MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Some thoughts about Falklands and flying the Union Jack
By John Fowler - It’s no good if the Falkland Islanders just keep on saying that they don’t want to be Argentine; you can’t define yourself in terms of a negative, you must decide what or who you want to be and proclaim it positively.” Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe Argentine government describe the British activities of 3 January 1833 as, 'on 3 January 1833 a British Royal Navy corvette with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement.' And 'The act of force of 1833, carried out in peacetime without prior communication or declaration by a government friendly to the Argentine Republic...'
Oct 27th, 2017 - 08:13 am - Link - Report abuse +6Seriously, have you heard of a territory being usurped in the 19th century?
Falkland Islands – The Usurpation (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/34838377/Falkland_Islands_The_Usurpation
“Seeing too many UK union flags on our streets and vehicles only serves to reinforce official Argentine propaganda.”
Oct 27th, 2017 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse -8See what I mean...they want all the benefits of being British, But not being British...
I don't know whether he quite understands that the Union flag is not the English flag, it's not the Scottish flag...it's the British flag...
What part of British Overseas Territory is ambiguous...?
Voice - where does he say it is an English flag? He doesn't.
Oct 27th, 2017 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse +2At last a sensible and practical suggestion rather than the 'Daily Mail' xenophobia that usually fills the comments pages of MercoPress on the Falklands/Malvinas issue. The argument based on the right to self-determination is the crucial one - and the writer is correct to say that this arguments falls on deaf eyes in Argentina because of the history of elitist/populist styles of governance. In addition to the excellent suggestion of reducing the 'Union Jack' flag-flying, here's another one - try to engage with 'ordinary' Argentines, not just members of the elite and chauvinistic middle-classes who are notorious for their 'chip on the shoulder' mentality, an over-compensation for their lack of a strong sense of their own identity.
Oct 27th, 2017 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse +2I tend to agree with that, the UK spilled a lot of blood and used up a lot of treasure in order to protect the Falklanders from a dreadful dictatorship which was defeated on the Falklands and for that reason it fell, it stopped throwing its own people out of planes for instance, giving democracy to the Falklands and to Argentina.
Oct 27th, 2017 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse +11Taking Argentina out of the equation and giving the Islands freedom as a UK Overseas Territory was a great plus for the Falklanders economy, it would do the Falklanders no good to bring back the Argentine component, as that will mess up the Falklands as it messes up their own country. First thing to go will be fishing!
Very important: No agreement signed by Argentina is set in stone, to the contrary, any deal which suits the Falklanders could be brought down by sheer liquid jealousy of the ”rest of Argentina (if that is what Summers/ Fowler want)” in a couple of years, and if the UK is not in that equation of control, take a look at Hong Kong, I will say no more.
The problem with Argentina is the indoctrination of the kids, if it were stopped today, it would still be in power in fifty years time (much more than one generation), and with that you can not reason. Better leave everything for another generation which must not be indoctrinated in order to settle, ideally by recognition of the UK Oversea's Territory Status and throw in some Common Market deal with Argentina.
The STRENGTH of the Falklanders is that THEY ARE BRITISH and that is what Argentina has learnt that she must respect., the British flag is a very good idea and so is the Queen. Change all that at your peril, and I would watch that the British Press doesn't get wind of these ideas either, it will do you no good.
Hustings
Oct 27th, 2017 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse +3Is there an election coming up?
John Fowler and all: To makeup the colony of the Malvinas Islands by changing a flag by another one will not change their well known colonial situation. That situation and status is not mantained by “indoctrinated kids” in the other side of the Mar Argentino but by the UN that still keeps the islands under the decolonization process.
Oct 27th, 2017 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -11Anyway, like the referendum, the change of the flag will only be a pretension, another simulation by the british in the islands to try to convince the rest of the world they are something else other than british.
Argentine myth? is even easier.
Oct 27th, 2017 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -12Mr Fowler, if you can read this: is it not easier to negotiate with Argentina to settle the dispute?
Is it not easier to negotiate for arbitration?
Is it not easier to negotiate to have recourse to the International Court of Justice?
Obviously the parties involved must accept the final result, and the consequences will be:
-The final solution of the conflict.
- Support the world to this solution.
- The new generations will be able to live in peace.
Regards.
Liberato
Oct 27th, 2017 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +10The UN General Assembly has had nothing to say on the 'decolonization' of the Falkland Islands since 1989. It would seem that the GA really no longer cares.
Only the Islanders can decide their future. Not Britain, not Argentina, not even the UN.
The Islanders are something else other than British - they are themselves. Free to choose.
Good luck to them.
I have heard that in Rosario a group of business men have formed a group which wishes to establish a normal “country to country” relationship with the Falkland Islands with no political or diplomatic points to be made.
Oct 27th, 2017 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +4As the falkland islanders voted to remain a bot, the islands continue to belong to the uk. The islands are a possession of hmg who retains responsibility for defence and foreign affairs. For the islands to belong to its people would require a vote in favour of independence and that vote being granted by hmg.
Oct 27th, 2017 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Malvi
Oct 27th, 2017 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +9So how are you going to get a negotiated settlement whilst the Argentine constitution claims the Falklands? Surely any Argentine who negotiated a deal that did not gain sovereignty for Argentina would be in breach of the Argentine constitution and therefore, presumably, guilty of treason.
If however you are advocating the removal from the Argentine constitution of their illegal claim to the Falkland Islands then that would indeed be a start.
So are you advocating a change to the Argentine constitution?, yes or no answer will suffice.
The question in 2013 was - Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom?
Oct 27th, 2017 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Political status.
If all the UK has is defence and foreign affairs, then Britain's possession is dramatically less than 100%
The Islanders have something close to a “full measure” of self-government. On top of that, they have the right of self-determination - which they exercised in choosing their political status. That right continues...... a right that can over-ride HMG (not the least because the British Government recognises that right).
Therefore, as the final decision makers, the Islands already belong to their people.
Ahhhhhhh...
Oct 27th, 2017 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -8The “Most Unclear” Engrish comments above remind me of the Rhodesia Solution...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=9s&v=pGJH_-S_MGs
Which part confuses you Think?
Oct 27th, 2017 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Was it Malvinense's faintly ridiculous suggestion that arbitration should be negotiated, when Argentina has shown no stomach for international arbitration since 1888?
Was it Malvinense's humorous suggestion that something involving the ICJ should be agreed despite previous offers being rejected?
Was it Malvinense's downright risible suggestion that Argentina would seriously agree to abide by a decision of the ICJ that went against it? All evidence to the contrary.
Was it Malvinense's worrying reference to a 'final solution” ? Where have I heard that before? Perhaps he's from Bariloche?
Or is just because you have an infallible knowledge of British sitcoms?
I said... : “Most Unclear E NG R I S H comments”..., lad...
Oct 27th, 2017 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Since when is Sr. Malvinense 1833 E N G R I S H...?
Easy on that mago wine...
I thought Bariloche was in Essex............... who is to say where he's from?
Oct 27th, 2017 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Unless you know more?
Cheap Thai whisky actually ........... still, beggars can't be choosers :-)
By the way..., lad...
Oct 27th, 2017 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -7What do ya mean by “British Sitcoms...?
”Yes Minister” was Live BBC broadasting from Westminster...
Belongership was mentioned by john fowler. It can be viewed from both ends of the telescope. The song I belong to glasgow starts with those words and ends with glasgow belongs to me! As well as defence and foreign affairs hmg retains responsibility for ensuring good governance. The governor exercises this on behalf of hm the queen. A display of British sovereignty. The gov is this land lady's rep. Until independence it seems all botties belong to the lady. But like the song, after a couple of drinks on a Saturday night the falklands belong to the islanders!
Oct 27th, 2017 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Lorton: Quote: “The UN General Assembly has had nothing to say on the 'decolonization' of the Falkland Islands since 1989. It would seem that the GA really no longer cares.”
Oct 27th, 2017 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -9The UN General Assembly did not made more resolutions regarding Malvinas for the so called madrid declaration and the umbrella formulla. Not becouse the islands stopped being a colony of britain. So, in other words, you are lying as always.
About the referendum, unillaterally made in a territory under a “sovereignty dispute” (recognized by the UN as such), and illegitimate for a territory under a decolonization process that went against the support of the UN.
As we know it is the Republic of Argentina who refuse to accept that the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ) has jurisdiction to determine sovereignty of the islands in the south Atlantic. As we learned during the Argentina v “Vulture fund” dispute the Argies do not respect any Court of Law that doesn't see things their way. However we all know how that little disagreement ended don't we ;-D
Oct 27th, 2017 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +8When you say that the islands were colonised, you are perfectly correct. They belong to Britain and we colonised them. What's wrong with that ? We displaced NO indigenous population. All we did was to remove some Argie military squatters and send them back to the River Plate settlement
Oct 27th, 2017 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Malvi
Oct 27th, 2017 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Come on, answer my question. Yes or no?
Liberato - where in the agreements of 1989 and 1990 does it mention that the UN is covered by the sovereignty umbrella? Who signed on behalf of the UN?
Oct 27th, 2017 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Portman - does Britain belong to the British? Are we all mere chattels? That the Islanders have the right to choose independence would seem to give them rather more ownership of their land than, say, the English.
Stoke, the UK refuse any jurisdiction of the international court to the Malvinas case. In fact, they refuse the very existence of a dispute.Totally contrary to the UN that do acknowledge the islands a territory under a sovereignty dispute.
Oct 27th, 2017 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Clyde15, you british ARE still colonizing Malvinas. And not in the old fashion way of exploiting a native population but by having expelled the native population to implant its own and mantain their “britishness” if you like, by controlling demographycs.
Darragh, the constitution can be changed in a bit. The same as that fake “constitution” of the islands that describe the queen as the owner of all the territory.
Lorton, You have not read the Madrid joint declaration of 1989 with the presentation of the sovereignty umbrella formulla?
http://www.fiassociation.com/shopimages/pdfs/5.%201990%20Joint%20British-Argentine%20Statement%20on%20the%20Reestablishment%20of%20Diplomatic%20Relations.pdf
Do you see Argentina or any other nation presenting the Malvinas dispute to the General Assembly while at the same time proposing a formulla to freeze the sovereignty dispute?.
Yes Liberato, I do see the Argentine nation presenting its mythical dispute to the UN GA - at the Fourth Committee hearings every year. And how do you account for the wailing before the Special Committee every year? And why don't the C24 recommend their resolution that they went to the trouble of writing?
Oct 28th, 2017 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse +4The UN is not subject to the umbrella and is free to speak. That is does not do so is very telling.
As for the referendum, it was entirely legal. The UN's permission is not required, nor is it a necessity that the UN organise it. Way back in the 1960's, when the UN disagreed with the Gibraltar referendum, they made their feelings plain - in a GA Resolution.
In 2013, the GA said nothing. The assumption therefore has to be that they did not oppose it, as they had that of Gibraltar.
And the ICJ? Argentina didn't submit its case to the League of Nations in 1920, as it was supposed to do - and left that organisation shortly after. Since 1946, Argentina has had the opportunity to submit a case to the ICJ, but still does not automatically recognise the ICJ's jurisdiction in any circumstances; which at least the UK does. It is up to the complainer to ask that a case go to the ICJ. So why isn't Argentina asking?
The islanders have a Constitution - which is rather more than the British do :-)
This matter was settled. The umbrella is forever. No?
Roger, settled? says who? where you inside the HMS Vigilant?
Oct 28th, 2017 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse -8“Nine British servicemen removed from HMS Vigilant after testing positive for cocaine”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/nine-british-servicemen-removed-hms-vigilant-testing-positive/
Marcos Alejandro and the extraordinarily stupid Malvinense 1833 (she can't even read the original Argentine documents in Archivo General de la Nacion), when are you two sqatters going to leave the territory in South America which the Spanish usurped from its population?
Oct 28th, 2017 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse +5Just seen this so if they are not going to fly the Jack then maybe they should change their passports, queens head on the bank notes, have their own trade agreements with out being in the UK trading areas, but also what about the foreign office they should not need this either, as a UK tax payer and helping support the military presence there, after all there has not been a military threat there in the last 35 years, make your minds up on what you want and stop using other peoples money to play games, after talking to people and asking about the Falklands most of them say where? so as you can see why should the UK support the Falklands when you do not want to fly the flag, disrespectful bit of an oxymoron, i think the UK should pull out, if you do this after all, you boast about how you can support yourselves and have your own laws etc so why should the UK continue to support your hypocrisy.
Oct 28th, 2017 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse -8Liberato
Oct 28th, 2017 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse +3What native population.... a bunch of soldiers sent down from B.A.
Anyway, the Islanders are right to be fussy about who they let settle. They had a short period of Argentine settlement in 1982 and look at the mess they made of the place.
Who would want to be like Argentina !!!!!!!!
What if, you 'just' saw it? But have you understood it? One man. Asking a few questions. A journalist to boot. And? What disrespect? Just one man's thoughts. One opinion.
Oct 28th, 2017 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse +2As for the ridiculous notion that there is no military threat. It is ever-present and lies less than 400 miles to the west. Argentina hasn't gone away, and are as belligerent as ever. Not that the base on the Falklands is only for the protection of that archipelago, it is there also for all the other British claims in the South Atlantic, sub-Antarctic and Antarctic. The Islanders support themselves, we maintain a base for the security of all Britain's possessions. A strategic advantage. Worth the price too.
The Islanders“made their minds up” back in 2013 - for the present. As Scotland made its mind up - for the present. No knowing about what may change. That the idiots you speak to don't know their arses from their elbows is hardly the Islanders' fault. So much for education.
What if - you think before you react?
LIberato- You are way way out of date ion your mythical beliefs.
Oct 28th, 2017 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse +6Over the last 35 years the Islands population origens- have changed from about 95% British origen pre 1982 - to today coming from over 25 different National backgrounds,
and a growing number of these each year are now gaining Falkland Islands Status as citizens - and the thus 99.8% of the voters who voted in 2013 to keep the Islands British were NOT all of British origen either.
Do catch up and move with the times a bit.
Liberato please explain, how are a motley collection of Italian and Spanish heritage troops from the United Provinces over 1000 miles away who landed on the Falkland Islands for about 3 months defined as a native population?
Oct 28th, 2017 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Mr lorton as an islander who was there in 82 and also as an islander i would like to tell you that half of the crap you come out with is somewhat boring the hell out of me and as a historian i have all admiration for you, but the answers are not in the past but in the future for the Falklands, as you can see by all of the chat here keeps on going to the past and can not look forward to an overall future for the south Atlantic, as an islander i have experienced that the UK has no jurisdiction there not relay as they do pretty much what they want with in reason? i feel that the biggest threat to the Falklands is the decisions of the UK government and not that of the Argentine government as the roundabout keeps on turning as things are but if the UK desired to say we need to pull all the military back home then there would be a problem there as they would either have the choice to be fully independent, like as i say there is a sovereignty claim but not a military threat,this is worth thinking about given the UKs present budgets and the poverty that is starting to happen at home. the question is can they handle it, looking of what i have seen and heard NO, oil coming is the door to all sorts of nasty things and dodgy deals etc and what of the people when that happens, there is a lot more to this than meats the eye, when was you last there, and what type of people do you know, the real people or the watered down versions hired in to play with the natives as such?
Oct 28th, 2017 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Liberato
Oct 28th, 2017 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“by having expelled the native population to implant its own and mantain their “brutishness”
In 1833 Antonio Rivero elected to stay in the Falklands under British rule .He was from Britain?
4 Uruguayan Indians stayed. Did they come from Britain?
Antonina Roxa stayed and later ran a ranch near Stanley. Did she originate from the British Isles?
Other people from South America were encouraged to stay in 1833.
If you count the Jamaican and Irish men as British, and they had been Vernet's settlers, not sent by Britain, there were clearly a large minority of the remaining settlers that were British, so your post makes no sense, because basically it's the same bullshit that has been peddled by Argentina for years, without any justification.
How many people born in the Falkland Islands, were evicted in1833?
You forget that Pinedo's sailors who were British did not stay.
How does a military force that was only in the Islands for three months count as a native population?
And how does that compare with a Falklands family that has continually been on the Islands since 1844, all of it's members having been born on the Islands?
You seem to forget something else. The vast majority of Vernet's settlers, whether they were evicted by the USA in 1831, or those allowed to stay by Britain in 1833, were not born in the Falkland Islands or even what is now Argentina.
The majority were born in Europe.
One thing is certain, the Europeans that became Argentines, did kick out the Indigenous population, but there was no native population kicked out of the Falkland Islands by Britain, indeed the Falkland Islands with a church mission (that founded Ushuaia)attempted to educate native Yaghans on Keppel Island during the 19th century, that is educate, not exterminate them.
Your definition of a military force, mostly made up of convicts later executed by firing squad in B.A. as a Falkland native population, is laughable.
What if, if you are bored, then don't read it it. Simple enough. That you are an islander surprises me. Your English is generally poor, which is suspicious, although earlier you managed 'oxymoron' - too many people claim to be something else here. Perhaps you are for real it's hard to tell.
Oct 28th, 2017 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +6There is a military threat. Regardless of Argentina's reduced military capacity they would still find it easy enough to over-run the Islands if the British withdrew - and there is no doubt that they would. Money is no great problem as the costs of the MPA set-up on the Islands is a small part of the overall defence budget and not an issue. We can afford it and the Islands' strategic value remains high. As for poverty, try taking a look in Africa or Asia if you want to see the real deal.
As you ask, I have never been to the Islands, but have been fortunate to meet a few Islanders in the UK. They didn't appear as pessimistic as you do. Quite the opposite in fact.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt - Why did you leave?
Mr Lorton, you as a historian you would know that education in the Falklands was poor in the 70s and i do apologies if i do not come up to your standard, for your last question is because of fucking assholes like you who think you know it all, playing with the natives as shown in your last comment . people like you should get your fucking nose out of other peoples shit that is the problem with the Falklands, and also if you knew enough Falkland islanders then calling some one an asshole is the ultimate insult ASSHOLE!!!!
Oct 28th, 2017 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -10What If
Oct 28th, 2017 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Sorry, but you do come across as an American/S.American in your expressions.
“other peoples shit” pure Americanism hardly ever used in the UK unless you are from the Caribbean.
“Fucking assholes” again the UK version would be arseholes.
You can't write and punctuate a letter in English. You have written one sentence of 14 lines in length which is very hard to follow
Surely by the age of 12 this should have been accomplished. I don't believe Falkland's education could be this poor.
I also have doubts as to the veracity of your posts...they have the mark of an Arg. troll.
If I am wrong then I apologise.
Tell us what YOU think the future of the islands should be.
The Argentine government is trying to reach out to its citizens in Las Malvinas.
Oct 28th, 2017 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +2From the press: Buenos Aires future exclusive direct connection to Mount Pleasant announced.
An Argentine government spokesperson elaborated that Aerolinias Argentinas would be acquiring three Tupolev 154 modern aircraft to service the route. With a cruising speed of 975 kilometres per hour (606 mph), the Tu-154 is one of the fastest civilian aircraft in operation and has a range of 5,280 kilometres (3,280 mi). Capable of operating from unpaved and gravel airfields, it was widely used in extreme Arctic conditions where other airliners were unable to operate and where service facilities were very basic.
Aerolineas Argentinas will eventually include a connecting non-stop flight from Buenos Aries to London via a new proposed fleet of Tupovev 404 jumbo airliners to facilitate and timely access for passengers originating and arriving at Mount Pleasant. The changeover to an exclusive Tupolev fleet for Aerolineas Argentinas is part of the current government’s strategy to offset trade swap in goods instead of depending on obtaining international credit allowing for a complete modernization of the fleet. The TU154 connecting with the forth coming TU404 service will prove that Argentina is committed to its territorial inhabitants best needs and remains serious about its promises for a peaceful solution.
I don't know if eliminating service from LAN Chile is a good idea, but the Argentines seem sincere... Plus, maybe this is the time to give them another chance to show that they have only the islander's best interests at heart.
The Argentines are never sincere Chicureo. And they don't have any citizens in the Falklands.
Oct 28th, 2017 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +4What If
Oct 28th, 2017 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +6I can’t agree with your views on Roger Lorton and I can’t Imagine what makes you feel the way you do if you are an Islander born in 82. Roger is a great supporter of our cause, perhaps you should read a bit more of his work.
Roger Lorton
Thanks for your support and interest in the Falkland Islands. At least those of us born somewhat before 82 are grateful for your participation.
Clyde15
Oct 28th, 2017 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +3You're absolutely spot on. It's quite clear that 'what if' is a troll. His/her/its English is not 'English' enough to be a Falkland Islander and seems to have been learned in the USA. I suspect it's good old Hepatia and/or Think trying to be clever...again
Thank you both.
Oct 29th, 2017 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse +4I once encountered an Islander living in New Zealand. He also believed that the time had come for the Falklands to be given to Argentina - provided that the Islanders should be fully - indeed generously - compensated.
Although having lived in New Zealand for decades, he still considered himself an Islander - and eligible.
It takes all sorts....................
:-)
I see that Mr. Lorton has taken a somewhat careful approach about doubting the authenticity of poster “What if” as a Kelper...
Oct 29th, 2017 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse -4Knowing my Kelpers... I Think it is a wise decision...
He is simply too good NOT to be truth...
(And I'm quite sure that “Mr. What if” thinks that I am as big an Arsehole as you are..., Rodge...;-)
It is highly unlikely that What If is a Falkland Islander. Just like it is highly unlikely that the areshole behind Think only posts on here as Think. ;-)
Oct 29th, 2017 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse +2Roger
Please continue just as you were.
Jo - I shall.
Oct 29th, 2017 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse +4Unusually however, I suspect that Think is correct and that 'What if' is a disaffected islander, rather like the New Zealander I encountered. At least, he hasn't done a Betts.
Think - it is quite likely that 'What if' believes most of the human race fall into that category. He appears unhappy with his lot.
As the designer of Mrs Thatcher's War: The Falklands 1982 (a new boardgame on the Falklands War -- http://www.whitedoggames.com/falklands ) I visited the Islands doing research on the war, toured its battlefields, and met with numerous Falkland Islanders to talk about their experiences in the war. I consciously used the Falkland Islands flag in the game's rulebook, although it doesn't appear on the box cover. I wanted to use the FI flag to illustrate graphically what was really being fought over. As Jeremy Moore, one of the British commanders, put it: “The basic difference was that they were fighting for the Islands; we were fighting for the Islanders.”
Oct 29th, 2017 - 06:31 am - Link - Report abuse +1TWIMC...
Oct 29th, 2017 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse -5The basic difference is that we Argies were fighting for them Islands..., them Engrish were fighting for them Islands and Islanders..., and R. Ben Madison is peddling a crappy boardgame...
@ What If. You mentioned Hong Kong, their is no similarity in the situation at all, Hong Kong was leased, the lease was up, end of story. If “What If” is an islander maybe he is doing a Betts.
Oct 29th, 2017 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse +3Think
Oct 29th, 2017 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse +5What were the Welsh and the Scots fighting for. ?
“Knowing my Kelpers...” How exactly do you know them ? Have you lived there among them and are you a turncoat ?
Chicureo
This is an ancient story and totally discredited. There is no such aircraft as the TU 404 and the chances are there will never be.
Think’s take on “Kelpers” goes back to at least the 70s or 80s (and that may all be made up also) although he does occasionally blatantly lie and claim to be staying at Kay’s B&B as he posts. Think is almost certainly behind What If also and both are best ignored. Ignoring Think is what pisses him off most.
Oct 29th, 2017 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse +6Clyde: consider it a Icebreaker when the subject gets slow. The TU 404 remains as reveant as Las Malvinas.
Oct 29th, 2017 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The Lowlander above asks a couple of relevant questions...:
Oct 29th, 2017 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -31st Q...: “What were the Welsh and the Scots fighting for. ?”
1st A...: For the same the Gunga Dins did..., the Sassenachs....
2nd Q...: “ “Knowing my Kelpers...” How exactly do you know them ? Have you lived there among them and are you a turncoat ?”
2nd A...: Question to the public...: Which Country in the World hosts the greatest number of those South Atlantic Islanders also known as Kelpers...?
Think...the deluded narcissist
Oct 29th, 2017 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +4So, by your twisted ”(logic ?) ” , they were fighting for me ? Anyway, they did a damned good job !
Away and bile yer heid...your talkin mince.
As usual you fail to answer a direct question with a direct answer.7
Ughhhhh...
Oct 29th, 2017 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Lowlander doesn't kow the answer...
Just fill them dots..., lad...: *** A . . . N . . . A ***
You have still lost me with your riddles. You are of course referring to ? which as far as we know holds only a few turncoat islanders such as MR. B.
Oct 29th, 2017 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +5I am unaware of any other place or country that has a population of “Kelpers” other than the BOT “the Falklands” Certainly nothing to do with Narnia to the East.
As an afterthought, do you realise you are going to croak it and still see the Falklands having nothing to do with ARGENTINA.
How sad for you auld git...chuckle.....chuckle.
“Which Country in the World hosts the greatest number of those South Atlantic Islanders also known as Kelpers.”
Oct 29th, 2017 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I would guess the UK, unless you count the Falklands as a country. How many live in Argentina? I heard a few people moved there before the war.
TWIMC...
Oct 29th, 2017 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Bartletts'
Bertrands'
Betts'
Blakeleys'
Douglas'
Feltons'
Greenshields'
Hallidays'
Hamiltons'
Hansens'
Hubbards'
McCalls'
Rowlands'
Rudds'
Watsons'...
And many other Patagonian surnames one doesn't remember anymore...
All the above arrived from them windblown Malvinas Islands to continental Patagonia...
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Oct 30th, 2017 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC...
Oct 30th, 2017 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To anybody who wants to know how intertwined them Kelpers were with Patagonia until recently..., I can recommend this wee bonnie Argie-Kelperette's book...:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Return-Patagonia-Way-Falkland-Islands/dp/0720612608/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509302478&sr=1-2&keywords=Return+to+patagonia
If one's more interested in facts.., statistics and dates..., I would recommend...:
“From The Falklands to Patagonia: The Story of a Pioneer Family”
By Michael James Mainwaring
@ Roger Lorton:
Oct 30th, 2017 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I had some respect for you. You take my words out of context. When I said “final solution” I was referring to a final solution to the issue of sovereignty, a FINAL solution to the problem of SOVEREIGNTY.
You demonstrated two things: that you are a bad person. And a ridiculous person.
@ darragh: A possible change in the Argentine Constitution will take place in the framework of the negotiations.
I am advocating a change in the Argentine constitution in the case that this implies a solution to the conflict.
Malvi
Oct 30th, 2017 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Sorry you can't have it both ends against the middle.
Surely, if a representative of Argentina attempted to negotiate anything other than Argentine sovereignty he would be in breach of the constitution.
You can't advocate a change in the constitution if it 'implies a solution' as the constitution makes it clear that the only acceptable solution would be Argentine sovereignty which is clearly a non-sequitur.
What I said was it would be a 'good start' if the constitution were amended to remove the Argentine claim and would at least indicate some sort of Argentine good faith, something that has been sorely missing since the year dot.
Think
Oct 30th, 2017 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1If they are in Patagonia they are no longer Kelpers. The same as you are Argentinian...not Scandinavian.
Lowlander just above...
Oct 30th, 2017 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Let me just 'ave a look at me passports...
Nope..., You are wrong, AGAIN... I am Argentinean AND Scandinavian and............. and.............
And Kelpers are Kelpers... regardless of were the wind blows them...
@Think
Oct 30th, 2017 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe those names mean something to other posters here. To me that only says that 15 people or families moved to Patagonia.
Americans like to say they are Irish-American, or Italian-American or whatever, and I guess that means something to them. But it doesn't make them Irish, or Italian. Your parents were immigrants, so you get their citizenship too. Are your children Scandinavian? Are your grandchildren?
Mr.DemonTree...
Oct 30th, 2017 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Them names certainly “mean something for other posters here”...
I Think..., it would be difficult to find ONE true Kelper today that hasn't blood of one of those families flowing in their veins...
Specially the blood of the Betts'..., Hallidays'... and McCalls...
They were prolific as rabbits...;-)
My children........ juppppp....
My grandchilds....juppppp...
If there were such close ties, why couldn't your government persuade the Islanders to join Argentina?
Oct 30th, 2017 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1And if your parents had been British, that would not be true. British citizenship is mostly jus soli, you would be a citizen but not your children, unless they were born in Britain.
My parents Engrish...?
Oct 30th, 2017 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Just to Think of it... makes me shudder...
Why? We're all just people, it's who you are that matters, not what country your parents came from.
Oct 30th, 2017 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Apropos..., from the other thread..., lad...
Oct 30th, 2017 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1”....the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.”
(G.K. Chesterton A.D. 19??)
Which part is stupid? You think it does matter where your parents came from? Some people are just better than others?
Oct 30th, 2017 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Think
Oct 30th, 2017 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Why do you need two passports and nationalities. Is it to do a runner if things get too tough in Argieland? Or are you just not committed to one country.
Is there such a thing as a Scandinavian nationality OR passport...I cannot find any info. on this...Does your second passport say Scandinavia, if no, what is its designation?
My UK passport does not say , Scottish, Sassenach or Lowlander.
Heh, so he can visit Europe and the US without a visa probably.
Oct 30th, 2017 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He said once that he voted in elections for three different countries. So maybe he has passports for two Scandinavian countries, but I dunno why he's so secretive; there are only 4 of them.
My UK passport does not say English, and it doesn't list where my ancestors came from either. I wonder if Argentina would have adopted jus soli citizenship if the US didn't have it? Spain certainly doesn't.
There were and still are ties of blood between the islands and the continent, which many try to hide, unfortunately.
Oct 30th, 2017 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -3It is interesting the link provided by Mr. Think, there is mentioned the marriage of the Governor of Santa Cruz Carlos Moyano with Ethel Turner (kelper)
Halliday,
Scott, Rudd, Wood, Waldron, Hamilton, Saunders, Reynard,
MacGeorge, Felton, Smith, Douglas, are just some of the names.
George MacGeorge donated the land where the British Club was built.
Curiosities of the bond between people, there is celebrated the birthday of the Queen on May 24 and then continues on the 25th with the Argentine National Anthem, not curious?.
No solution is required Malvi 1833 - the matter of sovereignty was settled long ago. That sovereignty umbrella is forever.
Oct 30th, 2017 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Ps. I have never had any respect for you. Reliance upon lying lawyers is not worthy of respect.
@Malvi
Oct 31st, 2017 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's funny to remember that relations were not always so hostile. Not much chance of going back to that, unfortunately.
Maybe you can answer my question, since Think didn't: If there were such close ties, why couldn't your government persuade the Islanders to join Argentina?
Mr. DemonTree...
Oct 31st, 2017 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Just for your kind info...:
In Malvinas Proto- Colonial times (pre 1982) the Kelpers had no say about nothin'...
The only way they could vote about their future was with their feet...
An option many hundreds of them exercised during the XXth century by emigrating mainly to Argentina, Chile and New Zealand... Not the UK..., mind you..., they weren't allowed there...
In Malvinas Neo- Colonial times (post 1982) the UK has pampered its squatters hand and foot to be able to use the Self - Determination card to keep control of ~12 ,000,000 square kilometers of South Atlantic and Antarctic territories...
That makes it quite self-evident why the Argie government can't persuade no Kelper squatters to join Argentina...
@ Demon Tree:
Oct 31st, 2017 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1It is a very difficult question to answer.
The British influence and the Falklands Islands Company are very determinant. For some reason they have always instilled fear towards everything Argentine.
I suppose that the political and economic instability in Argentina that he suffered during most of the 20th century also influences, although now it is gradually stabilizing.
Demon Tree, we Argentines are sitting on a gold mine, Argentina is a sleeping giant, the day we Argentines understand this, it will be a power.
I still do not understand the fear of the islanders to integrate to the rest of the country, they could have a special regime of government, justice, economic, religion, I do not know.
Neither do I understand the refusal to negotiate to reach an agreement between countries, an arbitration, or resort to the International Court of Justice.
The only thing I agree with John Fowler is that you should not leave the problem to future generations.
Typical response from a brainwashed idiot. The islanders and the British Government have no doubt about British sovereignty. Its up to RGland to go to the ICJ if it so wishes.
Oct 31st, 2017 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Further, would anyone with a brain trust a country that sent 10000 invading colonialist troops to destroy their lives and steal their homes and land especially when that country is universally viewed by all its neighbours as unstable and untrustworthy?
P L ease....!
It is also true what Mr. Think says, before 1982 the inhabitants were third class citizens and left the islands in search of a better future, today the United Kingdom with the argument of self-determination continues to occupy an area that is in litigation and refuses to solve.
Oct 31st, 2017 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colonialist troops? The only colonialists are the British, who by throwing a plaque on the ground arrogated the right to expel the inhabitants of the islands, in the South Pacific (South America) there is no British colony, it only exists in the Malvinas Islands by an act colonial invader.
PLEASE.
@Think
Oct 31st, 2017 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I'd like to see some stats about how many went where. I know many Islanders left before the war, but I heard they mainly went to other commonwealth countries.
And if you are claiming they would have voted to join Argentina back then, I don't believe you. I haven't seen a single thing to support it anywhere, and plenty of things that contradict it.
Also, if you think they are so easy to bribe with 'pampering', why can't Argentina do the same? Didn't Menem offer them £1m each to vote in favour of Argentina?
@Malvi
“The British influence and the Falklands Islands Company are very determinant. For some reason they have always instilled fear towards everything Argentine.”
The instability and coups in Argentina, the economic problems, the military government and the violence and murder of their own citizens did more to inspire fear than Britain or the FIC ever could. And an invasion with 10,000 soldiers is not soon forgotten.
“I still do not understand the fear of the islanders to integrate to the rest of the country...”
I suspect they do not trust your government. We made agreements with Menem, and the K's repudiated them. Respecting their rights would depend on the government of the day for which their votes would be insignificant. You could put it in your constitution, but in the end that's just a piece of paper which has been torn up many times in the past.
And also, Argentina does not wait to actually possess the islands and ask for the Islanders' opinion, but declares they are part of TdF province, renames the capital which never had a Spanish name before the occupation, and recently made a law saying the Day of the Malvinas War Veteran and Fallen will be remembered every April 2nd in Stanley, which is surely the very last day they would want to remember.
It's true that Britain made them second class citizens, and I doubt they fully trust our government to look after their best interests. But they trust yours even less.
Your Malvinas was British territory claimed long before we threw out some troops from the United Provinces who had only been there illegally a few months. Your invasion in 1982 was a brutal act of armed colonialism. You are Italian and Spanish invaders of the South American continent anyway. The real inhabitants, the indians, have been murdered and suppressed as celebrated on your 100 Peso note. You have no rights or claim to the Falkland Islands as has been repeatedly shown here with evidence. Which is why you wont go to the ICJ...
Oct 31st, 2017 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@Malvinese
Oct 31st, 2017 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Falklands Islands Company are very determinant”
Were determinant.
Since 1982,FIG have nationalised most of the land and assets owned by FIC.
How much time do you need to observe what has changed in the Islands since 1982?
“I still do not understand the fear of the islanders to integrate to the rest of the country, they could have a special regime of government, justice, economic, religion.”
An example of an offer Argentina has made to the Islands is outlined in Chicureo's post involving the proposed TU 154/TU 404 air link.
As an Englishman, it is easy to analyse why the Islanders would find this insulting rather than an 'olive branch.' Can you work out why, or does it need to be spelled out?
“ special regime of government”
With more autonomy than FIG enjoy at present?
“ justice,”
If you were an islander, what impression of Argentine justice do you think comes across from Nisman's assassination?
Jeremy Clarkson goes to Argentina with a car number plate (not armed with an automatic weapon or grenades), that paranoid Argentines, including 20 year old war veterans (the war finished over 30 years ago at the time),thinks is aimed at them as an insult. An unarmed TV crew is attacked by people emerging from the stone age throwing rocks. The police do nothing.
WHAT impression of Argentine justice do you think the Islanders deduce from that?
“ Economic”
At present FIG (not UK) are responsible for the islands economy including the issuing of fishing/oil licenses, taxation etc.
The economy runs at a surplus.
There are a lot of poor people in Argentina.
No one in the Islands is poor.
FIG send their people to UK universities, all expenses paid.
Their health and education provision is excellent.
Explain how Argentina could improve the Islands economy as it is now?
If you can, I'm all ears.
“arrogated the right to expel the inhabitants of the islands”
Wrong. Civilian inhabitants stayed.UP military left. Mostly British born sailors.
Mr. DemonTree...
Oct 31st, 2017 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If you want to see som stats..., go find them..., boy...
I have already linked above to some info..., and I am telling you what everybody down here knows... That Tierra del Fuego..., Santa Cruz and Magallanes are full of Kelpers and their descendants...
And no.., I am not claiming they would have voted to join Argentina back then...
I am claiming they didn't have any vote until 1982..., courtesy of the British Colonial Crown...
Are you claiming Menem offer them £1m each to vote in favour of Argentina...? I don't believe you... I haven't seen a single thing to support it anywhere, and plenty of things that contradict it....
You critizise Anglo Turnip The Voice..., on another thread..., for basing his arguments on hearsays and biased personal opinions...
You are basing you arguments on this thread on hearsays and biased personal opinions...
Must be contagious...!
Think
Oct 31st, 2017 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Would you care to give up your affectation in the use of the English language.
For example..your confusing use of double negatives,.. the Argie government can't persuade no Kelper squatters to join Argentina...
In English this means that they can't persuade any kelpers..(there are no squatters...except Argentinians who stole the country they live in from the indigenous population ).. NOT to join Argentina.
Is this what you meant to say ? If so, a disingenuous statement
@Think
Oct 31st, 2017 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know where to find stats, but I assume from what you say that neither do you, and you also going on hearsay and personal opinions. You know that many 'Kelpers' moved to Argentina, fine, but you don't know how many went elsewhere, or when.
“I am not claiming they would have voted to join Argentina back then...
I am claiming they didn't have any vote until 1982..., courtesy of the British Colonial Crown”
Okay, then we're not disagreeing. But it seems an odd complaint for you to make. Britain was following the UN's instructions until 1982, at least nominally. The UN didn't and doesn't want them to have a vote, either for their own government or on joining Argentina. YOU don't want them to have a vote, either for their own government or on joining Argentina. And if the UK had handed them to Argentina in 1982, they would not have had a vote then either; none of you did.
And yes, that thing about Menem is hearsay, it's repeated by various people on here who I should probably know better than to believe. This is the only thing I could dig up on such a pre-internet age event:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/argentina-may-try-to-buy-out-falklands-each-islander-could-be-offered-475000-pounds-1460603.html
Sounds like speculation about something that did not go ahead, but perhaps Roger Lorton or someone else knows more.
DT
Oct 31st, 2017 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Why are you trying to confuse Think with facts ?
£475,000 would get you a nice terraced bughutch in Henley on Thames - not much of an incentive ! Totally pointless discussing anything with brainwashed RG turnips...
Oct 31st, 2017 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1£475,000 was worth a good bit more back in 1993, and house prices were a lot lower. But I don't know if any amount would have been enough.
Oct 31st, 2017 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Shall we put the reading glasses on, boys and Turnips?
Oct 31st, 2017 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -1What does that 1993 Indepenent newspaper article say?...:
“A report in the English-language Buenos Aires Herald which prefaced an article by Sir Alan Walters, former economic adviser to Baroness Thatcher, said that President Carlos Menem's diplomats had suggested figures of up to dollars 600,000 to dollars 700,000 for each of the 2,500 islanders.
The article by Sir Alan, written in April but published in August, suggested that 'I am inclined now to think that a sum of dollars 100,000 per capita' should be offered by Argentina to the islanders if it 'wished to ensure gaining sovereignty'. Sir Alan's article in the newspaper says that 'Britain is spending between dollars 100-200m a year in fortifying against another invasion'.”
In other words, the Independent tells us that ...:
Sir Alan Walters wrote, in April 1993, an article for the Buenos Aires Herald saying the following...:“I am inclined now to think that a sum of dollars 100,000 per capita should be offered by Argentina to the islanders if it wished to ensure gaining sovereignty”
And that...:
In August 1993, the Buenos Aires Herald published Sir Alan Walters article..., prefacing it with a “Report” saying tha that President Carlos Menem's diplomats had suggested figures of up to dollars 600,000 to dollars 700,000 for each of the 2,500 islanders...“
To put it simple....:
After an Engrish lord said to an Anglo-Argie newspaper that he was...:”Inclined now to THINK that a sum of dollars 100,000 per capita' should be offered by Argentina to the islanders if it 'wished to ensure gaining sovereignty“..., the same Anglo-Argie paper publishes, five months later, that Engrish petition with a preface saying that some UNNAMED ARGIE DIPLOMATS had SUGGESTED figures of up to U$ 700,000 for each of the 2,500 islanders...
Even simplier...?...:
Engrishman asks Argies for 100k.a head.
Anglo-Argie paper SAYS that ”SOMEBODY“ ”SUGGESTED” 700k.
HEARSAY OR WHAT.?
Think - you are inaccurate. The Islanders have been fighting to find their voice, successfully, since 1920 and the founding of the islands 'Reform League', “... through which the views of the general public on matters affecting local legislation could find expression.”
Oct 31st, 2017 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +2About the same time that men in the UK, provided they were over 21, were allowed to vote.
the Islanders' problem, was there was nothing to vote for until a Council was established in 1948 - “... consisting of six members elected by popular vote and three members (two of whom are officials and one a nonofficial) appointed by the Governor.”
The political development of the islanders may have dragged behind that of the British in general terms but to suggest that they were 3rd class citizens is faintly ridiculous. Or, more to the point, Argie propaganda.
@RL
Oct 31st, 2017 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you know anything more about this supposed plan to bribe the Islanders to join Argentina? Or was this Buenos Aires Herald article all there was to it?
DT - there were at least two, possibly three attempts to suggest that Argentina would be prepared to pay the islanders to leave or opt to join Argentina. Menem made the one - possible two - although he quickly claimed to have been misinterpreted. The first I seem to recall was around the time of the Queen's coronation.
Oct 31st, 2017 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not particularly new ideas. Rosas in the 1840's suggested that he would give up the Islands if Barings Bank would give up on the outstanding debt.
I have them in the Timeline - I'll have a dig after I've woken up properly.
Malvi 1833 - to be 'in litigation' someone has to have presented a case to a court. When will Argentina do that, do you think?
Yeahhhh,..., Rodge lad...
Oct 31st, 2017 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Do correct the Timelie when you 've woken up properly....
Less woken persons could interpret the text i quote below as something Sir Alan Walters actually said...
We don't want porkies in our Timelie..., do we...?
“August 12th, the Buenos Aires Herald publishes an article by Sir Alan Walters announcing that, in April, Argentine diplomats had offered up to $700,000 dollars in compensation for each Islander if the UK would agree to cede sovereignty. ”
We strive for accuracy Think.
Nov 01st, 2017 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0The first offer was in 1953. Made in general terms with no figure reported, Admiral Alberto Teisaire was in London for the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II when he made the offer to the British Government.
This was first revealed in 1984 by the New York Times (Jan 3rd) and followed up by El Pais (Jan 30th).
As for Walters in 1993 -
“... a referendum on a cash settlement should be called. Argentina and Britain should name bankers, place compensation cash in an escrow account, and if the vote is to accept, the money would be paid out directly to each islander. Argentina's Foreign Minister, Guido di Tella, a fellow of St Antony's College, Oxford, has tried actively to establish direct links with the 'Kelpers' in Port Stanley. He and President Menem are understood to favour a cash settlement and diplomats have mentioned figures six times those suggested in Sir Alan's article. Mr Di Tella's attempted contacts with the islanders started with greetings by fax at Christmas.” [The Independent August 11, 1993]
Then November 2nd, 1994, Menem was quoted as offering each Islander $1.5 million. That quote was in Pagina 12. Denied on November 25th.
Nothing in writing - obviously. Nothing that could not be denied - obviously
Now what should I be correcting Think?
Thanks Roger. Is the quote in the online archives of Pagina 12 or was it only in the print edition?
Nov 01st, 2017 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also, if you ever feel like changing the design of your timeline it would be helpful to put the full date by each entry. Otherwise you have to scroll back up a long way to find the year.
Try to strive for accuracy by being accurate..., lad..., it helps...
Nov 01st, 2017 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse -1You could quote The Independent correctly writing that it was Sir Alana who was “inclined now to think that a sum of dollars 100,000 per capita' should be offered by Argentina to the islanders if it 'wished to ensure gaining sovereignty”.
And correct your misleading text as I suggest below...:
August 12th, the Buenos Aires Herald publishes an article by Sir Alan Walters {PREFACING IT WITH A RAPPORT SAYING THAT} in April, Argentine diplomats had offered up to $700,000 dollars in compensation for each Islander if the UK would agree to cede sovereignty.”
DT
Nov 01st, 2017 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse +1I believe that the Pagina 12 was in the print edition, but I'll do some checking.
Coincidentally, I am looking at ways of making the search facility easier. The Timeline started life as my notes for the Mercopress comments section funnily enough. So large now that I need notes for the notes. I'll give it some thought.
Anyhow...
Nov 01st, 2017 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse -1The Independent story from 1993 seems quite straightforward...
Please correct this humble Patagonian dweller if he is misreading it...:
1) A very important Engrish lord writes and signs an article for an Anglo-Argie newspaper recalling that he was in Argentina soliciting 100,000 dollars for each Engrish squatter in Malvinas if Argentina..., “wished to ensure gaining sovereignty”...., right...?
2) That very same Anglo-Argie newspaper reports five months later that “President Carlos Menem's DIPLOMATS had SUGGESTED figures of up to dollars 600,000 to dollars 700,000 for each of the 2,500 islanders.”..., right...?
3) Soooo.... assuming that the alledged compensation offer did exist..., it means that we Argies offered them Kelpers seven times more of what the Engrish Think they are worth..., right...?
You Engrish will need the help of Terence Hill (and Bud Spencer) to wiggle out of this one...
Chuckle..., chuckle...
My pleasure
Nov 01st, 2017 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse +11) It appears (the actual BAH article is unavailable) that Sir Alan Walters (a Knight not a Lord; an economist and not very important) wrote an article for the Buenos Aires Herald (an Argentine newspaper in English) to suggest that the (previous?) offers of $6-700,000 per Islander was too cheap. Whose offers were not stated in the 1993 piece by the Independent.
2) The article as published by the BAH in August. 1993 would seem to have been prefaced by the BAH's own information/sources regarding offers of $6-700.000 (you did note the journalist's name Herr Think?).
Assuming that all the offers actually existed - ranging from $600,000 to $1.5 million (it dropped to $1 mil in 1995 - sorry DT forgot the May/June offers of 1995) then all Argentina actually achieved was to prove that it had no claim to the archipelago.
After all, who offers to buy what they already believe that they own.
AND - it would seem that Argentina did not offer enough.
Think - I shall review the Timeline entry to include the whole article plus the not inconsequential journalist's name.
Chuckle, chuckle ......................
Roger
Nov 01st, 2017 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse +1My recollection of the “offers” was that we only read about them in the press. I am not aware that anyone here ever received an offer personally. No different from the recent offer to attend university in Argentina: nobody here received any formal notification of that offer. Not Gilbert House, not the Education Department, not the FCO...
Like I’ve said on MP many times, theses sorts of offers are the same as my support for Arsenal football club. I support Arsenal: I am not a seasonal member, I buy knock-off shirts and I only ever watch them on freeview. But I support them, don’t you worry about that.
It would seem that offers were made. But not on paper. Plausible deniability. Even the press only got to hear about them well after the event.
Nov 01st, 2017 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1Such is the nature of politics. :-)
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Nov 01st, 2017 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You say...:
Think - I shall review the Timeline entry to include the whole article plus the not inconsequential journalist's name.
I say...:
Goooooood boy...
You say...:
“It would seem that offers were made. But not on paper. Plausible deniability. Even the press only got to hear about them well after the event. ”
I say...:
In other words..., as I already told young Mr. DemonTree some 20 comments above..., you are basing your arguments on this thread on hearsays and biased personal opinions... ain't ya...?
Programme on Norwegian Art last night. Featured The Scream, made me Think of someone.
Nov 01st, 2017 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I wonder what he does with the heads?....Contract with the RG Barra Bravas ?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 01st, 2017 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Financial offers being made to to the Islands is within the public domain which gives a sufficiency of being considered legally ‘judicial notice’, Meaning no further proof is needed as to its authenticity. But it’s all rather academic, as ‘self-determination’ is the legal consideration that trumps all other claims. Additionally, the UK has held sovereignty for so long without a legal challenge that is now legally finished as a claim by Argentina. So keep nibbling, but nothing is going to change foreseeably.
Terence hill just arrived to help them Engrish...!
Nov 01st, 2017 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Watch out for Bud Spencer...!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=07or-sawiLs
A Tel, am I so soon forgotten?
Nov 01st, 2017 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -1How many times must I tell you not to call me by me real name..., Cmdr. Doveoverdover...
Nov 01st, 2017 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -3It's “Mr. Think”..., remember... Or haven't you seen that Reservoir Dogs movie...
Anyway..., how could I ever forget you...
My very best pantomime horse half...
The one with the most exquisite Engrish diction and grammar...
A true Shakesperean wet dream...
We are not worthy...!
;-)))
Hearsay is grist for the mill in journalism Think.
Nov 01st, 2017 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +3But then, as the old saying goes, “no smoke without fire.”
I include facts in the Timeline, and it is a fact that those were the reports at those times; leaving the reader to make their own judgment.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Nov 03rd, 2017 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse -1Return to sender, address unknown.
Nov 03rd, 2017 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Roger: When the United Kingdom puts aside empty words such as: we have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falklands Islands......And the two countries take the case to a court to determine who is right and the justice, Desire the right.... my friend.....
Nov 03rd, 2017 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Not just do we have no doubt, there IS no doubt.
Nov 03rd, 2017 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I quote Marc Wesley of Notts Uni in a recently published work - “ It is also worth noting that juristic consensus points to the burden of proof being firmly on the side of the party contesting the current holder’s title, the plaintiff , requiring this party to show that the property was acquired via a prohibited means in order to vitiate the holder’s title”
All Argentina has to do - is invite the UK.
You are not my friend.
@Jolene
Nov 03rd, 2017 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The Falkland's flag (with Union Jack included) will next fly in the Falkland Islands within 25 hours.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!