MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Provincial lawmaker apologizes to Malvinas Veterans for taking the oath of office with Union Jack colors
A provincial lawmaker from Misiones northeast Argentina had to meet with six organizations of Malvinas Veterans and apologize for having taken the oath of office last week, wearing a T-shirt with the colors of the Union Jack. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesProvincial lawmaker apologizes to Malvinas Veterans ... for telling the truth?
Dec 14th, 2021 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse +1It's not that long ago that she would have been pushed out of the door of a plane over the South Atlantic for such a heinous crime against La Patria. Im sure many of those condemning her disgraceful behaviour would be all in favour of such a punishment.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Argentina? Fantastic country, such a shame about the prople.
border rover, “It's not that long ago ...”. You know nothing at all. More than 40 YEARS ago a military dictatorship took power in Argentina without us voting for them. And still we were one of the few nations in the world and history to take those militaries to court for state terrorism and crimes against humanity.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The UK, instead, killed MILLONS of innocent civilians in the Iraq invasion to find “weapons” they didnt find. Enjoying its oil you put in your car every day right now in the present day.
Tony Blair and its gang should be judged, not honored.
So, you are a cynical that pretend us to be the bad guys talking about crimes committed 40 years ago by a military dictatorship while at the same time you say nothing of the wars the british made in the foreign killing civilians to steal natural resources in this new century.
Im sure you would not be in favour of such invasion or the tortures made in Camp Breadbasket, The Baha Mousa hotel, The Amarah Protests,etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/06/iraq-prisoner-abuse-court
UK? awful government, with a parliament full of cocaine. But the people opposed the invasion of Iraq and are amazing!.
About this article, there are many t-shirts here with the union flag becouse a british brand uses it for their clothes. It has no meaning to use a shirt with a british flag as an insult to Argentina, but to take an oath with a tshirt with a flag of a nation that has part of our territory under colonialism its a different thing.
We have no animosity against britain, but we will never desist to claim what its ours.
Liberato, I won’t argue that the Iraq war was right, because it definitely wasn’t. I want Blair tried for war crimes but even the ICJ doesn’t want to try him so it’s now our fault.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Our parliament is statistically less corrupt that Argentina’s let’s be real.
“So, you are a cynical that pretend us to be the bad guys” don’t you mean hypocritical? Also no, you are the bad guys for invading no matter what, Iraq is more nuanced in the way:
1. It was a dictatorship
2. We genuinely thought there were nuclear weapons (at the time we did)
I’m not endorsing the invasion of Iraq since it screwed up that country so much, but to be real, the reasons were there. Maybe they weren’t concrete but they were there.
The Iraq war was 100% wrong, Britain did not kill millions of Iraqi civilians. i dont know where you got that info from Libby. the UK troops were based and fought around Basra ,
Dec 14th, 2021 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The Falklands are not yours , never have been and never will be,
Liberato
Dec 14th, 2021 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Conquest of the Desert
According to Carlos Martínez Sarasola, an Argentine anthropologist, up to half of the indigenous people living in Patagonia were killed during the conquest.
Zaczac121, “Our parliament is statistically less corrupt that Argentina’s let’s be real.”. I didnt claim the opposite.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“1. It was a dictatorship”. So that makes you the freedom maker right?.
”2.We genuinely thought there were nuclear weapons (at the time we did)“. Really???. Even after UN inspector told you there were no weapons of mass destruction?. Even if France, Germany and Russia told you the same?. Even if the very british people protested for the invasion forming human chains to avoid its own government going to war.
” Also no, you are the bad guys for invading no matter what...”. So Argentina is the bad guy for having one war in an entire century, for a territory that we considers ours.
Judge Jose, I took it from Opinion Research Business (ORB), one of Britain’s leading polling groups. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130.
“The Falklands are not yours , never have been and never will be,”. Its your opinion. Its like if Diego Garcia is british, If Gibraltar is british or if the Iraq invasion was an accident as suggested by “your” countryman?.
.
So what happened then, the veterans walked in, saw the Union Jack, threw their arms up and surrendered, french style???
Dec 14th, 2021 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pugol-H, what you mean?. After the conflict of 1982 (forty years ago), we claimed our rights by diplomatic means, even incorporating the way of claiming in our constitution. Britain, instead, are exploiting the natural resources of Iraq after been 10 years occupying them militarilly.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Libby, you are correct in saying millions died because of the war, but not killed by the British, more civilians were killed by their own people, the British role was minor in the scheme of things, fighting in and around Basra, however we should not have been there,
Dec 14th, 2021 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as far as my opinion on the Falklands, it is based on fact not fiction, can you not understand that your politicians use it to whip up nationalism to hide their incompetence of running your country, they know full well that they will not get the Falklands,
Judge Jose, Argentina claimed the invasion and occupation of Malvinas since 1833. Since the moment they were taken. So your excuse of “whip up nationalism” doesnt fit. I suggest you first, stop listening british politians that gives you the simple british answear to make their votants to think that it is a temporal claim by Argentina to avoid its economic troubles so none of you start thinking a what if. Secondly, i suggest you go to the UN webpage and see every resolutions made regarding colonialism and regarding Malvinas and watch how both countrys (UK and Argentina) voted.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Libby, Britain claimed the Falklands in the 1700s, long before Argentina existed, As far as the British politicians go, they hardly ever mention the Falklands, the matter is settled, the UN have very little interest in Argentinas claim, the right to self determination trumps any dubious claim Argentina has, go to the ICJ, see were that gets you,
Dec 14th, 2021 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Judge Jose, Britain claimed a territory already claimed and settled. And they were not there from 1700 but from 1833, when they invaded. For the UN, the matter is not settled, becouse they are still requesting both nations to solve the sovereignty dispute. If the right to self determination is applicable to them why in all history of the islands and in the present they have a status of colony?.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -3About the ICJ, for the same reason the uk couldnt make Argentina present itself for the dependencies. Now the british as then, refuse to recognize jurisdiction of the court on Malvinas.
Libby, yes Britain was there in the 1700s, France and Spain have this recorded, there was a whole history before 1833, Vernet even asked London for permission to visit the islands, the Falklanders self govern the islands and eventually will become independent once they have a larger population, Remember at the UN a few years ago when everyone laughed at Christinas ramblings on coloniolism the real reason Argentina wont go to the ICJ is because they will lose, just like they did with Chile, and that sticks in their throat, any way have a pleasant day,
Dec 14th, 2021 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Judge Jose. In that whole century, the british landed in 1765 in Trinidad Island and claimed sovereignty while the islands were not res nullius. They settled Trinidad for a few years and left. Only returning in 1833 after expelling Argentina. Landing in “East” Malvinas or Isla Soledad for the first time. So you cant say they were there from the 1700s. Britain only visited Trinidad Island for a few years without contesting the other claims and settlements.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Vernet did not asked London for Permission to visit the islands. Vernet made certificate the BS AS grant of land before the british consulate as was the costume to atract european settlers and to show authority to fishing vessels. For example the british.
Why would the british consulate authorize an argentine grant of land???.
You have your opinion and views, but facts are facts. The islands are not self-governed. The UN still considers the islands under colonialism and the sovereignty dispute is not over and was not over in 1982.
Vernet did ask London for permission, fact,
Dec 14th, 2021 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain does not run the Falklands the islander do, fact
Britain never gave up the claim, fact,
the UN have no more interest in the Falklands , fact
Argentina was never in the game,it was Spain. France and Britain, fact,
Judge Jose,
Dec 14th, 2021 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Vernet did ask London for permission, fact”. When? how? Show proof.
“Britain does not run the Falklands the islander do, fact”. According to the UN, the islands are a non self-governing territory.
“Britain never gave up the claim, fact,”. Britain had no claim in a territory already settled and claimed. A territory Britain never controlled. A territory that Spain controlled totally until 1811.
“the UN have no more interest in the Falklands , fact”. What does it means?. Does it means the Islands are delisted from the colony list?. What makes you believe that?.
“Argentina was never in the game,it was Spain. France and Britain, fact,”. Britain was never in the game, France recognized spanish prior sovereignty rights Ceded the colony to the sole control of Spain for decades and Argentina was later independized from Spain.
Liberato - with respect to your earlier comment in which you state quitebfirmly thst I know nothing - sorry but you are quite wrong
Dec 14th, 2021 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was actually working in the Faculty of Medicine in Buenos Aires at that time. Two colleagues failed to come in one day. They have never been seen since. A third colleague living in Tigre had a visit from four men in a Ford Falcon who took his house apart - looking for subversive books ! So, not really the case that I know nothing.
About 6 years ago the taxi driver who took me into town from Ezeiza explained to me that the real.problem of those times was that not enough people disappeared ! So yes, you have a sort of democracy, yes terrible things happened in the past but sadly there are still plenty of your countrymen who would happily do it all again. Don't you ever just stop waving your bandera and ask - why don't all those Islanders want to join our great country ?
There is no doubt in my mind, that Blair lied and men got killed as a result. He should have been held to account.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the Falklands, the first British claim was in 1594. We arrived in 1765, and reclaimed. France had arrived the year before, but in December, 1766 the British gave them 6 months to leave. They left (I know). France was not there long enough to establish effective possession. Britain withdrew a garrison in 1774, but left British businessmen there (Britain's favoured method of colonization - ask India). We never left. Spain had never visited the archipelago until 1767. Spain, when it withdrew its garrison in 1811, only claimed the Island of Soledad. The only island that it could argue that it had established effective possession of. Spain, however, did not leave any businessmen behind. Spain effectively recognised British sovereignty in 1863.
Anyone see Argentina in any of that? No?
Possibly because Argentina was never in the game.
“ Britain claimed a territory already claimed and settled. And they were not there from 1700 but from 1833, when they invaded.”
Dec 14th, 2021 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0France colonised the East Falklands and didn’t make an explicit claim to all of them, Britain settled West Falkland and realised a year later “Oh sh*t the frogs are here!” After some money transfers Spain gained France’s portion of the Falklands (Something something Pope… Something something line on map) and tried to get Britain’s portion by trying to negotiate, Britain said no and a few years later thanks to American independence Britain voluntarily abandoned the islands but kept a plaque of claim there, by this time the Spanish port was long gone too.
So Liberato, history clearly shows you are wrong and that the treaty of Tordesillas was also fundamentally wrong and disgusting but hey, it wasn’t the British who murdered their way through South America (Or North America, the Americans did that one)
Britain withdrew a garrison, Zac, but we never left. Heard of 'hot bedding'? As the garrison's ship sailed out of the harbour of Port Egmont in 1774, the businessmen moved into Fort George.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/1767-to-1774.pdf
border rover, Your assumption when you said ”many of those condemning her disgraceful behaviour would be all in favour of such a punishment (been pushed out of the door of a plane over the South Atlantic)“. ”Plenty of your countrymen who would happily do it all again”. You are generalizing Argentina describing a kind of people that ive never met. I can do the same with you for hours.
Dec 14th, 2021 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If you trully were in Argentina, i doubt you have crossed the “many” people you assume would accept throughing out people of a plane to the South Atlantic. And what is worse, i would not come back as you did 6 years before.
Nevertheless, like i said earlier. Britain, awfull government but an amazing people.
Lorton, again with your theorie that the fishermens administered the islands?.Spain controlled the whole territory, destroyed Port Egmont and ordered to avoid new settlements. You are suggesting that the british fishermens kept Spain in Isla soledad too?.
Zaczac121, forget the british historial position or the pro-british view of the dispute. Or even your own view expressed in your comment. Here Lorton is trying to teach you his “new” theorie.
Cheers.
And you state the complete truth do you Liberato?
Dec 14th, 2021 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Not at all. My opinion is very debatable. Im not a jurist, or historian, not a novelist and not a lawer. But there are things that are not debatable. Like fishermens administering Malvinas in the british absence.
Dec 15th, 2021 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse -1The british official position is that the plaque left by britain in 1774 was enough to sustain their sovereignty claim, even if british diplomats in 1833 or its PM said the contrary. Lorton theorie goes beyond claiming that the fishermens not only administered the islands but that also contained the Spanish administration.
Its his opinion, and its fine, but not debatable.
Libby, if Spain had effective possession over the whole archipelago, why did they only claim the Island of Soledad in 1811? Documents are here -
Dec 15th, 2021 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/88740.pdf
Those British businessmen did not 'administer' the Islands, that was done from London, which set the bounties for the Southern Whale Fishery. What those businessmen did do, however, was to prevent Spain gaining effective control over all the archipelago.
You should read the 1789 Board of Trade inquiry. It makes the British position quite clear.
I can only insert one link, so I suggest that you add an initial 'h' to this
ttps://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/1775-to-1815.pdf
Port Egmont was a harbour and a harbour is a body of sheltered water. Cannot destroy sea.
Go learn.
Lorton: Original document of Spain Royal deed creating the government of the Malvinas Islands: (without https)
Dec 15th, 2021 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse -1://www.wikiwand.com/es/Felipe_Ruiz_Puente#/Gobernador_de_las_Malvinas
Here is a link with originals documents and its respective translation.
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/agn_-_malvinas_-_documentos_historicos.pdf
document3: “The king: Don Felipe Ruiz captain on my royal navy. Belonging to my Realm the Malvinas Islands where a french stablishment was built...”
document4: a letter to Felipe Ruiz Puente sending nine detained to serve their sentences working in the Malvinas Islands.
document9: Letter from Julián de Arriaga to the governor of
Malvinas requesting him to be sure that the british do not form a new stablishment.
Another link: Your own source: ://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/1767-to-1774.pdf page41: February 20th 1770 (spanish expell the british from Gran Malvinas)
, at Egmont harbour, after the storm has passed, Rubalcava writes to Hunt.
“Happening to come into this harbour, I was surprised to find in it a kind of settlement under the English flag, which was flying on shore, and supported by his Britannic Majesty's ships, yourself being commander in chief. As these dominions belong to his Catholic Majesty this procedure is contrary to the spirit of treaties, which do not allow of such intrusion into a foreign dominion, against all right; and therefore the subjects of the King of Great Britain have dared to violate the last peace...
So Spain expell the british from spanish dominions.
Again taking your own source of your last comment. I quote: “ El 7 del corriente llegó de las Malvinas la sumaca Carlota....”
There are 60 years of documents talking about “Las Malvinas” or the “Malvinas Islands” if you like to refers to the spanish exclusive dominions.
Libby, it's the final that counts. Not the heats.
Dec 15th, 2021 - 02:53 am - Link - Report abuse +2Spain left in 1811, claiming ONE island - Soledad.
That is a fact. A proven fact.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/88740.pdf
Liberato - I do rather resent the implication that I was not actually in Argentina. I first visited your country in 1968 and in fact iived there until 1971. I returned for short vists almost every year until 2019 and yes I met many people with very different views. The owner of a small pharmaceutical company explained to me that the most effective way to deal with workers striking would be to take a few of them round the back of the factory and shoot them. Not clear whether he ever did it but he certainly was sure it would teach the workers a lesson In the early 2000's I had a number of interactions with a group of military officers at the Escuela Superior Tecnica. Nice guys, proud of their institution but also keen to explain thst sometimes difficult decisions had to be taken for the “good of the country”, a reluctant acceptance that maybe things had gone a bit too far - but not that much. The students at the Esquela were in general rather more to the right of centre than the average university student.
Dec 15th, 2021 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse +1So, yes I fully accept that there are many decent Argentines who have not and do not support the many extreme actions taen in the past. On the other hand there is a significant number who quickly get overexcited about issues such as having the right badges on school uniforms, wearing the right T shirt and shouting about wicked imperialists occupying islands that in fact were never part ofArgentina.
There's a good old saying - It takes all sorts - Argentina certainly has a very wide mixture of all sorts !
Merry Christmas !
What a load of utter shite. Typical Nazi-derived bully boy tactics, suppress the undesirable truth and rewrite it with popular fiction and IF YOU ARGUE WE WILL KILL YOUR FAMILY.
Dec 15th, 2021 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Surprised they didn't go the whole hog and chuck her out of a chopper over the River Plate tbh.
Liberato
Dec 15th, 2021 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain is not Argentina, Spanish history it is irrelevant so far as Argentina is concerned and whatever claim Argentina thought it had to ‘Las Malvinas’, it relinquished in the Convention for settlement of 1850. Another fact for you.
The much older British claim has never been relinquished.
There is no way round the basic facts of history in this case. However much you go on about Iraq, it doesn’t change the history of the S. Atlantic.
The English Pirate
There is still time for that to happen. The flying Nun airline.
Lorton,
Dec 16th, 2021 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse -1quote:“Spain left in 1811, claiming ONE island”. Ok. It imply what?. That Spain recognized prior british rights? or that the west of the islands were res nulius? both?.
border rover, .About the owner of a small pharmaceutical company Im more than sure he felt very frustrated for the strikes, which is a very common headache for any citizen in Buenos Aires city that have to go to work, etc. But i dont think he is a killer. I dont know how other cities criminal rates are in comparisson, i feel very safe there every time i go as turist or for work. Of course always at day light.
About the Escuela Superior Técnica. Ive never heard of that kind of school for militaries, but never the less, The today armed forces are instructed in democratic values and has nothing to do with the militaries school in the seventies. Of course that is my opinion only. but dont take only my opinion, investigate in the internet. It is all there.
There is no democracy without those extremist, hippies, fascist, groupies, anarchists,etc. The liberty of expression and opinion creates many many different views on anything.
In Britain, there is an elitist school where bully is the common coin. discrimination like felt Dillibe Onyeama, the competition between boris and Cameron. Im sure you did not went to that school.
But again, im not trying to deminish the British. We can talk about New York if you like. You can be punched or insulted in New York street just becouse.
Pugol-H, “Spain is not Argentina”. Ok. Lets take out Argentina from the picture. If Spain have sovereignty rights over all the territory. Then, it doesnt matter if you believe in uti possidetis or if you dont believe Argentinas exist. If Spain have sovereignty rights over all the territory it means the british can not defy the rights of Spain, Argentina or who ever continued to administer the islands. unless you believe the british claimed the islands to be res nullius.
Libby, confused as always.
Dec 16th, 2021 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse +2On the day they left, the Spaniards nailed their claim to ONE island onto the Chapel door. Undoubtedly, recognition of the accord signed in 1771 (with half an eye on the treaty of 1809 perhaps?) which left Spain in the East and Britain in the West.
Regardless of what you think they should have done, or what they were entitled to, that is what they did. Fact.
Presumably, those Spaniards had a better idea of the reality that they were living in, than you do.
And again, I must remind you that Argentina is not Spain and that Spain stopped claiming the Island of Soledad after 1863.
Lorton, as usuall, you have a very “meticulously” historic line. Your assumption that the accord of 1771 was more than a restitution of the port its clear evidence you ignore the text of that agreement. You ignore the opinions of your governments at that time too. without to mention that it would have been the biggest prize for Britain having the spanish recognized british rights over the land.
Dec 17th, 2021 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse -2The 1771 declaration, was to correct a violent act. Buccarelly reacted to the verborragic of Hunt.you know pretty well that Spain would had preferred to go to war before recognize an inch of british right to the spanish territory. So it was not a “mutual” reservation of sovereignty in any way. So, not about the spanish in the East and Britain in the West. Spain was totally against any kind of vintication of it and Britain only wanted to be compensated for the insult. And if you see the text it is very well expresed.
That argument was underestood in the negotiations to avoid war and even well expressed by the british PM the duke of Wellington in 1829, when he said:”I have perused the enclosed papers respecting the Falkland Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all those islands. The Convention certainly goes no further than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.”
When he said the convention, he was referring about the 1771 declarations.
William Pitt when stating in the British Parliament, on January 25th 1771, that the Masseran Declaration “appeared to be an ignominious compromise. It was no satisfaction; no reparation. The right was not secured, and even the restitution was incomplete; that Port Egmont alone is restored, not Falkland´s Island”.
In 1774, the spanish governor of Malvinas took orders to avoid new settlements on the part of Britain. Destroyed Port Egmont, took the british plaque and patroll them.
So,I wonder when did you think Spain recognized sovereignty rights over Trinidad Island?
You know pretty well that Spain would had preferred to go to war”
Dec 17th, 2021 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your opinion or verifiable facts?
A reservation of Spanish rights had originally been proposed in December 1770 during the negotiations, … but at British insistence this was removed from the final text of the Anglo-Spanish agreement. The agreement as actually signed in London on 22 January 1771 merely stated:... that the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise
to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland's Islands.
In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute both countries' rights were left untouched, Britain's as well as Spain's.
'The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Palmerston, ... ... On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, he said:
“... a claim had been made on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. GB had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to BA what had been refused to Spain.” “The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty's just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by UK Government. Signals of possession …were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Libby
Dec 18th, 2021 - 06:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have you not read the 1771 Convention? Port Egmont was the body of water surrounded by three islands – Saunders, Kepple and the Great Malouine. All of that was restored in 1771.
BUT you are still missing the point. Or attempting to avoid it, which is more likely.
In 1811, Spain claimed the Island of Soledad ONLY.
Whether or not you believe that that was the right thing to do, is irrelevant. That is what Spain did. All that Spain claimed. A claim that Spain maintained until 1863. The views of others, including Wellington, are irrelevant to what Spain did in 1811. We have the documents, remember?
And yet again, I have to remind you, that Argentina is not Spain.
The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
Dec 18th, 2021 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...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.”
Terence Hill.
Dec 18th, 2021 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There can be never a double interpretation to that declaration where Spain declares that the devolution of the fort and port cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands. It gives back the fort and port.
Spain reserved its right saying that the devolution of the fort and port do not means that britain have any sovereignty right at all.
The correct response by Britain would have been a similar reserve of their “rights” to counterclaim the spanish.
The british acceptance textually says: .“His Catholic Majesty, having authorized the Prince of Masserano, his Ambassador Extraordinary, to offer, in his Majesty's name, to the King of Great Britain, a satisfaction for the injury done to his Britannick Majesty by dispossessing him of the port and fort of Port Egmont.”
There is no british counter claim, nor reservation of sovereignty of any kind. And thats exactly what coincide with what your Lord Prime Minister said.
Lorton and Terence, you have a huge gap between 1774 and 1829. Before 1774, Britain was not the discoveror of the islands, were not the first to claim and settled and did not even controlled Trinidad Island. Since 1774 Britain claims that there was a flag and a plaque sustaining sovereignty...but that were destroyed and taken the moment the british left by Spain. Being this last one, the only nation that controlled the whole area and controlled that no new nations settled there. Including Britain.
The british had no doubt of what Spain claimed since the first royal deed of Spain, not to mention all the succeding governors and administrations. The expulsion itself of Britain is proof enough that Spain considered all the islands in its dominion. The destructions and the order not to permit any foreign settlement are also proof enough of spanish controll and claim of all the territory.
What acts of sovereignty claimed Britain until 1829?. They claimed discovery and occupation. In 1829!!
“Spain reserved its right saying that the devolution of the fort and port do not means that Britain have any sovereignty right at all.”
Dec 18th, 2021 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sheer sophistry, as Spain did everything it could to placate a war bound GB.
The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.”
http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention
Terence Hill, “Sheer sophistry, as Spain did everything it could to placate a war bound GB.” The negotiations took a lot. Britain did not wanted to talk about sovereignty only the “reparation” of a violent act. But Spain could not do that simple reparation without defending the spanish sovereignty rights putting other possessions like Cabo de Hornos or Chiloe at risk of a new british adventure. So Spain would go directly to war if the declaration did not included the restoration of the fort and port with a reserve to spanish prior rights.
Dec 18th, 2021 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0quote:“there was an additional secret article”. Ahhh secret article!!!. Like the secret article that Britain would leave Port Egmont in the 1771 declaration?. But why would you leave if you says that the convention of 1771 regarded the “...the dispute both countries' rights were left untouched...” as you suggested.
Are you going to deny the british offered to leave?.
Still not getting it Libby........ SPAIN ONLY CLAMED ONE ISLAND IN 1811.
Dec 18th, 2021 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's about as simple as I can get it. Six words and a number.
Try to think about it, and to stop avoiding the issue with irrelevant distraction.
And again, Argentina is not Spain.
;-)
“Ahhh secret article!!!”
Dec 19th, 2021 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Peace of Utrecht which shows it was impossible for Argentina to have inherited the Islands.
The Nootka Convention puts the kibosh on any and all further claims.
While your Convention of Peace 1850 indicates there is no issue over the Islands.
Buenos Ayres, December 27th 1849
To the Honourable Chamber of Representatives
The Government, in discharge of its duty, has the honour of presenting to your enlightened examination the following state documents. The confidential correspondence held with H.E. the Minister Plenipotentiary appointed to reside in this Capital, Henry Southern Esquire. representing the settlement of differences between the Argentine Confederation and Great Britain, originated from the armed intervention of England and France in the Plate.
It was issued, after Her Majesty had informed herself of the literal terms of the draft of the Convention of Peace. Besides the adjustment and conclusion of treaties of peace, without the the previous consultation of Parliament, is the direct and inherent prerogative of the British Crown. For these very special reasons, the Government should now proceed to ratify on its part the convention of peace that has been signed, should you deign to authorize it for the purpose.
It respectfully requests that you will be pleased to take this matter into your high consideration, and decide upon it, should it be possible for you, during the first days of January 1850.
The Government feels complacency in observing, in its opinion, in the documents it submits to you, a very important series of steps in advance, towards a happy and reciprocally honourable re-establishment of the relations of cordial friendship, between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, according to the mutual desires of both countries.
God Preserve Your HON. Corporation
JUAN M. DE ROSA FELIPE ARANA.
orton, 1811?.Its laughable that you think that Britain had any right whatsoever by 1811. If you are going to ignore every one of the spanish royal deeds, administrative meassures taken, topology, orders, etc. you have to remember that britain only once protested for the spanish presence and it was in 1770 when the spanish discovered the “hidden” settlement. you need to remember too that, not only there was not a single british administration in Malvinas, but that it have never claimed nor protested for spanish administrations. They did not even protested for argentine admistrations until 1829.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0But, i underestand you need to fill the 60 years gap. So you tried with:
- british fishermens “administering” the colony by Britain.
- you tried “assuming” that the hoisting of the flag and plaque in 1774 was enough to regain british “sovereignty rights” in 1833.
- You tried by ignoring years of governors, royal deeds, patrolls, etc but taking in account an exit in 1811 when the spanish had absolutely sovereignty over the land and sea. (as if Britain had a counter-claim).
-You tried ignoring British Prime Minister that explained having readed all records that the convention of 1771 was only to restore the fort and port.
-you tried refusing to accept that in the convention of 1771 it textually says that the
engagement of his said Catholic Majesty, to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands... Assuming it protected both claims of sovereignty.
So if you dont believe in Royal deeds, Prime Ministers, conventions, international law, then whats next for us to discuss?. Do you want we go back discussing how british fishermens administered the islands in the 60 years gap?.
Terence Hill
Lets talk about Peace of Utrecht and convention of peace. But first the first. Are you going to deny the british offered to leave in 1771?.
“Are you going to deny the British offered to leave in 1771?”
Dec 19th, 2021 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Shifting the burden
Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Debate: Falkland Islands, return of - Debatepedia
1771 - Without French support the Spanish back down and the Ambassador to Britain, Prince Masseran, delivers a declaration stating that the Spanish King “disavows the violent enterprise of Buccarelli,” and promises “to restore the port and fort called Egmont, with all the artillery and stores, according to the inventory.”
“Actions Speak Louder Than Words “
“ … means that Britain have any sovereignty right at all.”
Hmm Britain, the pre-eminent naval power and tottering Spain, which had to be liberated from Napoleon.
SPAIN ONLY CLAIMED ONE ISLAND IN 1811 - SOLEDAD
Dec 19th, 2021 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse +1IN 1811 SPAIN ONLY CLAIMED ONE ISLAND - SOLEDAD
ONLY ONE ISLAND WAS CLAIMED BY SPAIN IN 1811 - SOLEDAD
I would have thought it easy enough even for you, Libby (and they used capital letters in 1811).
We can prove that Spain only claimed one island in 1811.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/88740.pdf
So you tell me, Libby - WHY?
Unfortunately Roger no matter how much evidence you present it will never be accepted by some because it goes against everything they have been taught and indoctrinated with,
Dec 19th, 2021 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse +2Terence Hill, Im trying to look in your comment to find where it says that Britain had any sovereignty right but didnt find anywhere.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course Spain was desperate to avoid war. Spain and France was not prepared for war. Britain did not wanted the convention to incorporate other topic than the reparation of the violent expulsion. And Spain could not sign anything that did not save spanish right over all the territory, becouse they knew the british could do the same in other spanish possessions. Thats why negotiations took so long.
Lord North claimed that the islands worth nothing to them and if the spanish agree to placate the English hardliners by restoring Port Egmont to England, North would privately agree to abandon the settlement later when the domestic furor had blown over.
Masseran´s declaration mentions no legal compensation or reestablishment of rights of sovereignty; it only refers to the return of possession, not the restitution of the archipelago as a whole, not of Isla Trinidad/Saunders Island (where the British settlement was established) or nearby Gran Malvina/West Falkland, but only “the port and the fort named Egmont”.
1713 Peace Treaty of Utrecht: The UK have never used Utrecht to legitimate the colony. Read article VIII. But not from Pascoe and Pepper.
quote:” The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI.....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.””
SO, you are assuming that Malvinas was spanish territory????.
“SO, you are assuming that Malvinas was Spanish territory”
Dec 19th, 2021 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Lord Palmerston, On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, “... a claim had been made on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. GB had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to BA what had been refused to Spain.”
No I’m confirming it was never considered Argentine territory, as per Juan Rosa, December 27th 1849, address to congress on the Convention of Peace.
Terence Hill, quoting what you said about the Nootka Convention, i ask you again: are you assuming that Malvinas was spanish territory????. Beocuse you said ”...other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements...””
Dec 19th, 2021 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It’s funny reading the attempts to justify historic ownership on both sides when the issue isn’t about the past it’s about the present and the future. It’s not history it’s the people. Stop trying to claim territory for colonisation, the people on the islands want to be with Britain, it doesn’t matter their ancestry since they’ve been there for a good two centuries now, they are sufficiently different from being British that their voice is valid to decide the fate of their home.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I don’t understand why people such as Liberato think that they have a say on their home while denying others they don’t like the same right. It’s disgusting.
Zaczac121, quote1: “ the people on the islands want to be with Britain”. Actually, they want to be with Britain becouse they are british born. 98% of the people who lives there are of british origins according to their own “census”. And by british born im talking about people born in Britain, europe.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -2quote2:“ ... they are sufficiently different from being British that their voice is valid to decide the fate of their home.” Actually, except with the word camp to describe farms, not even the turists gets the difference. May be becouse they talked with people like:
The Royal Falkland Islands Police, Jeff McMahon
Fire chief Gardner Fiddes CMgr FCMI
Director of Emergency Services, Andy Bell
Falklands Chief Justice James Lewis
Governor of the Falkland Islands, Nigel Phillips
Falkland Islands Senior Magistrate Sarah Whitby
Director of Emergency Services and Island Security and Principal Immigration Officer Ms P amelaTrevillion
Director of Education Marie Horton
Director of Health and Social Services David O’Neill
These people that runs the colonial regime were not born in Malvinas but in Britain, in Europe. Without adding the military personnel and their families that are also imported from Britain, in Europe.
Most of the private lands belongs to a feudal company called FIH, based in London. That also have the monopoly of retailing, housing, inssurence, financial, etc.
They have Britain imported teachers that teach british imported curricula (with some regionalization of course).
They have Britain imported laws, with Britain imported lawers that are judged by british imported judges and magistrates.
They have Britain imported medics, with britain imported nurses.
They have a “Legislative Assembly”, composed by a mayoritie of Britain imported “legislative members”.
They have Britain imported Firefighters with Britain imported fire trucks.
They have britain imported police officers with Britain imported police cars.
The have a Britain imported military base, ETC.
So Argentina isn’t made up of people with origins from Spain, with Spanish laws, Spanish curriculum (with regionalisation ofcourse)?
Dec 19th, 2021 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just because about 10-30 people are “imported” (imported dehumanises these people who simply want to work there to make the Falklands batter) doesn’t make the rest of the 2,970 people invalid or less than human so as to not gain basic freedoms you are allowed to enjoy.
I ask you again: are you assuming that Malvinas was Spanish territory????”
Dec 19th, 2021 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is there in the word “no” you don’t understand?
I’m guided by two Anglo-Spanish treaties. The opinion Juan Rosa and a ‘peace treaty’ that has the legal effect of :
“LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.”
Thus, any Argentine pretense is as dead as the dodo.
Zaczac121, “So Argentina isn’t made up of people with origins from Spain, with Spanish laws...”. I have tried many ways to explain the colonial situation of the islands, and the only form of colonialism that goes through your head when i say colonialism is the one where a people is subjugated.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Im very dissapointed to hear your response that, instead of correcting me saying that Jeff McMahon was not born in Britain but in one of those 60 nationalities the colonial regime claims they have.
Im saying “imported” as a way of expression. English is not my native language. But im not “dehumanising” these people. They just live there. What i think is that you are “humanising” (if there is such word) colonialism. And it would be ok if you humanise a colony composed by a people under subjugation by a foreign power, but not where a nation in europe occupy a territory and vast areas of the South Atlantic and the Antartic claiming that 2000 british peole wants to remain british.
They are not 10-30 people. So when you said “ they have a say on their home while denying others they don’t like the same right. It’s disgusting.”. Who are the others?, People that came from Britain?. The share holders of the FIC?.
May be im mistaken and there is a people with self determination rights there. But as the islands are completed managed by people born in Britain, indoctrinating them since little boys with british language, laws, culture, etc they cant really express how they hearts bits for Argentina.
Terence, then you are contradicting yourself when you said:“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”.
you claim the islands been occupied by Spain.
Argentine unilaterally resorting to the use of militia in occupying previously declared British territory, in the face of British diplomatic protests. Allows the British a freehand in 1833, to enforce their established treaty rights.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Liberato, what changes the situation if Argentina, a Spanish country takes over a British English-speaking land that doesn’t want to be part of Argentina? How is that not a “colonial situation” this is what I don’t get, the people WANT to be with Britain therefore it can’t really be a “colonial situation” as there were no natives! Argentina would be the foreign nation colonising an inhabited territory for economic gains.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terence Hill, There are many things to talk about the Nootka Convention. But if you recognize the islands being occupied by Spain, it is stipulated 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. Which means the British could not form a new settlement, which means the sovereignty relied on Spain, which means that the “fishermens administering the islands for britain” theorie of Lorton goes to the toilet. Wich means that by 1811 the uk can only claim the land to be res nullius. Which means that when it was signed the british recognized spanish sovereignty rights. Which means that no matter if you believe in uti possidetis or not, the british had no claims to make other than res nullius.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And in adition, if another nation did so, the UK could form settlements but it does not grant sovereignty rights to a territory already recognized as spanish occupied land.
Zaczac121, “what changes the situation if Argentina, a Spanish country takes over a British English-speaking land that doesn’t want to be part of Argentina?”. It can change or not depending on a possible, probable, future negotiation but Hong Kong did it with a population of more than 7 millon souls. How is Gibraltar or the US cities in the border with Mexico?. Miami?.
So your idea is to expel the people who have lived there for generations and centuries and replace them with Argentinians? Isn’t that just colonialism?
Dec 19th, 2021 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1No answer then, Libby?
Dec 19th, 2021 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps in 1811, the Spanish knew their situation better than you?
Oh, and in case you forgot, Argentina is not Spain.
“The British had no claims to make other than res nullius.”
Dec 19th, 2021 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No they don’t, please keep displaying your appalling ignorance.
“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.”
Zaczac121, the people that live in Hong Kong, Gibraltar, US cities or Miami were expelled?. How old are you?. You are creating your own terror movie. To be clear, look to what you write and look to what i wrote.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no way you will ever underestand colonialism, becouse you were been educated by the colonial power.
Argentina wants the same the UN wants, which is sovereignty negotiations to solve once and for all the sovereignty dispute. That sovereignty negotiation does not means a direct transfer of sovereignty, it means simple dialogue, or arbitration, etc.
Lorton, What was the situation for the spanish in 1811?. If you are more clear i will underestand you. You are claiming that Spain recognized sovereignty rights to Britain?.
By the way, the british plaque taken from Buenos Aires in 1806 & 1807, worthed no mention by Britain to their supposedly colony in Malvinas being destroyed?. If the question had not been settled in 1771, here was an excellent opportunity to settle it in their favour.
Terence Hill, Lets use the logic, forget about the United Provinces. If you believe that Britain can form a new settlement becouse “another power” formed a new settlement on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain, then, you are assuming that Spain was the sovereign of the territory.
If Britain had sovereignty rights, neither the spanish, nor the United Province no one could have been there while signing the nootka convention. Becouse it was “british” territory. See my point?.
“Lets use the logic, forget about the United Provinces.”
Dec 19th, 2021 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory ...”
Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
“...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...”
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994.
”Not surprising that 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
Seventh revised edition. Peter Malanczuk
US cities on the Mexican border, Miami had Americans imported into them before the US took them over. Gibraltar did indeed have English people move over (the Spanish weren’t kicked out but sorta merged) and last time I checked Hong Kong’s democratically-leaning culture is being suppressed while Beijing is sending in Han Mandarin-speaking Chinese to replace the traditionally Cantonese-speaking Hong Kongers.
Dec 19th, 2021 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing Argentina sees as a “solution” to the sovereignty dispute is complete unilateral control over the islands.
The idea that Argentina will leave the islanders alone is completely false since the Argies only see the islanders as “colonists” despite many of the islanders (not the temporary workers like you keep going on about) being from families that have lived there since the 1800s.
Still avoiding the question, Libby?
Dec 19th, 2021 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Simple enough - Why did Spain only claim one island in 1811?
I have an answer - that Spain was recognising the status quo of 1771. You dispute my answer, so you need to provide a counter argument as to why Spain only claimed Soledad island in 1811.
Britain was at war with Spain both in 1780 and 1806/07. Parties to a war do not complain about destruction caused during the conflict. That would be ridiculous.
Try harder Libby, you are looking stupid yet again.
Terence Hill, So you got it and deviate the toic to conquest right?.
Dec 20th, 2021 - 03:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Zaczac121, quote:“The only thing Argentina sees as a “solution” to the sovereignty dispute is complete unilateral control over the islands.”. Of course, that is correct. Like the UK sees the complete opposite. thats why negotiations are for.
Lorton “ that Spain was recognising the status quo of 1771”. And by status quo of 1771 you refers to? both nations recognising mutually their right?. I dont know why you always wants to play mistery here. But no, Spain did not recognized Britain a thing.
In the declaration of 1771 without going to describe all the negotiations that took place and all the offering. Spain was reluctant to only restore Port Egmont without making it clear it was not a recognition of any kind but a wrongdoing.
-The sole fact that Spain made a reservation of its rights in the declaration is the first proof that Spain continued to consider all the islands its property and not for Britain.
-Another proof is the complete destruction of Port Egmont, also with anything it was there, taking the flag and the plaque the british had left in Port Egmont. I remind you that there was no war between Britain and Spain at that moment.
-Another proof is that in 1774 the Spanish government in Madrid was giving orders to the Governor of Malvinas to ensure that the British would not return to the islands. A note dated April 9th, 1774 written by Julián de Arriaga, Secretary of the State of the Indies: “observe prudently and carefully whether the British do in fact abandon said settlement, without reestablishing a new one in the vicinity, and that once you have verified the fact in the terms agreed upon, from time to time, take the necessary precautions to ensure that the British do not return to the area,”.
-Britain said nothing at the time it signed the convention of Nootka Sound, which by virtue of its Article VI prevented Britain from settling the Malvinas Islands. Occupied only by Spain.
So?1811?.
Still avoiding the question, Libby.
Dec 20th, 2021 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why did Spain only claim ONE island in 1811.
I say that it was because the Spanish recognised that the British rights to the western Islands were better than theirs. That they had failed to gain effective possession of the whole archipelago and that the 1771 accord clearly identified the Gran Malouine as British albeit with a question reserved.
“The Prince of Masseran declares, at the same time, in the name of the King his master, that the engagement of his said Catholic Majesty, to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought any wise to affect the QUESTION of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.” (Masserano)
So what reason do you give for the proven fact that Spain only claimed ONE island in 1811?
As for the rest.
1) Reluctant or otherwise, the situation in 1771 was returned to the way it had been in 1769. Spain in the East. Britain in the West. That is why it was called a 'restoration'.
2) Spain's reservation is about the question of rights (see above). Read it properly, if you can. You should note that it was written by Rochford, and described as a 'concession' in 1789.
3) in 1780, when Fort George (not Port Egmont) & Jasons Town was destroyed (supposedly), Britain and Spain were at war - declared 21 June 1779.
4) Spanish orders to do something are not evidence that the something was achieved or attained. Notice the word 'observe' - because all they did between 1774 and 1776 was watch the harbour.
5) The Nootka Convention did not apply to the Falklands, and if it had, the term 'adjacent' would have eliminated any application to the archipelago. Not considered 'adjacent' in 1771 or 1790. I suggest that you read more. Try Fisch who also concludes that Art.6 was not applicable.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/the-falkland-islands-in-the-european-treaty-system-1493-1833-jorg-fisch-1983.pdf
;-)
Lorton, “ the 1771 accord clearly identified the Gran Malouine as British albeit with a question reserved.” What??? The Prince of Masseran declares, at the same time, in the name of the King his master, that the engagement of his said Catholic Majesty, to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought any wise to affect the QUESTION of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.”
Dec 20th, 2021 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is Spain reserving its own sovereignty right on Gran Malvina while restoring only the port and fort no matter the play you are making with the word question.
1)“... the situation in 1771 was returned to the way it had been in 1769”. Which means that Spain does not recognize any british sovereignty right.
2) using pascoe and pepper?. It has many errors of events and bad interpretations. And there is no sovereignty right to a second place colonizer.
3) On January 24th, 1776, pilot Juan Pascual Callexas withdrew the plaque affixed by the British and sent it to Buenos Aires. On June 30th, 1777, José Gálvez, Minister of the Indies, sent a Royal Order to the Viceroy of the Río de la Plata for him to “proceed to burn the buildings of all types that may be completed or started, doing the same with the materials that are gathered”. There was no war at that moment.
4)withdrew the plaque in 1776, destroyed the settlement and controlled that the british did not return. What else is it needed?.
5)In your link says that if you considers the islands as a whole it was indeed,valid.
Libby
Dec 20th, 2021 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is Spain reserving a question. Nothing more.
1) Correct in that the dispute with Spain remained unresolved 1771 and 1811, when Spain claimed ONLY one Island - Soledad. A fact you have not yet explained.
2) P&P? I haven't used P&P. Spain was the third place colonizer. France left, after being instructed to do so by McBride in December 1766.
3) 1776 was an act of minor damage & theft. 1777? Nothing happened. The order preceded the declaration of war, but it was never carried out. Probably conditional upon the anticipated declaration of war. A second order was recieved in Buenos Aires on August 15, 1779.
4) Plate stolen in 1776, no destruction until 1780 when the two nations were at war. Acts of war, are not acts of sovereignty. Nor are petty acts of theft, when the thief sneaks away.
5) In my link, Fisch says that art.6 of the 1790 Convention does NOT apply :-
”Contrary to what is usually asserted, article 6 of the Nootka Sound Convention,.. did not apply to the Falkland Islands.” (Fisch 1983 pp.120-123)
You remain confused. Try reading more
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/1775-to-1815.pdf
“So you got it and deviate the toic to conquest right?.”
Dec 20th, 2021 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0No just a natural progression of evolving legal rights, according to the dictates of international law.
Not been on this site for a while but I see that “Liberato” is still talking utter bollox about what happened or might have happened 200 years ago.
Dec 21st, 2021 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse +2I mean, who cares? The world has changed an awful lot since then.
“Liberato” accuses zaczac121 of being educated by the 'colonial masters', well I wasn't and I agree with zaczac121 that the only people who have 'rights' in the matter are the Falkland Islanders themselves. I don't give two funkies mucks about where they were actually born any more than I care about where Argentines were born.
Argentina has absolutely no say in the matter. Time for them to grow up and stop acting like 5 year olds.
You may note that I have put inverted commas around “Liberato” because it is obvious that the last thing he is interested in is Liberty.
Sometimes Hong Kong is mentioned as an example when Britain turned a territory over without asking the population concerned. That was of course not the best example of democracy and self determination. But the situation was quite different. 1) The greatest part of H.K. was the so called “New Territories”. which was only leased from China for a period of 99 years. So the U.K was obliged to turn it back to China anyhow. 2) The majority of the population of H.K. was/is ethnic Chinese. 3) The Peoples Republic of China is a military superpower equipped with nuclear weapons and a one-party Communist dictatorship. It would have been utterly risky to try to not follow the Convention of 1898.
Dec 21st, 2021 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +3When it comes to the F.I. there are no such “problems”. No part is leased from Argentina. The population is not Argentine or Spanish-speaking. Argentina has no military power to menace the U.K. So: F.I. is not H.K. and Argentina is not the P.R.C. So in this case democracy and self determination can rule.
Lorton,
Dec 21st, 2021 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Port Egmont was not located in Soledad and the restitution of the fort and port was made making the reservations of spanish right to it.
2)Your link was signed by Graham Pasco. Anyway, nope, France left after the ceremony of traspassing the colony to Spain. Britain had no right to be there. The british expedition was hidden.
3) minor damage and theft?. So as to not having a complaint for the supposedly damage to british property?. by the fishermens?.
4) The plaque and the order of destruction were made under no war time.
5) But Julius Goebel and even Pascoe And Pepper recognise that the Treaty in question applied to the Falklands/Malvinas and that consequently Great Britain undertook not to occupy the islands. Pascoe, Graham and Pepper, Peter, op. cit., p. 8..
darragh, you have no shame at all. No one is telling you what to think or not. I dont care where a people is born, but if the islands have a population of a 98% of british origins and its passport says That they are british. They cant says they are not british, or making a referendum to ask british people if they would like to continue to be british to occupy millons of square kilometers in the South Atlantic and the Antartic. Its shamefull. Its no difference to ask the British Antartic Survey if they would like to be british or not. And more shamefull is to try to dehumanize Argentina or argentines like me while Britain have failed to convince their closest ally and the United Nations of it.
Swede, what you are saying is that it doesnt matter the self-determination right. So regardless that the people in Hong Kong have born and lived there under british rule, even in a terrotory ceded to perpetuity to the UK, have to be transferred to China without even been consulted. Is that what you are saying?. And becouse China have nuclear weapons?.
Im trying to stablish priorities for Britain regarding Hong Kong:
-Nuclear weapons
-Territorial integrity.
-Self-determination.
Is that so?.
“People in Hong Kong … to be transferred to China without even been consulted.”
Dec 21st, 2021 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you a just being deliberately obtuse?
Just like any other property rental, tenancy doesn’t confer ownership.
Terence Hill “tenancy doesn’t confer ownership.” . So, you are saying that ownership goes before than the self determination right?.
Dec 21st, 2021 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You are saying that ownership goes before than the self-determination?”
Dec 21st, 2021 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, otherwise the UN would have condemned the transfer. Since you can provide no precedent for your position, and the nations of the world have no problem with issue. I guess you're just a lonely little petunia, as Chinese citizens by their very citizenship are considered to have exercised their political rights.
“Before the United Nations' adoption of resolution 2908 (XXVII) on 2 November 1972, The People's Republic of China vetoed the former British colony of Hong Kong's right to self-determination on 8 March 1972. This sparked several nations' protest along with Great Britain's declaration on 14 December that the decision is invalid.”
Terence Hill, If you says that ownership goes before the self-determination right, then you are saying that Argentina (that do not recognize british sovereignty rights) is correct in not recognize the islanders at least until the sovereignty dispute is over. Ergo, The UN is right to when it recognize there is a sovereignty dispute, in not recognizing any self- determination right in the islanders until they know who is the owner of the islands. And the USA is also right in recognizing only a de facto british administration without taking sides regarding the sovereignty until the sovereignty dispute is over. Am i right?.
Dec 21st, 2021 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Libby, some rambling nonsense there. Orders are irrelevant, its the carrying out of them that counts. The destruction of Fort George was during a war. No amount of distortion by you can change that reality. History can be proven.
Dec 21st, 2021 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But all you nonsense remains irrelevant to the central point, that Spain only claimed one Island in 1811.
Why Libby, why did Spain only claim the Island of Soledad in 1811?
Here is the link to Fisch again, who confirms that Art.6 of Nootka did not apply to the Falklands. No mention of Pascoe that I can see. Goebel has long been refuted.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/the-falkland-islands-in-the-european-treaty-system-1493-1833-jorg-fisch-1983.pdf
Fisch is reliant on the following.
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“HC Deb 07 February 1983 vol 36 c275W 275W
§Mr. Dalyell asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any United Kingdom obligations under the treaty of Nootka Sound in relation to former Spanish colonies.
§Mr. Onslow Under article 6 of the Nootka Sound convention 1790, Britain and Spain agreed not to make any settlement on the eastern or western coasts of South America, or on the adjacent islands to the south, already held by Spain. However, the convention was terminated in 1795 as a result of the war between Britain and Spain. In 1811 Spain evacuated the Falkland Islands and abandoned them, so that, although the convention was revived in 1814, it could not then be taken to apply to the Falkland Islands.”
Apparently although it was identical in content to earlier versions, the government considers it of ‘no effect’ due to Spanish withdrawal from the Islands.
You haven't actually read it, have you Terrence?
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0”The meaning of a final clause (Art.6) was more difficult to grasp ... (Art.6 quoted) ... The article contained a reciprocal prohibition to form settlements on the South American coasts and on the adjacent islands to the south of the existing Spanish settlements. This could only apply to Southern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, to the south of the southernmost Spanish establishments. If settlements on islands were taken into account, the
area was restricted to the stretches south of 51º 40' south, the latitude of the Spanish settlement on the Falklands. On the mainland, the southernmost Spanish place was at that time Puerto Deseado, at 47º 44' on the Atlantic coast. Thus the extent of the provision was extremely limited, although at first sight it seemed to contain a general prohibition to settle. It came down to a mutual abandonment of attempts to gain control over the Strait of Magellan and Cape Horn. ... Article 6 sheds light on another controversial point. It speaks
of “those parts of the same Coasts” (i.e. Of the “Eastern and Western Coasts of South America”) “and of the Islands adjacent, which are already occupied by Spain.” Nothing in these words allows the conclusion that there was a continuous Spanish occupation of all the South American coasts right down to Patagonia. ... In any case it is difficult to see in the clause a British recognition of a Spanish claim to all the South American coasts and islands... The situation was kept open – and this was in all probability done on purpose. ... Contrary to what is usually asserted, article 6 of the Nootka Sound Convention,.. did not apply to the Falkland Islands“
Fisch disagrees with Goebel.
Pascoe disagrees with Fisch.
I disagree with Pascoe, who argues that:-
“.. the Falklands were no longer a single unit – Spain’s rights in one part of the islands did
not confer rights in the rest, ...”
But then Spain ONLY claimed ONE island in 1811.
Lorton, It is you the only one saying that Spain claimed one island in 1811. I cant refute what i dont know. The plaque was left on British Hands and as the british plaque (that Britain recovered in the invasions of Buenos Aires), there is not a single photo of them.
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0even when there are photos of the document that named the first spanish governor of Malvinas in 1767. Letters of him,etc.
But im going to respond it with your own link, which, even if i find it particularly cut and pasted with many of your interventions to clear “your” point of view (as if the lector couldnt think for itself). However:
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/1775-to-1815.pdf
In page 131, where it is described the event of the spanish plaque, the orders were not to abandon Malvinas, but to abandon the settlement of Puerto Soledad. And i quote:
((”this Port [of Isla de Soledad de Malvinas] 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 (sic), 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.” ”
Take a note that it ends says verigying that in it or in any other port of SAID ISLANDS!!!!.
So the abandonment was to the port of Puerto Soledad. And if you have any more doubts, read your own source or you can read the 37 years of naming governors, letters, royal deeds, etc that specify Malvinas in plural. Even if we take all british documents they will agree with me in that Spain always claimed sovereignty for all the territory.
Terence Hill, Again changing the topic?. No more doubts regarding Hong Kong?.
No more space to respond you sorry.
Still confused Libby? I begin to suspect that your problem is reading comprehension.
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse +1The Order =
“Prior to verifying the abandonment of the establishment that you are leaving, nail in the place that you consider most appropriate the coat of arms of Spain, if it wasn't already there, and write in the proper place, not exposed to the elements, with uppercase letters the following - “This island with its port, buildings, dependencies and everything else inside belongs to the sovereignty of Sr Don Fernando 7th, legitimate King of Spain, and the Indies and the date” - having written such august name and (posted) in several places of the establishment, this act to be verified by both the captain and the chaplain to give it all the possible solemnity; everything as agreed in the War Council celebrated today in the house of Sr Governor of that place. … Jose Maria Salasar”
The notice from the documentary evidence -
“ESTA ISLA CON SUS PUERTOS, EDIFICIOS, DEPENDENCIAS Y QUANTO CONTIENE PERTENECE A LA SOBERANÍA DEL SR. D. FERNANDO VII REY DE ESPAÑA Y SUS INDIAS, SOLEDAD DE MALVINAS
7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén.”
THIS ISLAND WITH ITS PORTS, BUILDINGS, UNITS AND CONTENTS BELONGS TO
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF SR. D. FERNANDO VII KING OF SPAIN AND THE INDIES,
SOLEDAD OF MALUINAS 7 February 1811 Governor Paul Guillén.
ESTA ISLA.
THIS ISLAND
ONE island, Libby - Soledad. The Spanish did not have any other settlement there. Your attempt to distort the reality is, at best, amusing, as it reveals your desperation.
What did Goebel say? “And thus the islands were once again abandoned to the elements.”
Destefani? “The same inscription was placed on the doors of the thirty-odd buildings. A memorandum was prepared making reference to all this and was duly signed by Governor Guillen, Manuel Moreno and the Vicar of the Islands, Juan Canosa, dated February 13th, 1811 in the colony of Soledad de Malvinas.”
THE COLONY OF SOLEDAD DE MALVINAS
Do try harder, Libby
1811 – January 8th, at a meeting of the Junta Militar Asesora in Montevideo, attended by Gaspar de Vigodet, it is decided that the presidio at Soledad should be abandoned to save costs.
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0# Researcher's Comment: the presidio at Soledad should be abandoned = the presidio at Soledad is what it will be abandoned.
the vessel destined to relieve it (with) forty or forty-four men and the necessary food for one and a half years, whose total with salaries and other expenses reach up to about twenty thousand pesos and as a result it is impossible that the (Treasury) can prepare this amount, it seems to us that there is no other option to adopt, than to leave that establishment, which has not been and cannot be of any use to the Pacific Sea.... all buildings (to be) closed, and a shield with the Arms of the King, that manifests his right of property....” 834
“... this Port [of Isla de Soledad de Malvinas] 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 (sic), 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.” 835
It is interesting that in your link, they only talks about living only the port. What is more interesting is in the next page where you said:
. ”Spain stated a clear intention to return, and as late as 1822 and 1825 asserted her claim to the whole of South America (thus including the Falklands) by protesting against the recognition of the United Provinces of the River Plate by the United States and Britain ...
So you claim Spain “claim” all of Malvinas?.
Still waffling, Libby?
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 05:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Soledad's Presidio at Puerto Soledad was all that Spain had in the Islands. The only settlement; and so Spain claimed only one Island in 1811. This is proven.
After that, Spain's claims were at best ambiguous, claiming in general terms all the Americas, even the territories that Spain had never inhabited. But I believe that Spain did intend to return, though it never did. Nor was any annual visit made, that I can find. Thank you, however, for pointing out that sentence, I shall qualify it.
Spain's claim of 1833 has proven difficult to find. Quesada implied that it was made to Washington following the request for information of 1832, but the actual document remains elusive.
Have I mentioned, that Argentina is not Spain?
Of course I have.
“You haven't actually read it, have you Terrence?”
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not the primary document of 1814 but a secondary source, which if is considered moot, hardly warrants further investigation.
Lorton, lorton, the only prove is left for you to declare it irrelevant is your own book. Like i told you, there is a gap of 60 years with no british claim of any kind. You have resorted to theorie of fishermen administering the islands and another one of Spain only claiming “Soledad” in 1811 after 37 governors being name becouse they “considered” the Gran Malvinas “british” territory?.
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Like you quoted in your own book, the orders were to abandon the fort, not Malvinas. And like in your own book, the spanish continued to claim the totality of the islands.
So there is no more proves than your own words in your own “book”. I cant debate on you refusing to accept what you wrote. So, Let me know if there is new doubts.
Cheers.
“The British had no claims to make other than res nullius”
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://en.mercopress.com/2021/12/14/provincial-lawmaker-apologizes-to-malvinas-veterans-for-taking-the-oath-of-office-with-union-jack-colors/comments#comment519036
The Orders were to abandon an Island, Libby. Can you not read?
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +2They are here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/88740.pdf
“ESTA ISLA CON SUS PUERTOS, EDIFICIOS, DEPENDENCIAS Y QUANTO CONTIENE PERTENECE A LA SOBERANÍA DEL SR. D. FERNANDO VII REY DE ESPAÑA Y SUS INDIAS, SOLEDAD DE MALVINAS 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén.”
And where do I say that Spain continued to claim the whole? I have looked but cannot see it. Page number please. And paragraph.
Spain claimed just ONE island in 1811.
AND, Argentina is not Spain.
I do accept that you cannot debate. You have clearly failed once again.
Liberato, you accuse me of being shameful while at the same time you advocate Argentina removing people's rights to self determination on the basis of some obscure events from 200 years ago.
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Where I come from that's called hypocrisy.
I repeat I don't care about what happened way back when, I do care about Argentina's childishness.
When my eldest daughter was 5 and she got annoyed about something she would scream and scream and tell the world it wasn't fair. Argentina is doing exactly the same thing..screaming to the world “it isn't fair, it isn't fair” whilst ignoring those people whose rights you would take away.
I thought Argentina was supposed to have moved on from being a fascist 'banana republic' but your attitude says it hasn't.
Time for Argentina to act like grown ups and stop harassing the Falkland Islanders like some school bully who likes kicking the smaller kids around just because they can.
Now that's what I call shameful.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/1775-to-1815.pdf
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1page 132, 2st paragraph (one page after the events of 1811).
Lorton, Spain, since the creation of the Commandancia of Malvinas, had always claimed the totality of the islands. Before 1770, and after.
Regardless of your theorie of what happened in 1811, which your own source textually and litterally killed. There was at least 44 years of royal deeds, ceremony, letters. Even in the British side. So you cant come up with that kind of theorie when you know it will be demolished. Even a British Lord that was at the same time Prime Minister refused that idea.
darragh, Argentina is not removing any people of its right to self determination. Argentina is not even in touch with the colonial regime. In any case, it is you who think they have self determination rights on Argentine territory. Curiously enough, you did not accused Britain of removing the self-determination right to the people of Hong Kong when their sovereignty were transferred to China to give priority for the territorial integrity of the communist nation.
I called you shamefull, becouse you tried to dehumanize me for talking about the nature of the british colonialism in Malvinas. That colonialism is what should give you shame. Britain have nine more territories under colonialism in the UN process of decolonization without giving the world forum the minimun support to its task since the creation of the UN body. And i dont need to prove it, you just have to watch how the UK vote.
Childish, fascist banana republic, harassing the Falkland Islanders,school bully kicking the smaller kids,etc.
Did you ever wondered what felt the people in Diego Garcia when they were left without food, closed to later being expelled so the UK can “clean” the island for a military base?.
Did you ever wonder what can feel an iraquian seeing the British Petroleum extracting their oil after a ten years invasion?.
And im the whining? the fascist?the bully????.
Both the Chagossians and the Mauritanians accepted the deals they were offered. Thus ECHR is quite correct, and the UK can now quite simply say any further legal scrutiny is barred as Res Judicata “also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for ”a matter decided” and refers to either of two concepts in both civil law and common law legal systems: a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Libby, reading comprehension problems again, I see.
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Page 132. 2nd para is a quote from Graham Pascoe. I had a suspicion that that was what you were referring to. I said no such thing, but for balance I include the comments of others.
For example:
'Neither the British withdrawal of 1774 nor the Spanish of 1811 should be deemed to have been carried out with anumis derelinquendi. In both cases, signs and symbols were left behind to tell that the evacuation was only temporary and founded on the need for the garrisons to attend more pressing needs elsewhere.” [Pena y Pena 2018]
“The 32 Spanish governors which Argentina argue held jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands from 1774 to 1811 (and therefore demonstrate the exercise of Argentine sovereignty) did not settle the Islands or govern a population of civilians. Nor did they refute the British claim of sovereignty dating to 1765. The historical record shows that these individuals performed the function of commanders of the penal colony the Spanish had
established on the Islands. As such, their authority was over the prisoners and their guards.” [UN Document A/67/880]
“There is no evidence of the Spanish settlement being extended to West Falkland, nor of the British settlement being extended to East Falkland.” [The Falkland Islands, 5th Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee Session 1983-1984 HC 268 25.10.1984 para.16]
I do not have a theory of 1811, Libby. I have the evidence of 1811.
THIS ISLAND WITH ITS PORTS, BUILDINGS, UNITS AND CONTENTS BELONGS TO
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF SR. D. FERNANDO VII KING OF SPAIN AND THE INDIES,
SOLEDAD OF MALUINAS 7 February 1811 Governor Paul Guillén.
Spain claimed ONE island in 1811.
And Argentina is not Spain.
Now, unless you can come up with something new, I think we are done.
Terence Hill, the mauritious accepted the deal becouse they were under colonialism when the UK split their territory. In other words, if they didnt take the deal, their future independence from Britain were at stake.
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the chagossian, If i recall correctly, they were pressed in the way that their transport were dissapeared, their food started to dissapear and once out of there, they were impeded to come back. I think thats a very good motive for them to accept a deal.
Lorton, ahhh for balance, i thought he was very pro-argentine.
Tell that guy that presented that letter to the UN that he is very mistaken on various things:
quotes:
-“British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands dates back to 1765”. wow the people in the islands are about tenth or eleventh generation right?.
-“The United Kingdom established its first settlement on the uninhabited islands in 1766”. uninhabited was Trinidad. Unless he is only clamining to have sovereignty rights over Trinidad alone.
-“. In 1832 an Argentine military garrison was sent to the Falkland Islands in an attempt to impose Argentine sovereignty ...”. What?? impose on whom?. the fishermens?. 58 years of not a single british claim nor protest of any kind. without mention jewett in 1820, 1823 grant land certified by the british council, 1825 treaty, etc.
-“The United Kingdom immediately protested...”. Yeah after 58 years of not doing so to a territory occupied.
Should i continue????.
The spanish colony consisted not only of prisioners, but settlers and priests. The problem you british have is with the spanish word presidio. I hope this will help:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presidio.
The settlement did not extended to Gran Malvinas. But its controll to all the territory did.
Your “evidence” of 1811 was perfectly explained and with a link. The link is very dubious and i have to admit that i have my doubst of the singular or plural of the spanish plaque becouse as the british plaque there is no photo taken.
That 'guy' was the British Government. Photo's? In 1774 & 1811?? What a strange fantasy world you live in.
Dec 22nd, 2021 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Other than that, I see that you have nothing new.
One Island claimed by Spain in 1811.
“ESTA ISLA CON SUS PUERTOS, EDIFICIOS, DEPENDENCIAS Y QUANTO CONTIENE PERTENECE A LA SOBERANÍA DEL SR. D. FERNANDO VII REY DE ESPAÑA Y SUS INDIAS, SOLEDAD DE MALVINAS 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén.”
End of .....
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!