MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Alberto Fernandez and Jeremy Corbyn talked about the Falklands/Malvinas claim
Argentine president-elect Alberto Fernandez revealed that last week he received a call from UK opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, and despite the ideological affinity, the incoming president said that Argentina under his administration would, always, claim the Falklands/Malvinas Islands sovereignty. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe moon is green, or there are fairies, or there is a Big Foot in the USA, say what you like, or say what the people want to hear that is the mantra of the politicians.This goes for ALL countries.
Nov 07th, 2019 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse +2This is a bull shit invented story ! There was no talking on the matter between Fernandez and Corbyn !! Such liars! But you know what? It's just typical of the propagandist British pro Islander Occupation people to invent the notion of an aggressive Argentina demanding ownership of the Islander's lives practically, in order to provoke defensive worrying in the Islanders who stand for British involvement, seeking to cause a reaction. Look at the pictures of this article! Could they be more blatantly obvious in what they are trying to suggest the reader??? Just ridiculous, MercoPress keeps fighting it's own fictitious war
Nov 07th, 2019 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse -5“I will call him to claim the Malvinas because they are an integral part of Argentina”,
Nov 07th, 2019 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse +5Only by the dubious concept of ”proximity“ just as the eastern Aegean islands ”belong” to Turkey, despite being populated by Greeks, and countless other similar examples around the world.
Trimonde- Actually your Country and Governments always have claimed ownership of our lives- Your side claim our homeland - and would ensure that we would no longer have the elected Government of our free democratic choice - quite simple actually.
Nov 07th, 2019 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse +6If- god help UK as it would be turned into another Venezuela in a few years - Corbyn were to win with a majority- he most likely would open discussions with Argentina against o wishes and will of course strip down and emasculate British Armed Forces - so yes he would be good news for your side and bad news for us.
”.....that does not end Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas”?
Nov 07th, 2019 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse +5Assuming that he meant to say 'the Falkland Islands', Argentine sovereignty of the Falkland Islands never STARTED, so how could it end?
Fernandez and the Argie government can continue to claim all they like, for as long as they like wherever they like but the Islands are not up for negotiation or discussion and, unless the Argies want to take their case to the ICJ (they have had plenty of time to do this already and clearly are not convinced of their own arguments to win the case) then they should put up, shut up and sort out their own domestic affairs before imposing their chaos on anyone else.
Yes Trimonde, look at the pictures. Fernandez shouting the slogan “ Islas Malvinas son Argentine ” whereas Corbyn looks up and says “ F**k off, it would be political suicide ” to even think about it.
Nov 07th, 2019 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Actually you're completely wrong and intentionally misinformed on that @Shackleton. Argentina claims the islands in the category of them being an integral part of its territory, not only because of proximity, but principally because of our political history. 45 years after your country abandoned its small short lived attempt of nabbing the islands from the Spanish, Argentina was modestly settled on the Island flying its flag in Puerto Luis, the old Spanish previously French settlement on the half or the archipelago Britain never settled on. Port Egmont was on the Western Island facing Argentina. But Spain would not even have that, as it considered to Britain's knowledge the whole archipelago in Spanish Territory. Argentina stayed in Puerto Soledad and changed its name at the time of independence from Spain. When Britain found out the settlement had been blasted by the greedy arrogance of the U.S.' Silas Duncan, who felt the Islands needed no law of governance, Britain seized the opportunity over a beleaguered group of survivors, yet still flying the Argentine flag to go and forcefully take the islands from them at gun point.
Nov 07th, 2019 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -5This is the actual story Britain omits telling the world, while it tries to make it about its exported Islander ponds it put there to confront the Argentine right to the islands, taking advantage of its overwhelmingly greater military strength. In effect Britain has never stopped grabbing, stealing, blackmailing Argentina, keeping foreigners out, and every other number of ways to force itself there for 187 years. Even the war of 82 regardless of the English language narrative's attempt to educate the world about the islands, is also part of its hard work to force its presence on the islands in order to beat Argentina's right to them, established in 1820. ... As you and the rest of us can see, you exemplify quintessentially the well educated narrative all British citizens have been droned with for 38 years now by your “information authorities”
@ Trimonde
Nov 07th, 2019 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +3It would be a complete waste of time - like talking to a brain-washed brick wall - to respond to the typical lies, half-truths and distortions you have been parroting since you were taught at age 3 how to parrot lies and fantasies..!
Your “historical” claim to the Falklands - assuming there was ever any substance to it - was completely contradicted by your subsequent and totally fallacious claim to S.Georgia and the other sub-Antarctic islands in its group. This completely exposes your Falklands claim for the BIG LIE it is - and which should be obvious even to a brick wall like you.
Explain on what grounds do you claim S.Georgia..? You can't can you?
Timlander1 - Actually my Country and Governments always have claimed ownership of our British occupied Insular territory in the South Atlantic..., not your lives - My side claims our homeland alright- and would ensure that you Kelpers would have your elected local Government by your free democratic choice as an autonomous region of Argentina - quite simple actually....
Nov 07th, 2019 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -3If Corbyn (or any other Non Haughty / Non Recalcitrant Imperialist Thinking candidate) were to win with a majority - he/she most likely would open discussions with Argentina in line with the wishes and interests of Britains mayority... and hopefully would reduce the British Armed Farces - so yes he/she would be good news for Britain..., for Argentina and for the rest of the World and bad news for you Kelpers...
@Shackleton, whose lying? Well ... YOU ARE, not me. Though I actually went to grammar school in Argentina before the war of 82, and knew of the Islands. I did not learn the details about it's history or what the conflict dispute consisted of until about 2013 when I started participating in daily arguments about it on facebook. Amazingly even to me now, I followed the war Britain unleashed on the Islands against Argentina every single one of these 72 days from our home in Los Angeles. ... You sure talk a lot of shit, but ... what else is new? The British are the ones most known for lying and false propaganda information dissemination out of the whole Western family of nations. So I don't care to repeat myself, but how about YOU tell ME with correcting precision, where exactly is it that I lied with what I said before? And let me ask you this, though we are all very well versed with English produced narratives about the Islands ... what Spanish written knowledge de YOU have about Argentina's history on the Malvinas?
Nov 07th, 2019 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -5I will accept your silence too, as I'm not interested really in having you mock your own ignorance before everyone in the group either.
Hear..., hear... Mr. Timonde...
Nov 07th, 2019 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I sense that you know them haughty Anglo Imperialistic Manners.as well as I do...
I also sense that you..., contrary to my case..., have some Anglo blood flowing in your veins...;-)
Here we are..., anyhow... Two reasonably educated Argies that know first hand the realities of the Anglosphere... debating in Engrish against some one eyed (not you..., Mr. Miller...), monolingual, uninformed, brainwashed, haughty, Engrish jingoistic supremacists...
Regards...
El Think...
Guess again@Think. all Mediterranean blood here. Dad Italo Argentina, mom Arab Galician Syrian and Portuguese.
Nov 07th, 2019 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -3My sincerest apologies...!
Nov 07th, 2019 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -2https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-FucbvoFFy0
;-)))
Patrick
Nov 07th, 2019 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How's life in Italy? Better than the good ole US of A?
Two different worlds
Nov 07th, 2019 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trimonde
Nov 07th, 2019 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Argentina was modestly settled on the Island flying its flag in Puerto Luis, ...” completely illegal as Argentina was barred under the accords of the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“he/she most likely would open discussions with Argentina in line with the wishes and interests of Britains mayority.” Wrong as the UN Charter bars the UK from any such undertaking.
Trimonde aka Patrick Regini. This article was written the Daily Express. Its a copy and paste. Don't blame Falkland Islanders for this. Also, why did you beat up your mother Patrick? Why did you racially abuse natives in Hawaii?
Nov 07th, 2019 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Yeah, Italy's pretty nice; good food and pleasant weather, plus tons of history and culture. The politics is a bit fucked up at the moment, though.
Nov 07th, 2019 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ This article was written the Daily Express.”
I'm surprised, I'd have expected more raging against Corbyn from them.
BrianFI. This article was written by the Daily Express. Your very ownPenguinPress copies and pastes it. Don't aquit the Falkland Islanders for this. Also, why do you need info about why to beat up your mother, BrianFI? Why do you racially abuse natives in Argentina?
Nov 07th, 2019 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Trimonde, stop banging on about it, take it to the ICJ if you have a good case, no I didn't think so.
Nov 07th, 2019 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Argentina was not an outside state to Spain regarding the Treaty of Utrecht. It WAS Spain. It broke out of the Spanish Empire taking territory with it, and there is nothing in the treaty of Utrecht that specifies the case of a country separating from Spain. Spain did not give it. It lost it.
Nov 07th, 2019 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Same thing with the Nootka Convention. Argentina was born with the Islands already in them.
Sorry.
@Terrance Hill
&
@BrianFI
This is so juicy! I can't believe you're actually been caught doing this!!
Someone who regularly speaks with Islanders, and whose name obviously I will not divulge, has told me you were caught boarding visiting ships and robbing passengers while they were visiting Stanley. And that you like making up lies about things Argentinians do on the Islands to make them look bad. Like you were going around saying that an Argentine couple were kicking around and hitting penguins and seals with branches, breaking plants in people's gardens and totally making up stories! LOL I absolutely believe them. It sounds just like your little hateful spiteful lying ass would do something just like that. IMPLANTED SQUATTER
@ Trimonde
Nov 07th, 2019 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Typical Argie style - Denial, deception, deceit and bluster with the predictable support of your bum-buddy señor El SThink. No co-incidence that your distraction debating style has so much in common with your champion chuntering comrade Castro - ignore difficult questions by waffling on at great length about anything else in the hope that your audience will fall asleep and forget the real issue.
When will you - or El SThink - ever attempt to answer my long-standing question about South Georgia? If your claim to the Falklands is based on history, (however spurious) and has nothing to do with geographical proximity - because you know the latter is legally invalid - is your claim to S.Georgia also based on some historical precedent? And if not, for what purpose did your country make that claim, other than greed for more territory?
Argentina was trespassing in 1833 Trimonde. Warned twice, in writing in 1829 & 1832 but BA chose to ignore the warnings. Legally ejected in a peaceful police action.
Nov 08th, 2019 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse +3Proven by the French in 1766 that Spain had no claim to territory it had never laid eyes on.
Add to that, the myth of inheritance from Spain is nothing more than an Argie fantasy.
The US Commissioners in 1819 conducted a thorough evaluation of the UP and noted that its claimed southern boundary went no further that 37 degrees South. The Official reply to Parish in 1824 confirmed that.
The evidence is against Argentina Trimonde, which is why it will never go to the ICJ.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Nov 08th, 2019 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You say...:
***“The US Commissioners in 1819 conducted a thorough evaluation of the UP and noted that its claimed southern boundary went no further that 37 degrees South”***
I say...:
Same type of US Commissioners that in the1800's conducted a thorough evaluation of the US ~500 First Nations and noted that their claimed boundaries were no other than irrelevant...?
I Think..., the ICJ of today would find it difficult to rule on the base of such “legal” documents..., copper...
Think, you simply do not think. Argentina viewed the boundaries of the Patagonian indigenous people in exactly the same way. That 1740 boundary set by treaty between Spain and the tribes ignored in the 1860s.
Nov 08th, 2019 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Typically, of course, you miss the point. In 1819 Buenos Aires did not claim the Falklands. Nor in 1824 when BA replied to Parish's questions about it claims. No mention before the 1825 treaty despite being asked.
But tell me, if inheritance had been recognised as a legal reality in the 19th century, why would BA have inherited when the last seat of the Viceroyalty was at Montevideo?
I doubt the ICJ would have any problem at all old man.
Trimonde and Tinkle sweety are still living in the past. What would the world look like if we went back 250 years or so? Just suck it up and move on, the FALKLANDERS have.
Nov 08th, 2019 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Me dear Copper...
Nov 08th, 2019 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- It ain't me trying to present as valid auld forked tongue treaties and documents written by the dominant powers of the day and violently forced onto the less afortunate as evidence..., copper...
It's you...
Capisce...?
Trimonde
Nov 08th, 2019 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Argentina was modestly settled on the Island flying its flag in Puerto Luis, ...” completely illegal as Argentina was barred under the accords of the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“he/she most likely would open discussions with Argentina in line with the wishes and interests of Britains mayority.” Wrong as the UN Charter bars the UK from any such undertaking.
Good God Trimonde she must have been putting it around.
Nov 08th, 2019 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trimonde
Nov 08th, 2019 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“There is nothing in the treaty of Utrecht that specifies the case of a country separating from Spain.” It's covered “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.”
Nootka Convention covers their exclusion ”This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
Mr Lorton, the world simply does not work according to British will.
Nov 08th, 2019 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Empires and country's may claim land from afar, but if they don't make good on their supposed intentions, they simply have no right in this universe to tell people to stay away. You can't “reserve” land on this world for ever. I don't care about your warnings or treaties, if you do not enact your reasons for them at that moment in history, they simply have no worth. Argentina was settled on the Islands, they had people they brought cattle, they brought provisions, they farmed (attempted to) and gave birth to a lovely baby girl. IT WAS TOO LATE, we declared them part of the United Provinces, while Britain only claimed colonial right to them. ...Of course your country was well aware of the situation, and understood fully well that there are natural principals on which rules we set for the world stand on. The Vice Royalty, which included the islands in Spain since 1776, fought for their independence and won it. Again... these are all things your country knew had righteous value to them. You can try and argue with your rule yards and treaty measures all you want, but at the end of the day, we all know Britain cowardly took them from Argentina exploiting the situation, it cheated and abused it's power. Had circumstances been different, arrangements or whatever rules of engagement you had with Spain, no matter, you still would have lost the islands properly. Your country was not just an abusive cheater lying robber in Argentina alone, oh no no no, I'm not saying that at all. This is what Britain did everywhere. Britain simply thought the world was up for grabs, and simply kicked people out of the way, or used them with condescendingly tricky proposals. ... And you know what? It still is that same mentality of a country. All it's done is changed the shape of its spots, but it definitely has not lost them. The Islanders are just an extension of this, they are occupiers doing your country's dirty work.
Think, Spain was not a power?
Nov 08th, 2019 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Trimonde, you have a rosy view of history but are way off the facts. Vernet arrived as a trespasser in 1826. The islands were already disputed between two nations. Buenos Aires was in no position to 'declare' anything. Just trespassers. They achieved no effective control being thrown off in 1831 by the Yanks before being thrown off again in 1833 by the British. Trespassers gain no rights.
Vernet did not take cattle, they did not farm and Vernet's daughter was not the first child born in the islands. The French had three, English one and even Jean Simon had a child before Vernet did.
As for your 'natural principles', no European nation recognised the concept of any inheritance by a revolted territory, and BA was not the Viceroyalty after 1810. The last Viceroy was Elio who had his capital at Montevideo until 1814, not BA. Try to get your facts right.
I have no need to present any argument. It is Argentina that plays the plaintiff. BA (not Argentina) was trespassing in 1826 and had clearly acted outside its powers in granting licences and titles to Vernet. So said your own Senate in 1882. Argetina has no claim, the islands are British. If there was a usurpation in 1833 it was of Spain, which lost that old dispute. Spain had the decency to recognise British sovereignty in 1863. Argentina was never relevant. Never a player. Just a complainer. ..... And you know what? You still have that mentality. BA should have dealt with the warnings in 1829 instead of hoping they would go away. Naive, and so you still are.
We will never go away and I repeat. BA was trespassing in 1833.
Trimonde
Nov 08th, 2019 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We declared them part of the United Provinces, while Britain only claimed colonial right to them.”
There is no such distinction as to territory under international law. As in '82 the UK was able to rely on it's UN Charter right to 'self defence'
“You simply have no right in this universe to tell people to stay away.” Wrong the UK has every such right under international law, which absolutely veto's your unqualified, biased sophistry.
“The Island of Palmas tribunal of the PCA at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
“If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title—cession conquest, occupation, etc.—superior to that which the other State might possibly bring forward against it.”
”the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created ‘prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law’.
Akehurst's Modern Introduction To International Law by Peter Malanczuk
The real trespassers here were the British, they were the trespassers since the day they tried to sneak in Port Egmont past Spanish detection. Britain always kept its distance, and let Argentina continue to settle the islands. Why? Because it is the robber of the story. The only reason they are there now is because it could push Argentina over thanks to its military overwhelming strength. NO-OTHER-REASON. Roger, the term “trespasser” is just your invention, your way of filibustering based on the wish your narrative is a true narrative. It makes no sense actually from the moment you yourself say it was being disputed by two nations, as per definition “trespasser” means going into someONE else's property. And it wasn't British property. And it makes no sense for several reasons. The other reason is that as far as Spain was concerned there was no dispute, the dispute had been settled in 1773, in 1776 the Islands were included in the Rio de la Plata Vice-royalty. If the United States broke up into States, do you think Washington would have the right to tell San Francisco “you are not part of California, you are part of Washington”? Argentina broke off from Spain and obviously Spain conceded the Islands stay with the United Provinces. There was no need for “permission”. You're narrative on the other hand is only fantastically hopeful one here. There is a reason the conflict exists, and it has to do with Britain's self centered abuse of power in keeping something that now belonged to another (what a surprise!)
Nov 09th, 2019 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse -2You're so hilariously desperate now, and delusional. This one is a gem! : “As for your 'natural principles', no European nation recognized the concept of any inheritance by a revolted territory, and BA was not the Viceroyalty after 1810. The last Viceroy was Elio who had his capital at Montevideo until 1814, not BA. Try to get your facts right.”
Elio never became anything. What does Europe have to do with our rights? I don't even have the space left to point out..
Still failing with the facts Trimonde Betts?
Nov 09th, 2019 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse +2Sneak past Spanish detection? Byron arrived at Port Egmont in January 1765. McBride in January 1766. Spain did not arrive in the islands until March 1767.
Argentina was, still is, the would-be 'robber'. As the UP, Argentina attempted to 'sneak in' in 1820, but then bottled it. They tried again to 'sneak in' in 1824, but that went badly. 1828 went better for them, but only covertly. Hiding their pretensions. No publicity. It was Lavalle that fouled up Argentina's sneaking around with a public display of its pretensions. I do wonder if he knew the trouble he was causing for his successors. I like to think so. Didn't they shoot him?
Yes, Alexo, trespassing. The territory was disputed by Britain and Spain. Two owners already. In reality, of course, Britain was firmly positioned in the western islands and Spain in the east - Soledad. Britain did not challenge Spain after 1771, as Spain did not challenge Britain. A status quo that became the norm.
Buenos Aires chose to trespass on the Spanish Island. Someone else's property.
After that you start to ramble. Nothing of importance in 1773. The convention was 1771, the recall of Britain's garrison in 1774. The Viceroyalty was founded in 1776 but never attempted to replace Spain's marks and signs of sovereignty in the western islands. The Viceroyalty stuck with Soledad. And it is a fact that the last capital city of the Viceroyalty was Montevideo and, yes, Elio was recognised officially by Spain, as the Viceroy.
As I keep saying, do try to get your facts right. The truth does not require too much space and everything I say, I can prove.
Trimonde you are living in the past. Move on , the FALKLANDERS already have , why not you. Let's face you and your ilk have not got a leg to stand on,it is 2019 now just live with it. Same old crap coming out of your mouth. The FALKLANDERS have decided they wish to be a British Overseas Territory and that my friend is the end of the matter.Take it to the ICJ. Tell us all why does Argentina NOT take it to the ICJ, I and I am sure our readers would like to know why not. As usual you will NOT answer us.
Nov 09th, 2019 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You are INVERTED golfcronie. EQUAL RESPECT AMONG ALL NATIONS, is a matter of the Present. It is actually the Islanders and international British politics that is stuck in the past.
Nov 09th, 2019 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Trimonde
Nov 09th, 2019 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“They tried to sneak in Port Egmont past Spanish detection” Liar, was settled before Spain had set foot on the Islands.
“Port Egmont was established in on 25 January 1765, by an expedition led by Commodore John Byron”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Egmont
“In 1766, France surrendered its claim on the Falklands to Spain”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Egmont
I don't lie. It is the British who lie right through their teeth about this.
Nov 09th, 2019 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -2It was not a matter of “setting foot” on the Islands. That was Spain's region. Everyone knew it as it was part of the treaty Spain and Portugal created BEFORE THE BRITISH even started navigating south. That is why the French, even though they actually created a settlement, conceded to relinquishing it and getting paid for it by their for their trouble. The Spanish were unaware of Port Egmont, and when they learned of it, the confronted successfully the British over it. What does that tell you?
Trimonde
Nov 09th, 2019 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“That was Spain's region” and pray how did they resolve such an impasse, when their claim was rejected?
In Spain's case, they had to eat an awful lot of humble pie to placate a rival. Who was fully prepared to engage in war to settle the issue.
Spain's region? Utter nonsense Trimonde Betts, the Bull of a Pope could not restrict any nation. Contrary to Argie nonsense, Pope's were not the source of international law. Occupation was necessary and for your information, Spain knew about Port Egmont from 1766, they just could not find it.
Nov 09th, 2019 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1What does the confrontation tell me? How Spain lost. Spain sent an overwhelming force to kick off the British and then lost the negotiation that followed. The threat of a war with Britain was something that Spain was not strong enough to face without France. Spain was forced to withdraw and stayed withdrawn. Spain removed its marks & signs of sovereignty from Fort George in 1771. They were never replaced.
You need to learn some history. Swallowing the garbage that Argentina indoctrinates you with just makes you look dumb.
This is really bad news for the islanders.
Nov 10th, 2019 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse -2President Mauricio Macri has been the best-ever president for them, with his subservient attitude towards the U.K. and his contempt for Argentina's anti-colonialist past. However, Macri has also hurt Argentina, and because of that has been the only president to be kicked out after a single term since re-election became possible in 1994.
Expect much more pressure from Argentina to return the islands from Dec. 10 on.
Macri was merely a little brighter than the rest of the population Enrique. There was nothing he could do about Argentina's failed Falklands policy which has been failing for 190 years. It is no news at all to the islanders. They know that Argentines like shooting themselves in the foot.
Nov 10th, 2019 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse +1It is just bad news for you.
Long live the British and long live the FALKLANDERS.
Nov 10th, 2019 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse +1Trimonde and Enrique please tell us the reason Argentina WILL NOT GO TO THE ICJ and get this sorted once and for all, You both have spent years on this and still have not got anywhere. GO TO THE ICJ if you are so confident.
TWIMC...
Nov 10th, 2019 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I can't help noticing that most of the Anglos posting in here are...:
1) Angry auld men..., comlpetely dissapointed by current UK politics..., afraid of Greta Thunberg and wet-dreamin' 'bout them “Good Auld Imperial Times”...
2) Willingly keeping themselves ignorant about the plight & abandon their “Empire” imposed on them Malvinas Kelpers between 1840-1980... (Special mention of honour here to my dear foe..., Mr. Roger Lorton..., that has willingly chosen to live under a military dictatorship that forces him to bend over locally..., and seems to compensate by ommiting that Inconvenient Kelper Truth from his Fawlty Anglocentric Malvinas Timeline...)
3) Sillily and haughtily ignoring the lost opportunities of economic growth a determined Argie Administration in conjunction of our politically shifting region... (Think Chile and Brasil...)... can cause to the UK..., including them Malvinax Kelpers who..., by the way are more than aware about that reality...
Have a nice Sunday..., folks...
El Think
Tinkle old fruit, tell us why the Argentine has NOT taken the “ so called sovereignty dispute to the ICJ ” I and many of our readers would like an answer if NOT too difficult for you.
Nov 10th, 2019 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Hi Think!
Nov 10th, 2019 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I'm not an angry old man, I ain't afraid of no Greta's, and I'm more interested in the future than the past. I'm a younger generation who supports the left... and I still feel the same way about the Falklands. Dream all you want, it ain't happening.
I'm not expecting this election to make much difference, either. It's a pointless argument when both countries have way bigger problems.
Thunk
Nov 10th, 2019 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I am, at times, an angry old man. I am most certainly disappointed by UK politics. Tired of the lies and unkept promises. One of the advantages of a benign dictatorship now that you mention it, is that the PM here does not tell lies. He has no need to, nobody can shift him anyway. Quite refreshing in some ways. Quieter too. Not sure about the local bending over, most people just get on with feeding their families. Police have been reigned in too and the army, on the rare occasions you see them now, are very polite. Benign is the word. Haven't shot anyone. I don't believe that there is anyone locked up either. If votes do not actually have any meaning, here or the UK, then we all live under dictatorships.
What inconvenient 'Kelper Truth' are you referring to? You claim the Timeline is faulty without, as far as I can see, ever having read it. I am quite happy to be corrected on the details and, if you had read it, you would know that I include a variety of quotations from both sides.
Any igorance appears to be all yours Thunk.
Redhoyt...
Nov 11th, 2019 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse -1What part of...: ***“The plight & abandon their “Empire” imposed on them Malvinas Kelpers between 1840-1980... ”*** ... , do you need clarification about..., copper...?
Them Kelper's dispair and resignation of the 50's.., 60's and 70's still lingers in my memory..., as thick as that times omnipresent peat-reek stench...
I don't even want to Think how bad it was before me time...!
Capisce...?
You make no sense Thunk. Plight? There was never an obligation to remain. They were not prisoners and could leave at any time. That they stayed suggests that they found life pleasant enough compared to elsewhere. Abandoned? Not at all. Continuous administration from 1834 until today. How so 'abandoned'?
Nov 11th, 2019 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse +1The sentence you place between quotation marks is from where? Please, clarify.
Moody began the process of colonization in 1841 but it had never been regarded as the most suitable place for a colony, its only perceived advantages being strategic. As a result, the colony grew slowly, at its own pace. James Biggs and Thomas Yates arrived with Moody in 1842. Their descendants are still there. Those 9 generations have never been forced to be there.
Despair? Resignation? Islanders' were always opposed to Argentina's spurious claims; getting downright political after 1967. Fighting to stay.
Methinks, Thunk, that your memory is, at best, selective if not completely flawed.
Get it?
Redhoyt...
Nov 11th, 2019 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse -21) - Plight..., yes... They “could” leave at any time alright..., but with their Second Class British Subject passport..., WITHOUT the Right of Abode in the UK..., it wasn't that easy...
- Those who stayed were the docile and the content with their meager Imperial alimonies...
- That's why you have many more Kelpers living in NZ..., Oztralia and Patagonia than in Malvinas..., copper...
2) Abandoned, yes... ***“Under continuous administration from 1834 until today”***.... alright...
- Like Ireland, ya know..? Under continuous administration from 1801until 1922...
3) You ask me where the sentence I placed between quotation marks is from...?
- Try reading my previous comments..., copper... There you will find it..., without any quotation marks... Feel free to use it in your Fawlty, Biased Timeline if you so wish...
4) Kelper despair... Kelper resignation... against their colonial abandonment plight...
Of course..., a plight conveniently “Airbrushed” from your Fawlty Biased Timeline..., copper...
- Many a second class Engrish..., Scottish..., Irish or Danish/Norwegian Kelper without any legal rights to abode in the UK..., or to buy their houses in Malvinas..., or to buy some land in Malvinas or to start a business in Malvinas..., were not always negative towards Argentina...
- The monopolistic Falkland Islands Company and the Malvinas Islands absentee owners went indeed downright political after 1967....Fighting for Profits..., ya know..., copper...
Capisce...?
Tinkle old fruit, the past is in the past, move on. I sure many Argies are not happy with their situation at present or indeed in the past, what with dictators and Presidents ripping off the country. But all this will change with the new Presidentcy,I am sure you will agree.The 18 odd million below the poverty line in Argentina will be rubbing their hands at free gnochies and handouts under the Fernandez/Fernandez ticket.Anyway what on Earth has the FALKLANDERS plight got to do with you. Their “ plight” has got even better thanks to Argentinas INVASION of their beloved FALKLANDS.It has brought to the UK public what a happy place it is.
Nov 11th, 2019 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lol. Some people are never satisfied: complains when Kelpers are poor, complains when Kelpers get rich. Complains when Britain doesn't invest in their economy, complains when it does. Complains when they don't get special treatment (citizenship) compared to other BOTs, complains when they do. Complains about emigration, and complains about immigration too. Complains about living in a dictatorship, and wanted to force other people to live under it anyway.
Nov 11th, 2019 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Roger
Dictators still have to keep some people happy, even if it's just the army. They're not exactly known for their honesty.
Thank you Thunk, yup, that is what I thought. A selective memory based upon Argie propaganda. Times were no harder in the Falklands than in many other colonies, and rather better than some. And it was a colony. Rules for colonies differed and no, many colonies were not viewed as having an automatic right to British citizenship. Why would they? Seems to me that the islanders won in the end though which is what matters.
Nov 11th, 2019 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should be happy for them.
DT. Seems that no political system is known for its honesty. Thailand has had a few coups. Just part of the political landscape here.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/why-does-thailand-have-so-many-coups.html
“What it does mean is that there has been a normalization of military coups. They are seen as an acceptable way to solve a political crisis, and often it’s the public calling for the military to step in.”
Nov 11th, 2019 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly what I'm saying. In some ways that system makes popularity even more important. Lose the support of important sectors of society and a leader can quickly lose power, even after winning an election fair and square.
“You should be happy for them.”
That's what bugs me about his faux-concern. He's NOT happy for them, and he chooses to vote for people whose aim is to put them back in that state. It's all an act.
Geeeee..., copper...
Nov 11th, 2019 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You started soooo good...!
Attacking my frail Insular Patagonian selective auld memories...
For immediately after validating each of them..., thus confirming that that Fawlty Biased Timeline of yours is mainly based on selected information taken from selective memories...
(And all of it..., in that cynical haughty Engrish Imperial Way..., them Kelpers and I are soooo fond of...)
You are very confused Thunk, but I believe that I see your basic problem with understanding the situation. The Falklands were a Colony, their status is now British Overseas Territory. What they are not and never have been, is an extension of Cornwall.
Nov 11th, 2019 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +2For an old man who claims never to have read the Timeline, you appear to have determined views on it.
Why the need to lie..., copper...?
Nov 11th, 2019 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We have discussed this before..., remember...?
When did I ever claim never to have read that fawlty Timeline...?
It was quite OK..., when it was prefaced..., quite sincerely..., by you...
Later... you met them “Tall Chaps” from “The Charity” and became obtundated...
Capisce...?
Your lack of knowledge regarding the Timeline makes it very apparent that you have not read it Thunk. Not in the last half dozen years at any rate. Still, if you have read it, you will be able to identify those 'faults' you keep referring to .... no?
Nov 12th, 2019 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0No idea who you are talking about? Tall chaps? Charity?
F.I.A., copper...
Nov 12th, 2019 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Capisce now...?
I am a member but I am not much in the UK so I am not involved. Went to a couple of receptions. Not really my scene, buttering up the great and the good. I'm more your 'let's have a beer at the local' sort. Met some nice people mind, Robert Headland stands out in my memory. Met some others who were ...... tall ;-)
Nov 12th, 2019 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Voice used to have a theory it was the FIA who started MP. I suppose you wouldn't know?
Nov 12th, 2019 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By MP do you mean Mount Pleasant ? I am not aware of any specific connection.
Nov 12th, 2019 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't be silly copper...
Nov 12th, 2019 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MP means..., of course..., Metropolitan Police...
Chuckl...
Mercopress, this site with news in English for Mercosur and the 'South Atlantic'. Seemed more plausible to me than any other suggestion.
Nov 12th, 2019 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mercopress? Hmm, interesting thought. Quite possible.
Nov 13th, 2019 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quite possible..., copper...?
Nov 13th, 2019 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Selective memory mode again..., huhhhh?
The financing of Mount Pleasant's Metropolitan Police are clear...
A guy from Chubut got banned years ago for whisttleblowing..., remember...?
Ended with a non-disclosure gentlemans agreement between Sr. GM and a Patagonian auld fart...
You can ask next time you're drinking champagne at one of their soirées. :)
Nov 13th, 2019 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am not aware of any connection between MercoPress and the FIA Thunk. Selective memory has nothing to do with it. I merely acknowledged the possibility.
Nov 13th, 2019 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DT - never say never, but I doubt that I'll attend any more. My pattern has changed and I don't now get back to the UK until after their soiree has been and gone. However, if an opportunity arises, I will enquire.
In fact, while I think about it - “Gus, are you a puppet of the AngloSpectre Organisation publicly known as the FIA”?
This may take a while ;-)
Copper..., paraphrasing sweet Ella Jane...:
Nov 14th, 2019 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0”You say laughter and I say larfter...
You say after and I say arfter...
You say puppet of the AngloSpectre Organisation publicly known as the FIA and I say business...
Laughter, larfter...
After, arfter...
Puppet of the AngloSpectre Organisation publicly known as the FIA, business...
Let's call the whole thing off..., for Gus's sake...;-)
Capisce...?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!