Where is Stanley again...I forget...

    Having read your drivel respecting the Falkland Islands. It is not clear to me that you have ever possessed the sovereignty of all those islands....

    ..wait a minute...that's kind of familiar...;-))))))

    Aug 19th, 2017 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    Demon Tree

    I apologise if you are offended by the term 'north of the border gobshite' but I do so enjoy getting Voice to bite. As he said, he is just a Voice.
    Google definition = gobshite (plural gobshites) (Ireland, slang, moderately offensive) One who engages in nonsensical chatter or unwanted conversation. What's that gobshite talking about now? (Ireland, Britain, slang, moderately offensive) A person of very poor judgment and unpleasant character.

    As for your question. Both Spain and England claimed the whole archipelago. Britain settled what it called Falkland's Island in 1766. Spain bought out France's settlement at Port Louis that same year; arriving to settle in 1767. One French condition being that Spain must maintain a garrison at Port Louis to prevent the English gaining a monopoly. Spain's Governor at Buenos Aires called that island Soledad.

    It cracked off in 1770, when Spain kicked us out of Port Egmont. England spent 4 million preparing for war. Spain looked to France for assistance but didn't get it. Spain backed down and agreed to restore the situation as it had been prior to the ejection of 1770. Spain at Soledad on Soledad, England at Port Egmont on Falkland's island (there was never any mention back then of Saunders island, or any understanding that it was separate from what we now call West Falkland). After the agreement of January, 1771 the issue of sovereignty was left for a future discussion. Disarmament was the bigger issue - and ultimately never resolved. Discussion on that dragged on till the yanks opted for indy.

    The stand-off on sovereignty became the status quo. England in the west. Spain in the east. When Britain withdrew its garrison in 1774, it maintained its sovereignty. When Spain withdrew its garrison in 1811, it maintained its sovereignty. That situation remained until 1833 when Britain usurped Soledad from Spain. Spain repeated its claim 10 months later but did not protest to England.

    I'll get back to Voice when I can

    Aug 19th, 2017 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Voice

    Roger back pedalling...
    I don't think Demon Tree needed an explanation of what a gobshite is...
    It was the North of the Border part...
    Typical bigoted English response...you are what you are and it doesn't take much to show it...
    Usually happens when I expose your twisted re-write of history...
    Give Demon Tree the link to where the Spanish only claimed one Island..that is what he is asking for...
    ...and explain to the rest of us how Britain claimed claimed the whole archipelago when it was already colonised by the French, then sold to the Spanish...
    At what point did Britain claim it...?
    Before the French arrived and it was not settled...after the French settled it or after the Spanish bought it...
    ...so what was the basis of the claim...? We got there second...?
    You do spout utter nonsense...

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Gob-shite's back - good. Now I can deal with your drivel.

    First - am I biased? Oh yes. Have been since 1982. Also, it is impossible to spend nearly 9 years looking into a subject without reaching conclusions. One of which is how contemptible I find Malvinistas who ignore facts in pursuit of their religion. Even more contemptible however, are those pseudo-Malvinistas who are actually just using this issue to pursue another chip on their shoulder - which would be you Voice.

    Port Egmont IN the Great Malouine was restored. ALL of it. That much is plain from a reading of the 1771 Convention. All following references (1789, 1802 etc) refer to Falkland's Isle. That you refuse to see it is of no consequence. And thank you for reminding me of Wellington's uncertainty. I may be biased, but that doesn't stop me from including all information within the timeline - whichever side it favours. Wellington knew that Britain owned some of the archipelago, but not ALL of it. That was quite true and as you know Stanley is in East Falkland. The islands to which Spain's claim certainly beat Britain's claim. In fact, the ONLY island that Spain claimed when it withdrew its garrison in 1811.

    Did Britain annex/steal/usurp East Falkland Island? Yes IMHO. From Spain which registered its claim with the USA in October, 1833 but made no comment to Britain. A simple case of acquiescence.

    Back pedalling? How? And what have you exposed actually? Nothing.

    Spain only claimed one island in 1811, with the words nailed to the church door -

    ”Esta isla con sus Puertos, Edificios, Dependencias y quanto contiene pertenece a la Soberanía del Sr. D. Fernando VII Rey de España y sus Indias, Soledad de Malvinas 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén.”

    Britain claimed all from 1594 (Hawkins - because no one else had); reclaimed all in 1765 (Byron - on basis of Hawkins) then claimed only Falkland's Isle in 1774 (Clayton - because of 1771).

    Britain in the west. Spain in the east. Go learn

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @Roger Lorton
    There's no point apologising to me, it wasn't me you insulted. And I know perfectly well what gobshite means, thanks.

    And that quote was what I wanted. Are there any others? It seems to me that Spain would claim both islands if they could.

    So you do think Britain stole East Falkland? I wasn't expecting that. But how do you figure it was from Spain, when Spain had left and Argentina had sent people there instead?

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton

    I wouldn't be apologising to Voice, now would I?

    There are many quotes. Far too many for the space on Mercopress (and a bigger box to write in would be nice!). All the quotes & references I have are here -

    https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/3-1769-to-1774.pdf

    Britain became Spain's best friend in 1809, after Napoleon turned on her. Spain was never in a position again to return to Soledad Island despite confirming to the USA in October, 1833 that her claims remained. Ferdinand may well have protested about Britain's annexation, but he died that same year. The regime of the Infanta had no interest in maintaining Spain's colonial claims.

    As for Argentina. Britain's withdrawal of its garrison in 1774 did not affect its sovereignty (Some will not agree obviously). Nor did Spain's withdrawal of her garrison in 1811 (Some will not agree with that either).

    That Argentina attempted to involve itself in the dispute from 1829 is of no consequence. They were trespassing - hence Britain's 1829 & 1832 warnings to stay away.

    And Argentina's claim that it had 'inherited' the Falklands from Spain has been described as one of Argentina's 4 great myths.

    Revolutionaries emancipate themselves. They do not 'inherit.'

    Spain's legal claim to East Falkland was unchallenged in 1833 (the US envoy spoke of it to BA in 1831) and probably unchallengeable.
    Britain's claims to the western islands had not been overtaken by Spain in the 59 years following the withdrawal of the garrison (surprisingly. Spain never even raised its flag over Egmont which would have been the obvious move).
    So Spain's claim to East Falkland could not have been erased in the 22 yrs following the departure of its troops in 1811.

    As I've said many times, Argentina was never in the game.

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Voice

    “Be it known to all Nations, That Falkland's Island with this Fort, the Storehouses,
    Wharfs Harbours, Bays and Creeks thereunto belonging, are the sole Right and
    Property of his Most Sacred Majesty George the third, King of Great Britain,
    France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. In Witness whereof this Plate is set
    up and his Britanick Majesty's Colours left flying as a mark of possession by S. W.
    Clayton, commanding officer at Falkland's Island. 1774 A.D.”

    That Falklands Island...is referring to Saunders Island...not Great Malouine (West Falkland)

    So we have the true facts now...
    Britain claimed Saunders Island...
    Hawkins ( Britain's) claim to the whole archipelago has no legal base without settlement..
    All that needs to be addressed is whether Argentina did enough to claim the former Spanish possession...that Britain had no legal claim to or right to possess...

                                     Claim...Settlement...Govern...
                                    Is there any evidence of this...?

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton

    Oh, hello - Lazarus has risen. LOL

    Still talking through your rear I see.

    How about a quote from the Spanish Orders for the restoration?

    “It being agreed between the King and his Britannic Majesty, ... that the Great Malouine, called by the English Falkland, should be immediately replaced in the precise situation in which it was before it was evacuated by them on the 10th June last year; I signify to you,
    by the King’s order, ..”

    Or the British order?

    “… Your lordships will direct Captain Stott to behave with the greatest prudence and civility towards the Spanish commander and the subjects of his Catholic Majesty, carefully avoiding any thing that might give occasion to disputes or animosity, and strictly restraining the crews of the ships under his command in this respect; but if, at or after the restitution to be made, the Spanish commander should make any protest against his Majesty’s right to Port Egmont, or Falkland’s Islands, it is his Majesty’s pleasure that the commander of his ships should answer the same by a counter-protest, in proper terms, of his Majesty’s right to the whole of the said islands, and against the right of his Catholic Majesty to any part of the same.”

    Note 'islands' (plural).

    Hawkins claim had no legal basis without settlement? Didn't Spain claim everything east of the Tordesillas line without settlement? Settlement only became recognised as the defining factor in the early 18th century.

    You should do some research.

    LOL

    How's the head?

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Clyde15

    RL

    “Perhaps that's because you're a north of the border gob-shite.”

    Why the “north of the border” statement ? That infers everyone north of the border is a gob-shite.

    Is it just your latent English arrogance revealing itself ? Would you be offended if I called you a south of the border gobshite with all that infers to the population of England ?

    I have been pointing out for years the deep rooted anti-Scottish sentiment of many English posters . This is denied BUT somehow or other it eventually sneaks back in the posts.

    Yours being the latest example. I don't give a toss if you and Voice want to rip out each other's throats but keep your racist remarks to yourself.

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Au contraire Clyde. There are gobshites everywhere, and no, not all those north of a/the border are gobshites. We have them, you have them. It was a goad to get a reaction - which it got. Confirming, for me at the least, that Voice resides north of that border. That rather increases the chances that he's British, for all the way he writes suggesting otherwise.

    If you thought I was referring to all of you, then I apologise.

    I thought you were thicker skinned.

    And I'm not racist - I'm tribalist. If you ain't from Mercia, then you're one of ..... them

    :-)

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    You are part quoting...
    The is no passage in the agreement that restores the Great Malouine to Britain..

    “His Britannick Majesty having complained of the violence which was committed on the 10th of June, 1770, AT the island commonly called Great Malouine, and by the English Falkland's Island,” blah blah...
    Internal directives (orders) from the British to their personnel are not part of the agreement between Spain and Britain...they can say what they like, not evidence at all...

    There was no Spanish name for the island where Port Egmont was situated it was described as being IN or AT Great Malouine (West Falkland)
    It not on Great Malouine (West Falkland) it was what is known as Saunders Island Off the coast of Great Malouine...
    Port Egmont (an island) in West Falkland was occupied by the British...
    Port Egmont (an Island) in West Falkland was restored to the British...

    That is what the agreement says and that is all the agreement says no matter how you try to twist it...

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    It was not known as Saunders island in 1771. Never referred to as such.

    How about the London Gazette (no.11204) of December 11, 1771

    “On Monday 16th September Capt. Stott landed, followed by Party of Marines, and was received by the Spanish Officer, who formally restored him Falklands Island, Port Egmont, its Fort and other Dependencies, giving him the same Possession as His Majesty had
    before the 10th of June 1770.”

    Keep grasping at straws Voice. It's funny.

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    “I wouldn't be apologising to Voice, now would I?”

    Of course not. You implied that his not understanding simple English had something to do with being from north of the border; that's what you should apologise for, if you are going to. Your quarrel is with Voice, not anyone else.

    Voice says himself that he lives in Scotland, not that it's particularly relevant to anything. And tribalism is no better than racism anyway.

    Your document is long and covers a lot of ground. Can you find me one more quote where Spain only claims East Falkland?

    And this inheritance... the revolutionaries emancipated themselves from Spain, surely then they possess all the land that they took from Spain? If Spain had still had a garrison in the Falklands and Argentina did not, then it would make little sense to claim they inherited the islands. But it was the other way around.

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Voice

    I bet Saunders Island was known as...for want of a better description...wait for it..Falklands Island...singular ...;-)))

    ...but I fail to comprehend why you think a former Spanish colony having declared independence from Spain would seek to claim, settle and govern a former Spanish possession and dependence from BA...as wrong...
    Argentina was in the picture, they had every right to do what they did....Britain had no right to take East Falkland from them, I agree that the former British possession (Port Egmont) should have entailed negotiation or excluded...
    Though I am not aware that Port Egmont was ever occupied by anyone after the British...
    No matter what you say, there was no justification for the British 1833 land grab...

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Pete Bog

    @Voice

    “No matter what you say, there was no justification for the British 1833 land grab”...

    Was Argentina's land grab south of the Buenos Aires state in the 19th century (post-1833) justified?

    What was stopping the United Provinces government from re-invading Port Louis when the Royal Navy left in 1833, if they felt they had a claim? Acquiescence?

    Also, if anyone could direct me to any information on Port Egmont, post 1833 I would be grateful. It appears that prior to sailing to Port Louis, Onslow restored the fort at Egmont, so if it was restored, was it trashed by sealers?

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    You'd lose that bet - as the 1771 Convention showed (forgotten it already?)

    Buenos Aires (and it was BA, not the UP - as determined by the 1882 Senate inquiry) had no legal right to take over East Falkland. Revolutionaries could keep what they could hold onto, of course, but BA was never able to hold onto East Falkland island. Yanks threw them off first, and we threw them off second. Argentina was never in the game.

    Pete Bog
    'Restored' in December, 1832, basically consisted of raising the flag and leaving a message in a bottle. Egmont does appear to have been in some sort of use by the end of 1833 however as some of the survivors of the Rivero murders appear to have gone there. Including Antonina Roxa. I only know this because once Lt. Smith had captured Rivero etc he had to send a party to Egmont to find the witnesses and at least one possible suspect.

    The English sealers continue to use it for a while, as they had always done. The Americans preferred New Island. So much , in fact, that there were real concerns in the 1840s & 50s that the USA would make a sovereignty claim for New Island.

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @Pete Bog
    “What was stopping the United Provinces government from re-invading Port Louis when the Royal Navy left in 1833, if they felt they had a claim?”

    Presumably, they didn't think the islands were worth starting a war with then world power Britain over.

    @Roger Lorton
    One thing I have wondered. Why did Britain wait until 1833 to (re)claim the islands, given that Spain left in 1811 and Argentina had been claiming them and sending people there for several years already? They didn't notice? Didn't care? Didn't want them any more and then changed their minds?

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Mostly, it was because the Yanks were complaining about pirates there and there was a rumour that the USA would make its own bid if we didn't do anything. There was also a suggestion from Rio de Janeiro that the French would go back although I've never really bottomed that one.

    Britain always considered Falkland's island (West Falkland) as its property but never actually wanted to invest any time or money in it. It would be another 10 years (1842) before we would be prepared to do that and even then it was half hearted.

    In 1833, Spain was no longer a contender or a threat, but the idea that someone else could be sitting on the route back from Australia was, I think, enough to trip a reaction. But it was only a small show of force.

    Britain was losing face and had to do something. So we sent Onslow, who was - according to his written orders - only to raise the flag at Egmont and then wait 10 days till a more senior officer arrived. That fella was late, so Onslow, after 10 days, went looking for the trespassers he'd been told about. Some believe that he had verbal orders we do not know about. I have my doubts.

    Jewett went off on one in 1820, Silas Duncan in December, 1831 and I suspect that Onslow did much the same.

    The difference was that Britain's Foreign Secretary 'Gunboat' Palmerston adopted the action - despite being told that we should probably talk to Spain first.

    And the rest, as they say, is history :-)

    Aug 20th, 2017 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Kipper

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • gordo1

    Good Morning, Hepatitis! So Kipper is your real name, is it? NABO!

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 05:46 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “Argentina was in the picture, they had every right to do what they did…” Not according to the countries that had claims that were recognised under international law at that time. With the clear intention of excluding any other spurious claims as explicitly indicated under the Peace of Utrecht and the Nootka Convention.

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    “Revolutionaries could keep what they could hold onto”

    Wasn't that true for countries at the time too? What's the difference?

    And are you saying that Onslow was never supposed to claim both islands but only reclaim Port Egmont? The whole thing was based on a mistake? One that people died for, 150 years later.

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Demon Tree

    Still confused? Conquest was an acceptable means of territorial acquisition up until 1945. So yes.

    Onslow wasn't 'claiming' anything. He'd just been sent to turn off trespassers. He found them on the Spanish Island and turned them off.

    A mistake? Depends on how you look at it, I suppose.

    People did die 150 years later - but that was because Argentina wanted to go trespassing again.

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Voice

    Britain has always denied conquest and under the acceptable definition of conquest as a legitimate (at the time) means of acquiring territory...there was no conquest...
    ...and what legitimate right did Onslow have to evict trespassers off land not under the jurisdiction of Britain...the answer is none.
    East Falkland was a former Spanish possession BA was a former Spanish possession what is the difference...?
    Having declared independence the Argentines or whatever you want to call them had as much right to claim, settle and govern the former Spanish possession...most certainly more right than the British...
    Your arguments defy logic....
    It can also be said that 150 years later people died because Britain trespassed on Spanish property...

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    Yeah, I am. If conquest is enough then what does it matter who owned which island before 1833?

    And I don't usually agree with Voice, but it wasn't any of Onslow's business to turn trespassers off a Spanish island.

    It's true Argentina started the war, but these people still left us with a lot of trouble which maybe could have been avoided if they'd left that settlement alone.

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “Under the acceptable definition of conquest as a legitimate (at the time) means of acquiring territory...there was no conquest…” That is deliberate lie of your’s that I’ve refuted many times. Since you can show no support for such claim. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
    Not according to this world renowned jurist 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. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.“
    “Argentines …had as much right to claim, settle and govern the former Spanish possession...most certainly more right than the British…” That lie is refuted in both the Peace of Utrecht “…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.”

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    There is plenty of evidence that Britain did not acquire the Falklands by conquest...
    150 years of it...not once in 150 years has Britain ever claimed conquest...
    You can not show me one claim by the the British Govt..
    After 150 years of denying it Britain cannot now reverse their decision to claim sovereignty through Discovery and occupation...to conquest..
    So no Conquest...
    There have been legal experts that have expressed the OPINION that Britain should have claimed conquest...but opinions are like arseholes...everyone has one...
    Opinions in International law by international lawyers are meaningless unless confirmed by an International judgement...and no two judgements are ever the same they are always judged on merits...

    ”“…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.”

    I'm sure Britain should be in that list too...

    By the way the Catholic King didn't 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...they lost them along with all the rest of their colonies...through revolution and Independence...
    Was revolution mentioned in that list...I'm guessing it wasn't anticipated...

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Voice - where have we 'denied' conquest? Exactly? I don't believe we've ever promoted it, but then neither have we denied it. When I say 'we' obviously I'm referring to us Brits - which includes you.

    As for Onslow's right to do so, well there's article 8 of Utrecht, which Terrence Hill has so ably referred to in his last paragraph although whether that provided a right of action is, at best, moot. East Falkland was STILL a Spanish possession though, and Spain never did complain.

    You suggest that BA was attempting to take Soledad by conquest - but they did not claim as much. Quite the contrary in fact. You should read Manuel Moreno's protests of 1833 & 1834. If they were attempting conquest then they had failed, as their settlement was ejected twice. It isn't just the taking over - conquest requires the holding onto.

    150 years later, we were not fighting Spain.

    Demon Tree - does it matter who owned the island before 1833? Many would argue that it does not and that Britain's return and annexation of Soledad was sufficient to re-start the sovereignty clock. I would err towards it not being any of Onslow's 'business' but as Spain did not complain and, far more importantly, as the British Government publicly adopted Onslow's act (Palmerston told Moreno that Onslow had acted within the scope of his orders), the job was done.

    As for your last sentence, that could apply to much of the British Empire, no? Most of the 'lines in the sand' being fought over in the middle East were drawn by us. At least one, I understand, by a middle-aged lady archaeologist with the point of her umbrella. These things seemed so much easier back then.

    Would 1982 have been avoided if Onslow had stayed in West Falkland? Perhaps. But he didn't. And the rest, as they say .............. did I do that one already?

    Terry - funny that, I was listening to a serious discussion regarding those points you raise less than a month ago.

    :-)

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    I never suggested that BA attempted to take Soledad by conquest...
    Claim...Colonise... Govern...any evidence of that...?
    That's exactly what they did to the former abandoned..vacated Spanish possession...

    Utrecht is irrelevant the Islands are hardly adjacent to the mainland and even the secret part specifically only mentions the mainland coast and not the islands at all...
    Besides a treaty with Spain is not a treaty with Argentina...

    Aug 21st, 2017 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    But Spain still owned the island of Soledad. Or at least its claim was still the better.

    BA (not the UP according to the 1882 Senate inquiry into the Vernet family compensation claims) 'claimed' the islands publicly in 1829. We kicked off in December, 1831. Went back October, 1832. Kicked off January, 1833. However you view it, BA's attempts at claiming .... colonizing ... governing .... were all complete failures.

    1713 Utrecht doesn't mention 'adjacency' and I don't recall a secret article - you're thinking of the 1790 Convention, the applicability of which, to the Falklands, remains the subject of much discussion. Particularly as a result of the new evidence that I've uncovered (dusted off may be more accurate) relating to the Puerto Deseado incident of 1789.

    With a little bit of luck I'll have that all posted in 10 days.

    Remember, Argentina was never in the game.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    Yeah I was referring to that....
    Utrecht is irrelevant anyway as usual Terry only posts the parts that he wants...
    The next bit...
    “On the contrary, that the Spanish dominions in the West Indies may be preserved whole and entire, the Queen of Great Britain engages, that she will endeavour, and give assistance to the Spaniards, that the ancient limits of their dominions in the West Indies be restored, and settled as they flood in the time of the above-said Catholic King Charles the Second, if it shall appear that they have in any manner, or under any pretence, been broken into, and lessened in any part, since the death of the aforesaid Catholic King Charles the Second.”

    The British broke that part by denying help to the Spanish to recover their territory when asked..
    So how is one part relevant and the other not...

    The colonising would have been successful if not for the illegal intervention of the British and the Americans...

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Note the words - WEST Indies.

    “The terms of these conventions were however so vague, that they seemed rather to increase than lessen the causes of dispute. The meaning of the expression 'Spanish West Indies' never could be fixed or defined to the satisfaction of both parties...” [Greenhow 1842]

    “The colonising would have been successful if not for the illegal intervention of the British and the Americans...” ???

    If wishes were made of horses, beggars would ride.

    In reality Vernet's colony was a financial disaster, which is why he turned to seizing the American vessels. Would it have survived? A matter of conjecture. Just a 'what if'.......

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “Utrecht is irrelevant anyway ..by denying help to the Spanish to recover their territory” Then that would be a problem for Spain. It still shows the intention of Spanish-Anglo treaties. Which means that Argentine claims therefore are totally bogus. The Nootka Convention freed the UK from any restrictions on the Islands in the event of an intervention from any others. “shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power”

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I don't see what relevance the Treaty of Utrecht can have. Argentina never signed it and Spain didn't give them anything. They declared independence and kicked Spain out.

    @RL
    I suppose it WAS easier to redraw the map to your liking back when the people affected were unable to do anything about it.

    With hindsight, the borders in the Middle East and Africa should have been redrawn according to the ethnic and religious lines of the people concerned before independence. This was done to some extent in Europe after WWI and the collapse of a couple of empires, and produced more stable countries in the long term.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    The UP declared independence, but then mostly failed to gain effective control over the territory that they claimed - including the Banda Oriental (Uruguay), Paraguay and the Falklands. Without that, they cannot be seen as having any sovereignty over those territories. Utrecht was relevant as it forbade Spain willingly handing over any of its American colonies. Not that Spain was much inclined to recognise reality until after 1836. And in the case of Argentina, 1963. Parts of Utrecht are still in force of course.

    It was. Such is the way of Empire. Ours was not the first but can claim to have been the largest if you are inclined to ignore that we lost the 13 colonies long before we gained India. Empires still exist, and the game continues. Mostly now they are big businesses.

    They knew that then, but often the powers that were being handed over were resistant to the notion. Also the new nations based on tribal grounds were just too small to survive long. And when we tried to divide India on religious grounds it all went horribly wrong. As for Europe? Yugoslavia? That went well.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    1963?

    I'm not a lawyer, so I just don't know good your arguments or indeed Malvinense's really are. The law often doesn't follow common sense.

    The partition of India might have been less disastrous if they'd put some thought into it and consulted the people concerned rather than asked some guy to draw up a border over lunch. I wonder if things would have gone better or worse if they had gained independence as one country, and whether there would still be one country now or three?

    Yugoslavia was the country that wasn't divided, though. And illustrates the problem well, as it was fine under a strong dictator, but after he died all the tensions came to the surface and tore it apart. I guess we'll have to see how well the little countries that have come out of the wreckage do. Belgium is another country that is composed of two different groups, and that still has problems even though it's in a much better situation generally.

    What do you think would have happened if nations were established on tribal grounds? Some maybe weren't big enough on their own, but others were, and they could at least have avoided splitting peoples among several nations.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Typo 1863

    With India we did ask the people. You may need to research that. It was all done with consultation with the Hindu and Muslim leaders - that may have been the problem.

    The Balkans had 300 years of issues just waiting to bubble up.

    Strangely enough, the British weren't being perverse. We did the best we could in the circumstances. Hindsight just wasn't available back then

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I don't believe the British were being perverse, but I don't think we exercised due care and attention. Particularly the short time-frame allowed - only 5 weeks to draw up the boundary - and the fact it wasn't published until after the two dominions had gained independence, leaving the two brand new states to cope with the fallout of massive movements of people who panicked and tried to get to the 'right' side of the line. If it had been published with plenty of time before independence, people could have soberly considered whether they wanted to move - and perhaps decided they didn't need to - and planned their journey properly if they did.

    The Balkans have always had issues, mainly because of all the different groups who live there. Creating more countries with similar problems really wasn't a good idea, and you said above they knew at the time that they should have redrawn the borders.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    In India, I seem to recall that we were due to stay longer, and then for some reason we didn't. It was a dog's dinner - but one served up by Ghandi, Nehru and Jinnah who, to a large extent, got what they'd asked for. You have to remember that India had not been a united country when we had arrived. At least it was only two countries when we left.

    As for the Balkans, I don't recall that we got much of a say over Yugoslavia. It was always going to burst.

    Generally I think we exercised the due care and attention that we could - in an imperial sort of a way. We did what we thought was right. It didn't all go bad.

    Couldn't have - the Commonwealth backed us in 1982.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    The important fact is that from the moment that UP declared independence the Spanish possessions were lost to Spain...it was Spain that was out of the picture whether they accepted it or not.
    To claim that BA was different to UP or that there was a turbulent shift in boundaries and control is irrelevant...the same could be said of the United States the declaration of Independence only related to the 13 colonies at the time, but is relevant to the whole of the US now and is applicable to all states...
    The Falklands was claimed, settled and governed by a declared Govt and this was perfectly legal to do this, it was not perfectly legal for the British to remove them from former Spanish possessions...
    Argentina had a right to complain...

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    I've never heard that we were due to stay longer. The UK government was broke after WWII and wanted to divest the colonies as quickly and expediently as possible. Whether the new countries were remotely viable or not was not a priority for either Britain or the UN.

    But even apart from the partition, if they had made India a dominion at the same time as, say, Australia, the outcome might have been much better. The country would have been more mature and better prepared for independence, and the tensions requiring partition might have been worked out without bloodshed.

    By the way, it actually wasn't two countries when we left. The remaining princely states were given independence and later joined one or other state (and it's three countries nowadays too).

    I didn't claim that we had much if any say over the Balkans; we did have a say over the middle east and helped create similar problems there.

    @Voice
    “from the moment that UP declared independence the Spanish possessions were lost to Spain”

    I don't think this is true. Spain could have won the war and kept their colonies, or if they had managed to hang on to part of the territory they would have continued to own it. But that didn't happen, so it's moot.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “It was not perfectly legal for the British to remove them ,,,” Unfortunately, neither facts nor international law support your’s nor Argentina’s view. In fact, that no attempt was made to respond to British diplomatic notes, nor make use of the international law tribunals indicates the falseness of that statement.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    ”As for Argentina. Britain's withdrawal of its garrison in 1774 did not affect its sovereignty (Some will not agree obviously). Nor did Spain's withdrawal of her garrison in 1811 (Some will not agree with that either).”
    As always, Roger Lorton omits to say that when the British retreat occurred, Spain remained on the islands. This, of course, has consequences in innternational law. In 1811, when Spain withdrew from the islands as a result of the wars of independence across the continent, there was no British colony on the islands.
    It's a small difference, Roger.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Voice

    DemonTree

    It is actually trueish...Spain never regained them and effectively were out of the picture from that point onwards..

    Terry please explain how it was perfectly legal for Britain to remove the garrison from former Spanish property...or even Spanish property...?
    Likely you will not be able to answer this without finding an appropriate opinion...thinking for yourself is not one of your strong points...

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Spain was not out of the picture in 1816 Voice, anymore than Britain was out of the Nth. American picture in 1776. It took a treaty in 1783 for the situation in the 13 colonies to be recognised - and, as there was no such thing as inheritance, the USA didn't get Newfoundland. Spain put an army together in 1819 to retake BA - but problems with Portugal diverted those efforts. Fate intervened to keep Spain out of BA and BA out of the Falklands.

    That BA acted separately from the UP is important. It demonstrates that the new nation was not concerned with claiming the Falklands - just one province. You should read the Senate hearing in 1882.

    BA's attempts to claim, colonize & govern the Falklands all failed. they couldn't gain 'effective control' which is what it takes for sovereignty. BA were trespassers - as confirmed by Spain to the USA in October, 1833.

    Argentina was never in the game.

    Demon Tree. At the point of India's independence I am certain we left earlier than planned, although I do not remember why. And you are correct, there were three territories as one principality - an enclave I recall - was separated. That didn't survive. Pakistan was split into two, to reflect the religious groupings but now East Pakistan is Bangladesh.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    They couldn't gain effective control because Britain kicked them off...
    That is the whole point of the Argentine claim...that they would have gained sovereignty if it wasn't for Britain...
    btw...Britain was also the trespasser...
    Also how many years does it take to have effective control and then tell me how many years Britain occupied Port Egmont to gain effective control...?

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “Likely you will not be able to answer this without finding an appropriate opinion. .. how it was perfectly legal for Britain to remove the garrison from former Spanish property ..” The Nootka Convention freed the UK from any restrictions on the Islands in the event of an intervention from any others. “shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power” I have given innumerable supported legal reasons, it’s you who claims it was illegal but cannot produce any evidence. That’s how the truth is determined, an opinion with supporting evidence. Something you have never been able to achieve. My previous post was entirely my opinion, which incidentally is supported by the historical record.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvinense 1833 - such a short memory you have.

    Esta isla con sus Puertos, Edificios, Dependencias y quanto contiene pertenece a la Soberanía del Sr. D. Fernando VII Rey de España y sus Indias, Soledad de Malvinas 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén

    Spain claimed only ONE island in 1811. Why? Because of the 1771 Convention.

    Voice - would have? Could have? Would have don't count. Either you do, or you don't.

    Effective control has to be effective for a reasonable amount of time. June,1829 - December, 1831 wasn't enough. October, 1832 - January, 1833 wasn't enough.

    1833 - 2017 IS enough.

    You say Britain acted illegally. Which laws were broken? Exactly?

    Take your time - I'm away to my bed :-)

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Voice

    How many years did you say that Britain had effective control of Port Egmont...not counting the time they were kicked off...?
    I didn't quite catch it...

    Told you Terry that you would come back with an opinion and no evidence...
    The Falklands were hardly adjacent to the Spanish mainland coasts and the secret bit...specifically only mentions the coasts and no islands...
    It's always best to quote the whole quote and not the parts that suit you...
    It most certainly is only an opinion that the Falklands were included...

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    The Malvinas Islands were never British.
    http://mrecic.gov.ar/userfiles/alegato_ruda_eng.pdf

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Clyde15

    Malvinense 1833

    The islands were never Argentinian -possibly Spanish ?

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “Utrecht is irrelevant” So is Nootka based only on your personal opinion, as you have failed to produce any support for your claimed implication like the following. “No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. … International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
    “How many years did you say that Britain had effective control” Regardless at the minimum, “Between (conflicting claims) the first in order of time shall prevail” ..the original interest (i.e., the first in time) will succeed. Your unsupported interpretation fail to meet the above criteria and further, presents an absurdity which is barred. Thus following past historical practices:
    “General rule of interpretation
    1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. …
    Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, .. (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
    *ttps://www.unodc.org/documents/terrorism/Publications/FAQ/English.pdf
    Malvinense 1833 “..Islands were never British”
    “He made the following untrue assertions, some repeatedly …” p2, False Falklands History at the United Nations How Argentina misled the UN in 1964 – and still does by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper *ttps://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/2012-false-falklands-

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    Let me know if you remember, or get the time to look up what happened.

    There were more than three territories; there was Kashmir which couldn't decide whether to join India or Pakistan, and ended up being fought over by both with a still inconclusive result. Also there was Sikkim which didn't join India until 1975, and there were some French and Portuguese colonies too. I know India invaded and annexed Goa, and no referendum was held although it had been on the UN's list of non-self governing territories. (I don't think too many people there objected though.)

    Have to say I think it was good for Bangladesh that they split off from Pakistan, since Pakistan seems to contain the real religious nutters and the the Bangladeshi government has been a lot more moderate, even if they do have all kinds of economic problems.

    Sure, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would settle for learning the lessons of the past and not repeating them today.

    @Voice
    Since you always support Argentina, I was wondering what you think we should do with the Falklands?

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    It is hilarious that the British claim is based on a fanciful discovery of Hawkins, that Byron claims the sovereignty of the island Falkland in singular as Voice says and that Onslow declares the British sovereignty over these 2 facts.
    It is hilarious that from the fort and Port Egmont settled in the totality of the islands, and then call “imperialist” to Argentina, the British humor by the way is very subtle.

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Voice

    DemonTree

    What do you mean I always support Argentina...
    I merely highlight inconsistencies and misleading and presumptuous claims....

    Do not think for one moment that I support the heavily biased position of Argentina either...
    I believe Britain whether it was clandestine or otherwise had as much right as the French to claim some of the archipelago, a treaty was agreed with the Spanish to share the archipelago.
    With Spain's demise in the Americas an agreement should have been made with the succeeding Argentina over the two possessions because they colonised it...

    It is too late to do anything with the Falklands, times have changed the Falklands of 1982 is not the Falklands today and there is no going back 150 years...I think the relationship of BOTS will have to change and Britain's overriding control of them...
    Perhaps if the UN was less useless these colonial relics of contention could be placed under the protection of the Security Council and British protection withdrawn.
    Negotiations to settle the dispute as highlighted by the UN have already taken place the British answer was no sovereignty discussions...so unless the Argentine Govt will now seek to take it to arbitration (ICJ) there will be no progress.
    The Argentine Govt do not appear to be keen to take this route and I suspect neither would the British...
    I do support the Argentine position to an extent...
    I also support the British position to an extent...
    I cannot envision a solution...

    Time to deal with Terry...
    No International tribunals and arbiters have been called upon to establish the meaning and context of Nootka or Utrecht in relation to the Falklands so all these fanciful interpretations are just that...opinions and nothing else...
    also...”the original interest (i.e., the first in time) will succeed. ”
    That would be France then..and the British being second...no cigar...
    That also would mean that France having sold The Falklands to Spain put Britain as the trespasser...

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Morning all

    Voice

    Britain maintained effective control over West Falkland from 1766 to 2017. There was a short gap in 1770/71 and again in 1982, but apart from that, nobody else took effective control from us. Not opinion - fact.

    Malvinense 1833 - Ruda? Please. So many lies to the UN https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/2012-false-falklands-history-at-the-un-2nd-ed.pdf

    Terry - we have the Spaniards by the goolies over the Nootka Convention. Not only was it an acknowledgment by Spain, for the first time, that a settlement only gave a restricted area of territory (10 leagues either side), I also have the letter from Floridablanca explaining to the Spanish noblemen how he was intending to misinterpret it.

    Demon Tree - I'm busy enough although I have recently read Paxman's 'Empire'. Learning from history? Now wouldn't that be a thing.

    Malvinense 1833 - suddenly your English fails you. Now read slowly. Davis was first recorded discoverer. Hawkins was first claimant. Byron reclaimed. MacBride settled. Clayton claimed one island on the basis of 1771. Guillen claimed one island on the basis of 1771. Get it?

    I have the 1834 protest from Argentina which also only claims ONE island, if you should need it. What is really funny is that Argentina believes that it was ever in the game.

    Voice - Argentina did not succeed - in any way - which is rather the point.

    Settling one island does not give rights to all. Or, to put it another way -

    ”It would indeed be an extravagant proposition to affirm, that the possession of one island necessarily induces the possession of every island in its neighbourhood; as the obvious consequence must be that the first occupier of any Caribee Islands must have had exclusive rights to them all;...”

    [James Burges 1790]

    Spain claimed that it had not bought the Falklands (it claimed a right from Tordesillas); and France only claimed to have passed over a settlement. Just opinions of course.

    Go do some research ;-)

    Aug 22nd, 2017 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    “”It would indeed be an extravagant proposition to affirm, that the possession of one island necessarily induces the possession of every island in its neighbourhood;”

    ...and yet that is what Britain has done...
    From Port Egmont 1766..to the whole archipelago..present day...
    Who did they steal it from...?
    Was it the Spanish..no they left in 1811...
    Who was there, remind me I can't remember..

    btw... Spain paid the French (compensation) for the Islands so yes they bought the Islands...

    You have a great argument...right up till the point where Britain stole East Falkland which was administered by and from BA...what you might call a dependency...
    Where is BA...remind me...when did it declare independence, remind me, when did it claim the Falklands, when did it colonise the Falklands...
    Argentina was in the picture...otherwise who did the British complain to...?
    Was it the Spanish...
    Hey didn't the British also have a treaty with Argentina...?
    Where there is a treaty there is recognition...

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    You don't have to be present to own something Voice. If that was the case, you could never go out.

    And Spain would have objected to the notion that it had purchased territory it already claimed to own. Even with your theory, Spain could only have purchased one island.

    And Spain had not lost its rights over East Falkland to the trespassers from BA. That is where your argument collapses. There was no inheritance - which is what BA claimed.

    BA formally claimed the Falklands in June, 1829, and colonization followed that decree. Britain did not 'complain' to BA. Britain warned BA to stay away - in 1829 & 1832.

    There was a commercial treaty with the UP in 1825. It did not recognise any territory or rights - as we assured Madrid shortly after its signing.

    Go learn voice - your ignorance makes a fool of you.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    Hey British colonial government, do not forget to include Puerto Soledad in your museum, it's part of its history.
    ---------------------------------“There was no inheritance”------------------------------
    Any doubts regarding the territorial extension of the new States of Latin America were dissipated by the Foreign Secretary, George Canning, during the mediation between Argentina and Brazil in the dispute over the Banda Oriental (now Uruguay). The instructions given by Lord Canning to the British Minister Lord Ponsonby on March 18th, 1826, read
    ”(...) Your Lordship will observe to the Brazilian Ministers, that unless by a general tacit agreement, the States of the New World be admitted to stand towards each other, in respect to geographical rights and limits, exactly as they stood when Colonies, questions of the utmost perplexity will infallibly arise out of their rival and conflicting pretensions; and the whole Continent of America, whether Spanish or Portuguese, will ultimately be laid open to the designs of any enterprising adventurers, who may think fit to carve out for themselves new dominions.”
    This text unequivocally recognizes that Latin American States succeed to Spain and Portugal within the borders existing during the colonial period. Subsequent practice supports Britain’s point of view about Latin America’s legal situation.
    George Canning
    Credits Kohen; Marcelo - Rodríguez Facundo

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Canning 1825 to Minister Zea in Madrid - “M. Zea concludes, with declaring that … the British Gov*., as violating existing Treaties; and the imprescriptible rights of the Throne of Spain. Against what will Spain protest? It has been proved that no Treaties are violated by us; and we admit that no question of right is decided by our recognition of the New States of America.”

    How about Crawford (currently an ICJ judge) ? - “Canning's distinction between de jure and diplomatic recognition and his application of it to the Spanish-American colonies are significant. … this recognition 'of right' reflected the then influential principle of legitimacy.”

    Dolzer? - “The principle of uti possidetis does not imply that a state created in the wake of a process of decolonization will necessarily acquire the same territorial rights as the previous colonial power, without regard to the geographic territorial unity of the colonial empire, and the occupation of the territory in question by the newly created state... In consequence, it has to be concluded that Argentina did not acquire the Islands in 1816 automatically after independence, without regard to the principle of effective occupation. Spanish territorial rights over the Islands continued.”

    Sir John Thompson described Argentina's 4 myths to the UN in 1982 - “... the myth that Argentina inherited sovereignty over the Falkland Islands from the Spanish Empire; the myth that Argentina settled the Falkland Islands after 1820; the myth that there was a settled Argentine population when Britain reoccupied the islands in 1833, and the myth that British reoccupation in 1833 was accomplished by the use of force.”

    Kohen's misinterpretations/distortions are well recognised - and the cause of some hilarity in the UK and elsewhere.

    There was no inheritance.

    Argentina was never in the game

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    We will now turn to British sources on the topic. Professor M. Akehurst assertively states that “Argentina succeeded to Spain’s title. It is a rule of international law that a newly independent State which was formerly a colony succeeds to all the territory within the former colonial boundaries.” Gaston de Bernhardt in his Foreign Office Memorandum dated December 7th, 1910, stated that

    “Of the extent of the Spanish Settlement at Soledad (...) It was under the superintendence of an officer entitled “Commandant of the Malvinas” who was dependent on the Viceroy of 1a Plata. (...)The party appearing to represent Spain in her title to those islands is the Government of Buenos Ayres. On the overthrow of the Spanish supremacy in the Vice-Royalty of La Plata, those territories, with the exception of Paraguay, were converted into a Republic under the name of the “United Provinces of Rio de la Plata” and Buenos Ayres, the capital of the Vice- Royalty, became the seat of Government of the Republic.”
    Kohen Marcelo.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 02:02 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Akehurst? I have him too -

    “… physical departure from territory does not lead to loss of sovereignty over that territory unless it is accompanied by an intention to abandon sovereignty. … A brief mention should be made of Saunders Island, a small island off the north coast of West Falkland. … The UK .. acquired good title to Saunders Island, and this title survived the departure of the British in 1774. … The British settlement on Saunders Island has some bearing on the question of West Falkland. The distance between Saunders Island and West Falkland is only
    about 1 mile – much less than the distance between West Falkland and the Spanish and Argentine settlement on East Falkland (48 miles) or the distance between West Falkland and the nearest point on the Argentinian mainland (300 miles). … Consequently if the UK acquired sovereignty to Saunders Island and retained that sovereignty after 1774, there is a presumption that British sovereignty extended to West Falkland: in order to rebut that presumption, Argentina would have to prove that she had exercised a greater degree of control over West Falkland than would normally be needed to acquire title by occupation.”

    & the Gran Chaco Arbitration case 1878?

    “To an American historian of arbitrations it appeared that Argentina based its claim on inheritance after independence of all territory in the Spanish Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata and on its subsequent attempts to prevent Paraguayan secession. Paraguay founded its case on various expeditions and settlements in the Chaco and its successful repulse of Argentine attempts to absorb the homeland itself. The evidence seemed to indicate that neither the Argentine historical claims of rightful legacy nor the Paraguayan claims of prior
    exploration and settlement bore effectively on the question of legal title. The decision seemed to swing on the fact that until 1865 Paraguay had exercised some jurisdiction over the disputed area while Argentina has exercised none.”

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    The point is that the United Kingdom did not acquire sovereignty over Saunders Island, did not reserve sovereignty, left the island, while Spain continued possession, there were no British claims and Spain exercised control of all of the islands. It is completely useless to leave marks on the ground when another power remains in the archipelago and when it is not continued with protests.
    In the same vein, Ronald H. Campbell of the Foreign Office, summarised the weaknesses in Britain’s title in his minutes of July 18th, 1911, and referred to the same point, saying that “(...)they were soon afterwards (in 1820) claimed, and a year or two later occupied, by the United Provinces of Buenos Ayres, as the successors in title of Spain from whom the colony had just won its Independence”.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    The point is exactly the opposite. Acquired, reserved, retained & returned. Spain only claimed one island - remember? Ignoring that simple fact, does not make it go away.

    Campbell, et al ? ...... From a submission to the 1983 inquiry - “With a subject as complicated as the history of the Falkland Islands, it is inevitable that individual officers will have differing and in some cases conflicting views. This is natural, but it is also irrelevant.”

    A little more Akehurst perhaps?

    “Spain must surely be regarded as having established effective control (and therefore sovereignty) over East Falkland. Moreover, Spain’s title survived the departure of the Spanish in 1811, because there is no evidence that Spain intended to abandon sovereignty; physical departure from territory does not lead to loss of sovereignty over that territory unless it is accompanied by an intention to abandon sovereignty.”

    It's really no good selecting the few quotes that support you. You need to research all those applicable.

    Seems a good point to note that the August updated Timeline has JUST been uploaded. It contains all the quotes. Enjoy :-)

    https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/chapter-pdfs/

    Never forget. There was no inheritance, and Argentina was never in the game

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @Voice
    That was interesting. I don't think I've seen you state your own opinion before, only argue with others. And you've complained so many times about your taxes going to support the Falklands I really thought you might want to get rid of them as quickly as possible.

    I agree the relationship with the BOTs ought to change, but the UN isn't willing or able to take on the job. And I don't believe the British government would jump at the chance of going to the ICJ either, no matter how much certain posters here love the idea.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    We did offer to go to the ICJ in 1982 via Secretary Haig.

    “... I have talked adjudication by the World Court, by the UN, or by a special commission. It was rejected all.”

    [Briefing by the Honorable Alexander M. Haig Jr. Secretary of State before Key House Leadership and House Foreign Affairs Committee – Room 2172, Rayburn Building, Washington DC 4/29/82]

    Whether Britain would be prepared to go now is, at best, moot. We consider the matter settled.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    That would make sense as Britain had something to gain from arbitration in 1982, having temporarily lost possession. Right now going to the ICJ would involve a big risk for little reward.

    The question is not moot though. There's a small chance Argentina might request arbitration, then the UK would have to decide whether to agree or not. It doesn't matter if we consider the matter settled as long as other people disagree and can affect us, to say otherwise is a denial of reality.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Considering the matter 'settled' eliminates the possibility of any sovereignty discussion. Argentina has never shown the least inclination to take their case to the ICJ. The islanders have experienced the worst that Argentina can throw at them - there is nothing that can now 'affect' them.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “...there is nothing that can now 'affect' them.”

    Then why were they asking May for reassurance on that agreement we signed last year? Why did we sign an agreement at all? Because Argentina can and does do things that affect them, and they want them to stop.

    Whether or not Argentina has any case, as long as they do not accept the matter is settled, they are likely to cause trouble for the Islanders. The Falklanders may well prefer to put up with it rather than try any other option, but declaring the matter settled does not make the problem go away.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Have they asked for 'reassurance' ? Last I heard, there was a large number of islanders that wanted nothing to do with any further flight.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I was referring to this:

    http://en.mercopress.com/2017/08/14/pm-may-supports-falklands-self-determination-calls-on-argentina-to-meet-september-joint-communique

    As far as I know the FIG is still pushing for more flights, even if some people oppose the idea.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    The PM was doing the calling. Not sure what the current position of the FIG is. Attempts being made to reassure the islanders with some sort of visa/entry controls which are still under discussion but I'm getting the impression that resistance to change is growing. Perhaps any islander on this site could update us?

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “No International tribunals and arbiters have been called upon to establish the meaning and context of Nootka or Utrecht”
    That is because there is not anything convoluted in the writing. It is you without any support attempts to give extraordinary absurd interpretations. While I just convey the text with its ordinary meaning “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. …”. Which was the view from antiquity, through Grotius and Vattel to the present day.
    “Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka SoundConvention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain's reassertion of sovereignty in 1833 (see sections 18 and 19) was an exercise of Britain's rights under this clause. In the opinion of Professor Dolzer, the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way.” Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @Demon tree

    “I agree the relationship with the BOTs ought to change”

    As long as the inhabitants of the BOTS wish that. It should not be forced on them.

    “It doesn't matter if we consider the matter settled as long as other people disagree and can affect us.”

    If the Falkland Islanders, especially those born on the islands, and even more especially those families with several generations of inhabitants consider the matter settled, the only other consequence from people that disagree, is if they mount a military invasion.

    The late Hugo Chavez and Castro (other people) have hinted at military support for Argentina to invade the Falkland Islands but it hasn't arrived yet.

    But why Maduro, Castro or anyone else have the right to say what happens with the Falkland Islands is puzzling as neither of them were born in the Islands.



    @Malvinense

    “While Spain continued possession”

    Was there any Spanish objection to Lt Thomas Edgar's survey, charting West Falkland in 1786? If the Spanish had control of West Falkland after 1774, why was a Royal Navy ship able to survey West Falkland without challenge?

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    You're right, it isn't clear that they asked her about the agreement. It says:

    “In addition, and in response to points raised in our letter of congratulation, the PM reaffirmed the UK Government’s commitment to working with FIG on issues such as public diplomacy, access to banking services and future hydrocarbons development.

    ”Finally, the letter noted that the UK Government is seeking a more productive relationship with the Government of Argentina. However the Prime Minister stated that the UK-Argentina relationship will not fulfill its full potential until the Government of Argentina meets the public commitments it made in September 2016.”

    It doesn't say the last part was in response to the points raised by the FIG.

    And yes, it would be much better if one of the Islanders could let us know the current situation rather than us guessing.

    @Pete Bog
    Yes, they would have to agree any change, but I don't see that as a big problem. The point is to get a better relationship where they are less dependent, one that is better for everyone. Why would they not agree to that?

    “the only other consequence from people that disagree, is if they mount a military invasion.”

    This is just not true. There are the sanctions, the ban on extra flights, the refusal to share fishery info, the harassment of companies doing business with the Falklands. There is also the need for the UK to maintain a large military base for defence.

    They may decide they can live with the consequences, and that's their choice (except the last one), but there ARE consequences.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Terry - Molinari, now there's a name to conjure with. I thought I'd been the first to uncover the French demands in 1801/02, and the rebuff by Britain; but then I found that Molinari had already discovered the same in 1960 - but hidden it in a cryptic footnote in his book.

    Argentines, eh?

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    The document was produced by A Greenhow a librarian which was probably produced as an intentionally contrary position to aid policy development and has absolutely no legal effect If you want their official position. Then consult: Viscount Palmerston to Don Manuel Moren, jan. 8, 1834,22 BRITISH AND FOREIGN STATE PAPERS (1833-1834), at 1384 (1847).“No answer was, however, at any time returned, nor was any objection raised..to the rights of Great Britain, as asserted in that protest; but the Buenos Ayrean government persisted..The government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata could not have expected, after the explicit declaration…,that his Majesty would silently submit to such a course of proceeding; nor could that government have been surprised at the step which his Majesty thought proper to take, in order to the resumption of rights which had never been abandoned, and which had only been permitted to lie dormant, under circumstances which had been explained to the Buenos-Ayrean government.
    The claim of Great Britain to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands having been unequivocally asserted and maintained, during those discussions with Spain, in 1770 and 1771, which nearly led to a war between the two countries, and Spain having deemed it proper to put an end to those discussions, by restoring to his Majesty the places from which British subjects had been expelled, the government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself; and this consideration alone would fully justify his Majesty’s Government in declining to enter into any further explanation upon a question which, upwards of half a century ago, was so notoriously and decisively adjusted with another government more immediately concerned.”
    Great Roger. The above I garnered from your research, thanks.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @Pete: Why did a British ship request permission from the Government of Buenos Aires? Did not Argentina exist? Was not Argentina out of the game?

    On January 30th, 1813, Henry Jones, owner of an English brig, requested an authorisation from the authorities of Buenos Aires “so that the vessel may travel to the Malvinas Islands and the South coasts for seal ”
    This act unquestionably shows the perception a British subject had regarding the sovereignty of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata in the Falklands/Malvinas. Besides, the request to the government in Buenos Aires is made at a time when the Spanish authorities were still present in Montevideo. This fact could not have been ignored by captain Peter Heywood, commander of the “Nereus” and head of the British ships navigating the Rio de la Plata. Their presence was specifically meant to protect British commercial activities in the region.
    http://www.malvinas-falklands.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Figura-8.jpg
    Credits Marcelo, Kohen.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “It doesn't matter if we consider the matter settled as long as other people disagree and can affect us, to say otherwise is a denial of reality”
    I assume this is your view after perusing all the facets of relevant international law. Perhaps, you could give some direction as to where this piece of wisdom is located, so that we can also enjoy your discovery.
    Malvinense 1833
    The perception a British subject had regarding the sovereignty of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. Are his own incorrect imaginings which do not impose any obligation on the British government. Like foreign secretary Palmerston correctly stated “The United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself ..”
    Kohen is the least reliable source for disseminating accurate information on international law. He is a sophist of the worst kind as he continually makes assertions without the backing of legal judgements, simply his own personal opinion, which legally makes such claims worthless.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    “I assume this is your view after perusing all the facets of relevant international law”

    Not at all. It's a practical consideration, in the same way that you may be affected by crime, even though crime is, by definition, against the law.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvinenese 1833 - another deception by Kohen & Rodrigues. My footnote on the deception of Jones =

    Welsh by birth, Henry Libanus Jones (bn.1789) arrived in Buenos Aires in October, 1810 and was recorded as a resident from 1812 until his death there in 1861. Jones sent sealing ships out to the coasts of Patagonia and the Falklands between 1812 and 1815. cf. Malvinas: Soberania, Memoria y Justicia 10 de Junio 1829 Sergio E. Caviglia 2012. No
    vessel of this, or any similar, name appears in the lists of sealers out of British ports. Kohen & Rodriguez (2016 p.118) claim that the application by Jones is evidence that the British recognised Spanish/Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands and that the commander of a British naval vessel in the Rio de la Plata – Peter Heywood – would have been aware. Neither of these claims are true. Heywood (a pardoned Bounty mutineer) would have had no interest in the applications of a resident of Buenos Aires. There appears to be no record of the response to this request by the authorities in Buenos Aires; if any. There is certainly no evidence of any licence being issued.

    Terry - Greenhow was the Senate Librarian, one of whose papers was a defence of the Lexington's actions.

    Aug 23rd, 2017 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “It's a practical consideration, in the same way that you may be affected by crime”. So what you’re asserting is that Argentina should be appeased even though the evidence shows they are both clearly wrong and dishonest. Doesn’t seem very a very good policy rewarding criminal behaviour. Remember a former PM tried that with Hitler.
    Roger Lorton
    I stand corrected it was of cause Gaston De Bernhardt

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Another Librarian - although only given limited time & limited access to complete his task. Something he complained about apparently :-)

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    Wrong again. I said nothing about what we should do about it; in your analogy I am merely pointing out that Hitler is busy invading Czechoslovakia and we ought to take that into consideration in our decisions rather than insist that the issue is settled.

    I think what the government is doing now (ie talking about issues other than sovereignty) is fine, and I think it would also be reasonable to discuss sovereignty PROVIDED they made clear any agreement would be put to a referendum in the Falklands and therefore a simple handover to Argentina is not an option. Personally I doubt there is much scope for agreement but since the current government is being more cooperative there is no harm in trying.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    The Falkland Islanders held their referendum in 2013.

    Job done.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • James Marshall

    DT, you seem to have forgotten the one and only issue pertaining to the Falklands with regard to NSGT's as stated by the UN. They are the only ones who can decided their future, not the UK, not Argentina.

    They have stated in 2013 what they want for the future and until they decide otherwise, no other nation or government can tell them otherwise or decide on their behalf without their full cooperation and permission.

    Whether Argentina or other countries deem the Islanders not worthy of self determination is at best 'wishful thinking and pandering' and at worst a blatant disregard for the principles of the UN and lacking moral or ethical judgment. It is not a hard one to understand.

    Who in 2017, other than the Islanders, have a right to claim the Islands and decide their future?

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    Terence:
    Kohen is the least reliable source for disseminating accurate information on international law.”
    Great Britain’s Counter-memorial in the recent Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) arbitration leaves no room for doubt in regard to its position on uti possidetis
    “It is trite law that the territory of a newly independent State is established at the moment of independence. This is reflected in the uti possidetis juris principle, which applies in particular to cases of decolonization, but is not limited to such cases”
    In short, the principle according to which a new State succeeds to the territorial sovereignty of its old metropolis at the moment of independence, in the framework of boundaries existing at that time, is indisputable.
    Marcelo Kohen.-

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    I haven't forgotten anything. They voted to remain a BOT for now, but you don't think they might want something else in future? Independence or free association? Leaving the dispute unresolved will interfere with that. The UK won't do free association and any other country that might agree to, such as New Zealand, won't want to deal with Argentina's complaints. If they want to become independent, those countries who officially support Argentina - which include all of their neighbours - aren't going to recognise them.

    Do you think they should be stuck as a non-self governing territory forever?

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Demon Tree - they might want something else in the future, but I suspect it is unlikely considering the neighbour. And the dispute is resolved. There simply is nothing left to talk about.

    I rather think that the Falklands will remain in its current position for the forseeable future (and I'm a Sci-Fi fan so I can see a long way).

    Malvinense 1833 - you still don't get it. Kohen & Rodrigues DISTORT the truth and pick their quotes selectively. That's why Kohen is considered a joke in international law circles when it comes to the Falklands. History ones too - I can't stop laughing at him.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    The islanders should ask for negotiations between Buenos Aires and London to reach some kind of agreement. In case of not reaching an agreement between the two countries, submit the case to an arbitration or to the International Court of Justice. What is the problem to reach a definitive solution that will benefit all?

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    Hitler isn't invading Czechoslovakia. The dispute is resolved. There is nothing to worry about.

    @Malvinense
    They are happy with the status quo, and Argentina have made themselves very hated there. They don't see any benefit for themselves in negotiating.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    We talked already. We talked for 17 years. 17 YEARS. There's nothing left to be said and Argentina simply will NOT allow the Islanders a say. Read & learn - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/10-1960-to-1981.pdf

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Roger Lorton: 17 years is very little for a conflict that takes almost 185 years.
    @ demon Tree: I do not understand, they want fishing agreements, hydrocarbons, more flights but they do not want a rapprochement with Argentina.
    Argentinian high school students travel to meet other young people from the islands but deny them contact.
    Despite the refusal of many people, sooner or later the human contact will be established.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Pete Bog

    @Malvinense 1833

    ”Counter-memorial in the recent Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) arbitration leaves no room for doubt in regard to its position on uti possidetis”

    This may well be the case at present, but if , and of course currently it is an if, the Chagos Islanders under Allen Vincattasin, persuade HMG to return them to their homeland they want a BOT, not Mauritian sovereignty. Self determination, and the fact the Islanders were on Chagos for several generations, some 6th generation, will dent the Mauritian claim.

    Timmerman might have talked to Olivier Bancoult, but most Chagossians (especially those in the UK) have chosen Allen Vincattassin as their leader.

    And while HMG thought the MPA could exclude the Chagossians, they welcome it as a potential future source of living. Great lateral thinking from Mr Vincattassin. He will be a good leader of a Legislative Council if he gets the chance.

    And Malvinense, to quote him “ I was born British and am proud to be British.”

    The Mauritians treated the Chagossians like dirt in exile, their alleged support for the Islanders are as crocodile tears.

    @Roger Lorton

    “'Restored' in December, 1832, basically consisted of raising the flag and leaving a message in a bottle.”

    Thanks, Roger, my understanding of restored is different from that which applied then. As happens with the English Language, and the multiple meaning of lexis,over time. Would be interesting to look at a plan of the buildings and gardens if one exists. Very interesting that settlers from Port Louis left for Port Egmont including Antonina Roxa.

    Look forward to your updated timeline, the Malvinas Myth buster.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @Malvi
    They do want those things, but not enough to compromise on sovereignty or go to arbitration to get them. And I think Argentina could do a lot of worse things without it changing their minds.

    Also notice they don't want any help from Argentina, they want Argentina to stop doing things that hurt them, like blocking flights to other countries. The only positive agreement they would like is the fishing one, and that would be reciprocal and benefit Argentina also.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvinense 1833

    17 years must have been too long for Argentina. They stopped jaw jaw and chose war war. Trial by combat. The matter is settled.

    And the update was posted yesterday. Kohen has it already - I don't know anyone else in Switzerland :-)

    Enjoy - https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/chapter-pdfs/

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Clyde15

    Malv.

    Try to put yourself in the Islander's place.

    I think the old nursery rhyme sums it up

    WOLF--“Little pig, little pig let me in”
    PIGS -- Not by the hairs of my chinny chin chin !

    That's how the Islanders feel about Argentina. They are perfectly content in their comfortable sty. Any overtures by Argentina have the end game of taking over sovereignty.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “This is reflected in the uti possidetis juris principle,” Thank you for confirming Kohen’s spurious reasoning in international law. As it is not recognized except to the parties that consent to it being applied.
    “Submit the case to an arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.”
    “Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision without her agreement. .. In 1977, Argentina, having accepted the jurisdiction of an international court of arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.” The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher) http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland-islands

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Malvinense 1833

    Clyde :
    “Try to put yourself in the Islander's place”.
    “If the Malvinas have a people, it is the Argentine and South American people. And this is not a matter of principle; this is a matter of common sense, of verifying the history of our people in this territory”
    Marcelo Vernet.
    @ Roger: By the way, what are your favorite science fiction authors?

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvinense 1833

    Marcelo Vernet is wrong & 'common sense' has nothing to do with it. Why? Because that would be Argentine 'common sense' and there simply aint no sense in that.

    Argentina was never in the game.

    Iain M. Banks (RIP) & Alastair Reynolds

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    @Malvinense
    If that is what you believe, there is no point talking about it. There are precious few people of South American origin in Argentina anyway.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    Roger: Revelation Space? your valoration 1-10 and The three body problem? Cixin Liu

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    M1833
    Why should we believe Vernet ? If the Malvinas have a people ?

    What do you think has being living there for 180 years, a herd of giraffes ?

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Malvinense 1833

    No Clyde, no. a herd of giraffes no, I have not said that.
    They mentioned try to put you in the place of the islanders.
    I say: try to put yourself in the place of the islanders.
    Page 8 http://www.embajadaabierta.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/vernet.pdf

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @Malvinense
    It was sad for the people who left, no doubt, but they had only lived there a few years, and they are all long dead now.

    Who are the people of Argentina? The ones who lived there before the Spanish arrived or the ones who live there now?

    And out of interest, where were your ancestors living in 1833?

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    The Islanders in 1833 malvinense ? Only 2 couples left with the trespassing garrison; the rest remained.
    The British commander went to great lengths to persuade the gauchos to stay.
    We were far more welcoming than, say, the Americans.

    Aug 24th, 2017 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “I think it would also be reasonable to discuss sovereignty PROVIDED they made clear any agreement would be put to a referendum”
    You may well believe it to be reasonable. But, such an action would be illegal under the Charter. The only people that are permitted to approve such an action are the Islanders.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    1966 to 1982, the negotiators repeated, time and time again, “subject to the wishes of the islanders” (or something akin to that). Repeated, repeated, repeated. Argentina would not accept that, instead arguing that the wishes of the islanders were irrelevant, and that only their 'interests' needed to be met for UN resolutions to be complied with. A wonderfully paternalistic approach to the lives of human beings; founded upon the notion that turfing them off the territory they'd lived on for more than a century could actually be in their 'interests.'

    Argentina says that it wants to talk, but Argentina does not wish to listen.

    The matter is settled
    (Britain's Ambassador to Argentina said those exact words to me only recently :-) still, he'll learn. )

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    The Ambassador sounds like a sensible fellow. ;) Did you tell him that the issue is settled? That must have been sooo convincing when he has been called upon to deal with it so many times already.

    If you're telling me that we would not get anywhere if we did talk to Argentina, then I am inclined to agree with you  (although it's not like we need their permission to hold a referendum). But I am never going to ignore the evidence of my own eyes which says the issue is clearly NOT settled, no matter how many times you repeat it.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Ambassador Kent used those exact word TO me ....... which only goes to prove how important context is.

    :-)

    The matter is settled

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Which exact words, and what was the context then?

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    If a matter is not settled to the satisfaction of the UN mentioned parties...
    Then the matter is not settled, no matter how one may wish it to be settled...

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “If a matter is not settled to the satisfaction of the UN mentioned parties…”
    Doesn’t matter a fig as they don’t have a legal leg to stand on and theres sweet fanny Adam they can do about it.
    Foreign Secretary Palmerston to Don Manuel Moren, jan. 8, 1834,22 BRITISH AND FOREIGN STATE PAPERS (1833-1834), at 1384 (1847).“No answer was, however, at any time returned, nor was any objection raised..to the rights of Great Britain, as asserted in that protest; but the Buenos Ayrean government persisted..The government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata could not have expected, after the explicit declaration…,that his Majesty would silently submit to such a course of proceeding; nor could that government have been surprised at the step which his Majesty thought proper to take, in order to the resumption of rights which had never been abandoned, and which had only been permitted to lie dormant, under circumstances which had been explained to the Buenos-Ayrean government.
    The claim of Great Britain to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands having been unequivocally asserted and maintained, during those discussions with Spain, in 1770 and 1771, which nearly led to a war between the two countries, and Spain having deemed it proper to put an end to those discussions, by restoring to his Majesty the places from which British subjects had been expelled, the government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself; and this consideration alone would fully justify his Majesty’s Government in declining to enter into any further explanation upon a question which, upwards of half a century ago, was so notoriously and decisively adjusted with another government more immediately concerned.”

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Demon Tree:
    1-It was sad for the people who left, no doubt, but they had only lived there a few years, and they are all long dead now.
    It is true that everything happened long ago, and they were there for a short period of time, but why were these islanders there for a short time? Simply by the imperialist intervention of Great Britain of those times.
    These islanders had achieved self-determination as did the rest of the continent's Argentines.
    The British islanders living on the islands can not be judges in a conflict that began before they were there, in addition the time spent does not justify or erase what happened in 1833, just as what happened in 1982 will not be erased with the passage weather.
    2-Who are the people of Argentina? The ones who lived there before the Spanish arrived or the ones who live there now?
    The Argentines are all, those who lived there before the arrival of the Spaniards, the Europeans who came later and had their children and families here, we are a nation of nations.
    Many Englishmen, Welshmen, Irishmen, Scots and their descendants live here. That's why I laugh a lot when they say that the islanders can not integrate into Argentine society.
    3-And out of interest, where were your ancestors living in 1833?
    I suppose that part of my ancestors lived in what is now Argentina and the other part closer in time comes from Europe.
    Regards.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Clyde15

    M1833

    The difference is that the immigrants who came to Argentina WANTED to integrate into a new society.

    The Falkland islanders have formed their own society over 170 years, which is different from that in Argentina.

    It is a matter of choice.....not enforcement.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    @Malvinense
    “The British islanders living on the islands can not be judges in a conflict that began before they were there”

    You can try to understand their point of view without agreeing they should be allowed to decide, just as I can see Argentina's point of view without agreeing with it.

    And in this world they are the only people the islands have. No matter what you think about sovereignty, it is absurd to say people who only lived there for a few years are the 'real' islanders.

    I don't know whether time justifies what happens but IMO it certainly makes a difference to how we should deal with it. I suppose you would agree that Spain conquering
    South America and importing it's own population (and a bunch of slaves) was wrong? But all the people in Argentina today are considered Argentines, no matter where their ancestors came from or how they got there. Sometimes we can't go back and it wouldn't be right to.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Brit Bob

    Malvinense 1833

    At no to did the UP attain 'unopposed settlement of some years' so the fact is, Argentina (U.P.) never attained legal possession of the Falkland Islands.

    Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina (1 page):
    https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina

    Regarding UPJ - this is only customary law - countries opt in to use it. UPJ has 'never' been used in any court without the consent of both parties. Opinion – Consensual Nature of UPJ - Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)

    Argentina has no legal argument to take to court. Therefore her claim has 'no' legitimacy.

    The UK has a number of options including - Acquisitive prescription; extinctive prescription; Convention of Settlement Peace Treaty; Acquiescence and self-determination.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Demon Tree:
    I can understand the situation of the islanders, I do not feel hatred for them, nor for the other British, simply can not understand how a country culturally advanced leader can not establish a dialogue with another country to reach an agreement.
    Suppose the International Court of Justice gives reason to the United Kingdom then the islanders could achieve their self-determination, establish cordial relations between peoples and eliminate the problem for future generations.
    @ Brit Bob
    Argentina can argue the same situation that you mention: acquiescence, prescription, Peace Treaty Convention, etc.
    As you and Roger and everyone here discuss different arguments my question is: Why can not Argentina and the UK do the same in a court and establish who is right?.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • DemonTree

    “I can understand the situation of the islanders”

    Then why do you think they don't want to talk to Argentina?

    “Why can not Argentina and the UK do the same in a court and establish who is right?”

    Because neither country's government is willing to take the risk of losing. Both prefer the status quo to that.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “Acquiescence, prescription, Peace Treaty Convention,” Are all legal issues that sink Argentine spurious claims without a trace and conclusively support the UK.
    “Argentina and the UK do the same in a court” Time has precluded any chance Argentina mounting any legal claim.
    “Time is not in favour of Argentina, it is the British who are in possession of the territory.”
    Clarin, the June 23, 2004. Marcelo G. Kohen.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Pete Bog

    @Malvinense

    “but why were these islanders there for a short time? Simply by the imperialist intervention of Great Britain of those times.
    These islanders had achieved self-determination as did the rest of the continent's Argentines.”

    The people of Vernet's settlement that stayed, mostly of South American origin, with the clear permission of Great Britain in 1833, (including Rivero), obviously did achieve self determination. They wanted to live at Port Louis , and clearly they were not put off by the prospect of British administration or they would have left.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @Pete Bog
    That's not self determination. The people would have had the same choice of leaving their homes or living under a foreign administration if Argentina had won the war in 1982. If the people living there in 1833 had been asked as a group whether they preferred their settlement to be under British or Argentine sovereignty, and it had been decided accordingly, that would be self determination. But that just didn't happen back then.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Brit Bob

    Demon Tree

    The international law in respect of self-determination was not applicable in 1833. It is now and is jus cogens.

    ICJ Opinions - The International Court of Justice has confirmed in a judgment and four advisory opinions that 'the right to self-determination is applicable to all the non-self -governing territories.(Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia 1971, P31-32; Western Sahara Advisory Opinion 1975, p68, para 162; East Timor Judgment 1995, P102, para 29; Legal Consequences of Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory 2004, p171-172 para 88 and the Kosovo Advisory Opinion of 2010, p37, para 79). There are no exceptions. Compelling Law - In the light of the ICJ 1995 East Timor Judgment, the United Nations International Law Commission and the UN Human Rights Commission regard the right to self-determination as ‘jus cogens’ (compelling law). (ILC Report Fifty-Third Session, General Assembly Official Records, Fifty-Sixth Session, Supp N0 10 A/56/10, 23 April – 10 Aug 2001, pp, 208, 284.& UN Commission on Human Rights Report, Fifty-Eighth Session, 18 March-26 April 2002, Official Records 2002, Supplement 3, p41).

    Malvinense

    Forgot to add 'Conquest' to acquisitive prescription; extinctive prescription; Convention of Settlement Peace Treaty; Acquiescence and self-determination.

    I repeat, Argentina has nothing to take to court so her claim is not legitimate. Try and name one legal aspect that Argentina has that will support her claim? Just one ....

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • gordo1

    Malvinense 1833

    Kindly explain in the simplest terms possible exactly why you continue to insist that it is Britain and Argentina that should conduct negotiations in order to determine the Falklands “matter”. In the event that it is agreed that conversations should take place why should the islanders not represent themselves? After all it is their future which is at stake!

    Of course, I do not believe there is any reason for negotiation - the Falkland Islands have no connection with Argentina, NEVER have had any connection with Argentina and, in spite of Hepatitis/Kipper, never will have any connection with Argentina!

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “If the people living there in 1833 had been asked as a group whether they preferred their settlement to be under British or Argentine sovereignty,”
    Thats completely a none issue as Argentina had already acquiesced and indicated their guilt be failing to respond to two diplomatic protests. As their ‘silence’ is “he who keeps silent is assumed to consent” SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Livepeanuts

    A great addition, well done! Goes to show Argentina how far back England / UK and the Falklands go, not the same as any territory of continental “Latin America”, nothing “Latin” about the Falklands I am afraid.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Demon Tree: Possibly so. But it is not the best thing for anyone, I prefer to lose the islands to continue with a conflict situation forever.

    @ gordo1: Argentina does not accept the intervention of the islanders because the conflict is before them. When the British encroachment occurred, the so-called island people did not exist. In addition another group of Britons can not decide on the conflict.
    Extrapolating to see if he can understand: It is as if Argentina usurped one of the British Isles and establishes a population. The UK protests. There is conflict between countries. Time passes. Then Argentina says: The Argentine islanders have the right to choose their future, they have the right to self-determination. Is it fair to you?
    I think that at some point Argentina should consider negotiating directly with the islanders, but if the islanders are seriously willing to negotiate. Of course if they say: there is nothing to negotiate, we do not want any connection with Argentina, then there will be no possibility of including them.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    I have no time for Argentine fraud. She is estopped from ever making good her futile claims under numerous attributes of international law. She was given here answer in 1834, “The government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself; and this consideration alone would fully justify his Majesty’s Government in declining to enter into any further explanation upon a question which, upwards of half a century ago, was so notoriously and decisively adjusted with another government more immediately concerned.” “Argentina does not accept the intervention of the islanders because the conflict is before them.” Tough because Argentina is governed by international law as it was in 1833. While the Islanders rights are protected by the right to self determination under present international law.

    Aug 25th, 2017 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @gordo1
    Argentina wants to avoid doing anything that could be considered to acknowledge the Islanders as different from the UK, as this would tend to weaken their position. Hence they will not negotiate with them directly. However, as we saw in the recent discussions, they do not object to them attending as long as they are officially part of the British delegation.

    @Malvinense
    For your government  (unlike for the people), it is more useful to leave the issue unresolved, and it would be fatal to their re-election chances to lose. For the UK, there is little to gain and much to lose by going to arbitration. Therefore I expect it to remain unresolved for the foreseeable future.

    As for discussions, I think persuading the Islanders to join Argentina is an impossible task. If there was more good will and better relations, it might be possible to discuss other options, but I'm not sure anyone in Argentina even wants that. It is sovereignty or nothing for most people.

    Also, as far as I know there is no parallel situation where another country has taken part of Britain, therefore it is hard to imagine how we would feel. But you may note the independence referendum in Scotland as a sign that our government does, to some extent, practice what it preaches.

    Aug 26th, 2017 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Brit Bob

    Malvinense

    I repeat, Argentina has nothing to take to court so her claim is not legitimate. Try and name one legal aspect that Argentina has that will support her claim? Just one ....

    Your self-determination analogy is a joke. Remind us how far were the United Provinces from the Falklands in 1833?

    And there you go again 'pretending' that the Islanders do not have the right to self-determination.

    Falklands – Self-Determination: https://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page_

    Aug 26th, 2017 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    M1833

    Your argument is based on words such as ”enchroachment, usurpation.

    We are back to the old argument in that Argentina has decided that the Falklands are their territory. Whatever you say, that would be their position and they would accept NO OTHER OUTCOME in discussions than gaining sovereignty against the wishes of the Falkland's population.
    It may be that they would offer a transitional arrangement to cover a number of years before this took place BUT sovereignty is the end-game. Nothing else is acceptable.

    What is there to discuss?

    Aug 26th, 2017 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse +2

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!