MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, February 5th 2023 - 00:17 UTC



The world's biggest iceberg, 6.000 sq km, is about to enter the open ocean heading for South Georgia

Thursday, February 6th 2020 - 09:03 UTC
Full article 21 comments

A68, a colossus that broke free from the Antarctic in 2017, has pushed so far north it is now at the limit of the continent's perennial sea-ice. When it calved, the berg had an area close to 6,000 sq km and has lost very little of its bulk over the past two and a half years. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Roger Lorton

    Bet Argentina claims it


    Feb 06th, 2020 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Guillote

    No one can have doubts about the great researcher or historian or whatever, this poor person, the Thai brexiter. Without any doubt totally neutral.

    Feb 07th, 2020 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Neutral Gullible? My research leads me to conclude that Argentina has no case to argue. Having learned that, why should I not say it?

    Still no idea why you are fixated with my politics or my location, Gullible. You really should explain.

    Feb 07th, 2020 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    Roger Lorton historian? I didn't find a single academic, journalistic article, or any university that mentions it.

    Feb 07th, 2020 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “I didn't find a single academic” there's a very obvious answer for your apparent 'short-sightedness'.
    “Like the old adage says ”There's none so blind as those that will not see”

    Feb 08th, 2020 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    Perfect message for Lorton, who holds British sovereignty for a ... potato orchard !!! and ignores the population that was on the islands.

    Feb 10th, 2020 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton

    Population, Morecrap? Are you referring to the trespassers from BA? Or those few settlers that were there with British permission?

    Feb 10th, 2020 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Malvinense 1833

    Is the potato orchard more valuable than a few settlers? For a non-existent potato orchard can settlers be considered intruders?
    According to you, then there were French, Spanish and then Argentine intruders and they did absolutely nothing.
    Arana's fairy tale - Southern, Pinzón, the false story of the Vernet intruder has already been answered, you know the truth, you don't want to recognize it.
    You must go read and learn and not lie to people.

    Feb 11th, 2020 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    What the heck is a potato orchard? Do you think potatoes grow on trees?

    Feb 11th, 2020 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    You appear to be smoking something unwise, MoreCrap.

    The French were told to go in December, 1766. They were given 6 months to pack up. They left. The Spanish were told that they were trespassing in 1770. They decided to try force. That went badly for them and from 1771 they stayed, very quietly, at Puerto Soledad. That was the deal. Britain in the west, Spain in the east.

    In 1829 and 1832 the Buenos Aireans were informed that they had no rights. In January, 1833, those BA trespassers found to be in the Falklands, were told to go. They went. The 25 genuine settlers there at that time, were recognised as having British permission. They stayed.

    Go learn, MoreCrap.

    Feb 11th, 2020 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    DemonTree: Lorton says that a potato orchard left in Port Egmont is a stronger symbol of sovereignty than the population that remained on the islands.

    Byron and Mcbride arrived at a time when there was a population.
    Byron, Mcbride, Bougainville were intruders who settled in Spanish America.
    Port Egmont was on a small islet, called Trinidad.
    The British expeditions were clandestine.
    McBride never reported where his establishment was.
    The Spaniards searched for them along the Patagonian coast, cape horn until they were finally found and expelled.
    The transfer of sovereignty from France to Spain was public.
    The islands were never incorporated into the British crown.
    After their diplomatic defeat they had to withdraw.
    This is proven in the numerous documents of the British parliament debates.
    Go read and learn and above all stop lying.

    Feb 12th, 2020 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    What potato orchard? Rambling again MoreCrap? Sovereignty over the western islands dates from the occupation on January 1766. Not Byron's garden of 1765.

    No population on West Falkland in 1766 when McBride arrived.
    Spain had no claim to islands 300 miles from South America.
    Port Egmont was a harbour. A body of water. No land at all. See -
    The French expedition was a secret. Byron's expedition was a secret. McBrides expedition was not a secret.
    McBride obeyed his orders in setting up the British establishment. We knew where it was.
    The Spanish were useless despite the French knowing exactly where Egmont was. Strange that they did not tell Spain.
    The transfer of a few buildings from the St. Malo Company to Spain was never published in either country.
    The islands were considered a British Crown possession from Hawkins' claim in 1694. This was made clear to Spain in 1749 and with the chart of 1753
    Spain's 1771 diplomatic defeat was absolute. Spain withdrew its marks and signs of sovereignty and recognised British possession.
    Parliamentary debates and public documents prove that the compromise of 1771 became the status quo and then the accepted position. Britain in the west. Spain in the east. This is why Spain only claimed one island in 1811. Argentina is not Spain
    Go read and learn and above all stop lying, MoreCrap.

    Feb 12th, 2020 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    You explain that the Bougainville expedition was a secret, Byron's expedition was a secret.
    Why should it be a secret if the islands belonged to his majesty?
    McBride's expedition was clandestine never revealed where his establishment was.
    You leave Scotch whiskey at this time, go read and learn and above all stop lying

    Feb 12th, 2020 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Spain's takeover was a secret too. Produce any public journal of 1767 announcing it. If you can. I cannot find one. These expeditions were not announced.
    Byron's expedition was a secret simply because his objectives were far wider than a survey of the Falklands. His orders required him to seek trading opportunities on the west coast of South America before sailing north to Canada and seeking the fabled North-West Passage from the far side. Nations did not announce their intentions when there was potentially money to be made. Bougainville's was a secret until his return to France.

    McBride's expedition was not a secret. Hard to say where he was going when there were no decent charts. One of his tasks was to survey the Islands which he did. The first decent chart produced from his survey work was published in 1770. A public work. Here -

    You keep avoiding the elephant in the room. So I'll repeat it. Sorry for shouting, but you appear deaf.


    I never lie. You, however, are too blind to see the truth. Blind and deaf it seems.

    Feb 12th, 2020 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    The Spanish takeover a secret? It is really ridiculous that a region considered Spanish, confirmed by treaties signed between Spain and Great Britain, has some secret.
    A crystalline example is the permission application of Admiral Anson.
    The transfer of sovereignty between the French and Spanish crowns was public.
    Britain never made a public protest of the French presence, nor did it protest the transfer of sovereignty from France to Spain.
    Choiseaul informed the British ambassador in Paris about the situation.
    Again there were no British protests.
    McBride's occupation does not establish sovereignty in an already occupied territory.
    It is ridiculous to think about the point-by-point occupation of an archipelago to establish sovereignty.
    You have a lot to read and learn.

    Feb 12th, 2020 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    No permission was sought in 1748. An expedition was delayed, not cancelled, in order to help with treaty negotiations. This was made quite plain to Spain.
    There was no transfer of sovereignty between France and Spain. The document is clearly written out in the name of the St. Malo Company and signed by its chief shareholder - Bougainville. It does not carry the signature of any French diplomat. Choiseul was cunning. He knew that nothing was being ceded. Spain, which had argued previous ownership, could not demand a cession. The arrangement was never made public. It did not appear in the journals. Conversations between diplomats were private. Britain made no objection to the sale of a few buildings because in 1766 it was not certain that the French were in the same islands as the British.
    Occupation of a small part of one island does not give sovereignty over a whole archipelago. France left. Britain therefore had the better claim to prior occupation.

    You remain confused, so let me clarify. Britain's first claim was in 1594. The island(s) was considered a Crown possession by the British but there was no effective possession. McBride's role was to commence that possession. He set up the base and told the French to leave. They left. The Spanish attack of 1770 would appear to interrupt Britain's possession, but the diplomatic defeat of Spain in 1771, & Britain's return reinforced its claim to effective possession of the western islands. There is no real doubt that Spain gained effective control of the eastern island after 1767. That such control had to extend over all a claimed area was the subject of the Nootka Convention and clearly proved that occupation of one island did not give rights over all of an archipelago where rights were conflicted. Spain in the east. Britain in the west. The compromise that became the status quo that became the norm.



    Always much to learn. Yet you have learned nothing

    Feb 12th, 2020 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    “The islands were considered a British Crown possession from Hawkins' claim in 1694”
    fairy tale: The wind continued good with us, till we came to forty-nine degrees and thirty minutes, where it tooke [took] us westerly. The second of February, about nine of the clocke [clock] in the morning, we discoveryed [discovered] land, which bare south-west of us, which wee [we] looked not for so timely; and coming nearer and nearer unto it, by the lying, we could not conjecture what land it should be; for we were next of anything in forty-eight degrees. The land is a goodly champion country, and peopled. We saw many fires, but could not come to speake [speak] with the people. It hath [has] great rivers of fresh waters. It is not mountainous, but much of the disposition of England, and as temperate.
    His discovery was published 28 years later !! Davies did not discover the islands.

    “There was no transfer of sovereignty between France and Spain.”
    Mr. Bougainville of Nerville: in the firm resolution in which I am, of cementing by all possible means the friendship that unites me with my brother the Catholic King, I have consented that the Malouines Islands of which I have entrusted you, are returned, my The intention is that, accordingly, you hand them over to the officer Your Catholic Majesty must send with a detachment to take possession ...
    Compiegne, August 30, 1766 Signed: Louis XV. Endorsed Duke of Praslin.

    After the diplomatic defeat of 1770 and the British withdrawal in 1774, the Spanish controlled the entire archipelago, proven in numerous historical documents and works of historians.
    Therefore it is false to say England in the west, Spain in the east.
    The French withdrew after the Spanish protest, not English.
    The islands were never British, they were incorporated into the crown after the usurpation, on June 23, 1843.
    Go read and learn and above all stop lying.

    Feb 14th, 2020 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    The UK can rely on at least six-planks of international law and three Anglo-Spanish treaties, that support irrefutably its right of sovereignty, while legally barring any Argentine claim. There being no official protests to the UK by Argentina after 1888 until 1941. Over fifty years had passed, which is more than enough to cause Argentina to lose the right to even pursue a legal claim.
    Cling to your hopeless fantasies, Argentina has lost any chance of making any legal claim against the UK. The court would view her failure to bring suit as an admission that her claim has no merit. Even if she could overcome that hurdle, she would be stopped dead in her tracks by the admissions of her past president, and vice-president to congress that Argentina had no unresolved disputes with any country. Finally, the legal effect of the 1850 Convention would totally void all Argentine pretensions.

    Feb 14th, 2020 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    You still do not get it MoreCrap.

    A deal was done in 1771. That compromise became the status quo, became the norm. Britain in the west, Spain in the east. As a result of that deal SPAIN ONLY CLAIMED ONE ISLAND IN 1811.

    The Islands became a colony after 1841, MoreCrap. Before that they were a Crown Possession.

    Go learn. Your distortions are a joke.

    And try to deal with the elephant in the room -






    Feb 14th, 2020 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    The deal was the restitution of the Port and Fort Egmont to save the honor.
    The English withdrew. The Spanish remained controlling the entire archipelago.
    The Spanish also exercised sovereignty by destroying English facilities.
    There was no English population in the west, east north, south.
    Explain to me how it can be an English possession without occupation, without protests and with a foreign population controlling the islands? With an orchard of potatoes?
    SPAIN ONLY CLAIMED ONE ISLAND IN 1811, That only exists in his feverish mind.

    “this Port is to be abandoned, by sending a ship to said port ... with the aim that all belongings, both of Artillery and any other nature, found there are collected and brought to this City, as well as the Church ornaments, leaving all buildings well sealed and placing the King´s Coat of Arms to demonstrate ownership, and that in the meanwhile said abandoned Port remain, that annually a ship is sent for reconnaissance of the port, verifying that in it or in any other port of said Islands no other Power has established any kind of settlement.”
    The Spaniards took precautions so that no other power establishes a population in the future. The English did not do the same.
    They took precautions with the buildings. The English buildings were destroyed after their retirement, thus exercising Spain their sovereign power.
    Go read and learn and above all stop lying.
    Go read and learn and above all stop lying.
    Go read and learn and above all stop lying.
    Go read and learn and above all stop lying.

    Feb 15th, 2020 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    The deal left Britain in the west and Spain in the east. A deal that continued until 1833. Spain made no effort to retake possession of port Egmont after 1774 and the only actions there were either covert of during a time of war. Most tellingly Spain DID NOT replace its marks and signs of sovereignty.


    Do you deny reality MoreCrap? We have the documents.

    Go read. Go learn. Your distortions of history are failing. MoreCrap


    Feb 15th, 2020 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse +1

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