MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina withdraws from Foradori-Duncan Treaty
Argentine Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero Thursday told his British colleague James Cleverly that the South American country was pulling out of the Foradori-Duncan agreement signed between both countries in 2016 and which was pivotal to the identification of bodies of soldiers known only to God buried in the Falkland Islands, among other improvements in bilateral ties. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIs the guy related to Taenk, both are a waste of oxygen, time for the islanders to stop all visits by Argentines till their attitude changes
Mar 02nd, 2023 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Very very simple standard answer- Nothing to discuss- as how can Argentinians themselves sit down and discuss sovereignty when it is written in their Constitution that my and my ancestors homeland belongs to them - and the only issue any Argentine Govt can discuss is the date of a handover.
Mar 02nd, 2023 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +52013 the people of the Islands had a free and open Referendom result 99.8% voted they wanted to stay as a British Overseas Territory - and some 20% of that figure had never ever had a British Passport in their lives but have come here and made the Islands their home and are equally proud to call themselves British Falkland Islanders.
Really is time for Arg Politicians to Grow Up. Sadly we know they never will- even in 100yrs time.
‘The Foradori-Duncan agreement signed between both countries in 2016’
Mar 02nd, 2023 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +6‘Had it not been for the reaction of broad political and social sectors, especially Congress and war veterans, its consequences would have been irreparable, the Argentine Government believes.’
Bit of a slow over reaction there Chaps!!!
Must be a slow news day if this is all Santiago has to rant about.
''......the only obstacle for the economic development of the Malvinas is, precisely, the persistence of the sovereignty dispute that the United Kingdom refuses to negotiate,” which cuts the opposite way also - the persistence of the peaceful occupation and rule of law is why the United Kingdom maintains the present status as a Bitish territory.
Mar 02nd, 2023 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Of little consequence. The Islanders lose a flight that has not operated since 2019. Argentina loses access to the DNA of its fallen. There will be no return to the negotiating table. There is nothing to discuss.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse +8Inform yourself..., copper...
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse -8The Islanders lost the Sao Paulo flight alright...
Us Argies ain't lost nothing...
The fallen identification agreement remains intact..., having been signed by the UKistan..., Argiestan and the RedCrossistan many years before that shameless Foradori-Duncan booze-up...
If you are still as lazy as usual..., you could just ask above Kelper commentator...: Mr. Islander1...
He has been (and still is) deeply personally involved in the whole process...
(A personal involvment we Argies can not thank him enough..., btw... )
Capisce...?
Actually, Trunks, I am reporting the comments of a MLA on Twitter.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 04:52 am - Link - Report abuse +6No names, no pack drill, but those that know, know - I quote
“Finally, the Foradori-Duncan agreement also covered future DNA ID work for their fallen military- here in the Falklands -seems like they don’t care about them or their own people. They may well end up paying a price for their idiocy.”
Get it?
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..., me dear Engrish ex-copper...
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse -7YOU..., commenting as “true”..., a tweet from a POLITICIAN...???
Wonder what your next comments may contain... :-)))))))))))))))))))))
Maybe some “true” tweets from BOJOhnson...? Or from RICHIE Sunak...???
Or mayhaps some “true” tweets from that lettuce inbetween them two..., what was her name...?
If you want the “True Truth” though..., you could try reading the official text of that shameful Foradori-Duncan “Joint Communique”...
- (There is some Engrish guy out there..., that has it included in his dilettante “Malvinastimeline.wordpiss.com” hobby webpage..., I Tænk...)
Capisce...?
The 2016 technical exchange agreement with the scientific organizations of the occupying country was very profitable. It allowed us to obtain information on tidal cycles, fishing levels, stock of resources, migratory movements in the area of the islands of species such as squid and toothfish.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse -6But we already collect data, we don't need to continue to have that agreement.
the next step now it is a matter of granting fishing licenses to Chinese fishing vessels at strategic times and locations to lower that stock
Trunks - page 15. Comments page 16.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse +6https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/2016-to-2020.pdf
“South Atlantic: In a positive spirit, both sides agreed to set up a dialogue to improve cooperation on South Atlantic issues of mutual interest. Both governments agreed that the formula on sovereignty in paragraph 2 of the Joint Statement of 19 October 1989 applies to this Joint Communique and to its consequences. In this context it was agreed to take the appropriate measures to remove all obstacles limiting the economic growth and sustainable development of the Falkland Islands, including in trade, fishing, shipping and hydrocarbons. Both parties emphasised the benefits of cooperation and positive engagement for all concerned. In accordance with the principles set out in the 14 July 1999 Joint Statement and Exchange of Letters, both sides agreed that further air links between the Falkland
Islands and third countries would be established. In this context they agreed the establishment of 2 additional stops per month in mainland Argentina, one in each direction. The specific details will be defined.
Both delegations expressed their full support for a DNA identification process in respect of unknown Argentine soldiers buried in the Darwin cemetery. Discussions on this sensitive humanitarian issue will be taken forward in Geneva on the basis of an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) assessment supplemented by bilateral discussions as required. Both sides agreed that the wishes of the families concerned were paramount.
Both sides agreed to establish a date for a fuller meeting as soon as possible.”
Ya' see..., copper...?
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse -7You can when you want...
Exactly as I said in me above comment...:
- “Us Argies ain't lost nothing...
The fallen identification agreement remains intact..., having been signed by the UKistan..., Argiestan and the RedCrossistan many years before that shameless Foradori-Duncan booze-up...”
Capisce...?
The agreement, like any other with Argentina, no matter which country it is signed, was never going to last. They are unable to keep to any agreements or treaties they sign.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse +5As for sitting down at the UN to “discuss” sovereignty, there can be no such discussion without representation of the Falkland Islands Government, and the minute they turn up,Cafiero will just up and leave, because he knows such a “discussion” will bring up phrases like “self determination”, something he does not think applies.
As for this agreement not affecting normal Argentines, it does open up the opportunity for us to apply entry restrictions, as there are no “agreements” to which to adhere.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeee...
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse -4Them Anglos are really getting miffed...
Specially them Kelper Anglos..., i reckon...:-)))
Perfectly knowing their Foreign Policy is completely in the hands of the Brutish Foreign & Colonial Office in London, Engeland...
Personally I would wish them Kelpers had the possibility of discriminating and disfavor us Argies in any possible & impossible way...
That would only accelerate their international discredit...
But they haven't that possibility...
Capisce....?
Perfect demonstration, if one were needed, of the unreliability of Argentina as a neighbour. The Falkland Islands has done its duty in terms of DNA identification, as guided by the Geneva Convention. Little to do with the F-D agreement really. Argentina on the other hand reverts to the unedifying spectacle of harassing and bullying its tiny neighbour in whatever way it can. With no prospect of success...pathetic really.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse +4Geeeeeee...
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -2This Anglo politicians are funny indeed...
Defining the former Brutish Empire and currently fifth biggest Nuclear Power and Permanent Member of the UN Security Council as a...: “TINY NEIGHBOUR”..., is kind of an understatement...
Capisce...?
“The agreement, like any other with Argentina, no matter which country it is signed, was never going to last.”
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Absolutely true.
The historical view of Argentina has been observed. As the US chargé d'affaires Francis Baylies wrote about Argentina in 1832
“...The revolutions of these people are seditious; their knowledge. chicanery and trickery; their patriotism, their liberty, a farce... ”
Baylies held that the US should sign no treaty ...for we would abide by it, and they would consider the violation no greater offense than a lie told by a schoolboy...”
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/argentina/rosas.pdf
To the present day as constantly defrauding and reneging on every contract or treaty. But what else can be expected of a people that aspire to be dishonest vis-à-vis viveza criolla
Islander1 writes: “the only issue any Argentine Govt can discuss is the date of a handover.”
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +4That may be a good idea.
The British Falkland Islands will be handed over to Argentina June 1st in the year 12842.
With that settled, there will be no more quabble about sovereignity the next 10819 years.
Your ignorance of Constitutional reality Think would be charming if it weren't so crass.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Mr. Summers...
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“REALITY” you say....
Pls, learn me some occupied Malvinas Isles “REALITIES”...:
- A) What -“REAL COUNTRY”- are you a Citizen of...?
- B) What's the “REAL COUNTRY NAME” embossed on your passport cover...?
- C) What “CROWN & COUNTRY” do your Hon. MLA's swear allegiance after being elected...?
“TINY NEIGHBOUR”..., me left foot..., me dear Kelper...
Capisce...?
What does this all matter to a Dane troll from Denmark anyway?
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I clearly capisce a great deal more than you about the Falkland islands Constitutional arrangements. There are many who do not understand what it means to be a UK Overseas Territory. You are one of them......or perhaps it just does not suit your narrative.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Reality and senor Taenk are like chalk and cheese,
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Mr. Summers...
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -4So..., what you are saying is that any little bunch of full documented British subjects who swear allegiance to their British Crown & Country can be implanted anywhere in the World by the British Armed Farces and that this is perfectly alright if they write a constitution where they state that this is perfectly alright...?
Geeeee..., chay...!
You do remind me of this British subject with asimilar aproach...:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8
Capisce...?
Implanted stock ?. every white man on the American continent is implanted stock you melon.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +5It is perfectly alright. It has been for 190 yrs.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Prior to that, in 1833, there was another implanted population on the Falklands with a military force to back them up. It existed for 90 days.
Geeeeeeeeeeeee....
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- The above Brainwashed Anglo Turnips comment reminds me of me time in Zuid-Afrika...!
- All their White Anglo Universities Anthropology Departments were fiercly competing at the time to demonstrate that them Zulus, Xhosas, Tswanas and Swazis were all “Invasive Species” with less right to be in Southafrica than them..., a little bunch of White Colonial Subjects serving their European Monarchs...
- Academic consensus was quickly reached that the only ethnic group with full right to inhabit Southern Africa were the San People...
- Wich didn't pose any Political Problem then..., 'cause the San People were considered as barely more developed than the great apes...
Cunning White Colonial Academics...
Huhhhhhh...?
Do you capisce that there were no indigenous peoples on the Falklands?
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@bushpilot
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Yes, that is why the argument for the extermination of indigenous populations is ridiculous.
There was an argentine population with a military garrison.
What was the british population?
A potato garden?
If you were the least interested in facts and reality I would debate with you. You are simple and shallow. Good evening, enjoy your mate.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Ya' always fishing for votes with that foxy smile..., your: ”tiny (BRITISH) neighbour“ argument and your: ”I would dialoge with you if you were interested” carneval mask..., Mr. Summers...
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Keep that for your constituency..., I'm not swallowing it...
Capisce...?
I understand. It is such a simple and straightforward question that they cannot answer yet.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The weather is perfect for drinking mate. Thank you.
Don't they drink mate in the Malvinas/Falklands islands?
Could you repeat the simple and straightforward question?
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Do you capisce that there were no indigenous peoples on the Falklands?
I say...
Yes, that is why the argument for the extermination of indigenous populations is ridiculous.
There was an argentine population with a military garrison.
What was the british population?
A potato garden?
“Comment reminds me of me time in Zuid-Afrika”
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Reminds me of your constant projections
Invader 1982
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The military garrison you speak of was evicted.
The local population you speak of, which was also an implanted one, was invited to stay.
They were not evicted.
The part of the local “Argentine” population that volunteered to return to the mainland did so after staying on the Falkland Islands for only 90 days.
You make a claim based on an event from 190 years ago where “part” of a local population elected to return to the mainland after having spent 90 days on the Falklands.
The local population that stayed behind became the British population. They have been on the Falklands for 190 years. Which is a bit more time than 90 days.
The descendants of that “local Argentine population” that were not evicted, and stayed in the Falklands, voted to continue their association with the UK in recent times.
98% of them voted this way, this would indicate they prefer not to be a part of Argentina.
I think we can both agree, that the current descendants of your “local Argentine population” that are still living in the Falklands have a better life not being a part of Argentina.
But only their opinion matters on that.
Why do you think it is OK to force them to be a part of the peronist mess called Argentina?
Why do you think that their opinion on their lives does not matter, while your opinion on their lives does matter?
Malvinense
Mar 04th, 2023 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“There was an argentine population with a military garrison”.
Except there wasn't was there.....
There was the remnants of a business, which had largely failed which was under the management of a Britishman Matthew Brisbane. The business was 30-40 people, from a number of countries, and none of them were evicted.
The military garrison, arrived in November 1832, they were supposed to be under the management of Mestevier, but they murdered him and raped his wife. Pinedo would probably have removed them anyway on his way back to Argentina.
You know the facts....no Argentine population, and a mutinous, murderous garrison which had only arrived a couple of months earlier.
Stop lying.
Magnificent! The population was “invited” to stay.
Mar 06th, 2023 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The population was not implanted was part of a country that had achieved self-determination and and a country that was recognized by the United Kingdom. No population volunteered to return to the continent, was threatened by two combat ships and also received an ultimatum to lower the Argentine flag. Few people remained, the remaining people left. The names of some of them are known.
The nationality of people does not determine the sovereignty of a country or place.
Matthew Brisbane is true, he is British like many other people who fought for our self-determination like Santiago Liniers -French- or William Brown -Irish- to name just two.
Vernet was made governor of the islands in exchange for their development and exploitation. There was no bankrupt business but a town destroyed by the violent incursion of the Lexington ship. For this reason Vernet was not present at the time of the usurpation and Mestivier was temporarily appointed as governor.
The murders and everything that happened there is the responsibility of Argentine justice.
The British were never in Port Louis.
The British were never on Soledad/East Falkland Island.
The British were never in Gran Malvina/West Falkland.
They arrived clandestinely on a small islet on Trinidad/Saunders Island
The British had no population at the time of the usurpation.
The British had no garrison at the time of the usurpation.
The British conveniently forget the previous Spanish population.
Their alleged rights are based on little more than coordinates that lead nowhere, a potato patch and a plaque thrown to the ground.
I do not lie. Tell the whole story to the islanders.
“The population was not implanted”
Mar 06th, 2023 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The view of the apposing claims in the real world at time is summed by the US. Thus, totally rejecting Argentine claims as false.
'As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
Malvinense
Mar 06th, 2023 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2How big do you think the SS Sarandi was??
It arrived with Pinedo and his crew, who always planned to return to Argentina....it also had on board Mestevier and his family and the military garrison. It left with Pinedo and his crew, the military garrison, but without Mestevier who had been murdered, members of the garrision were tried in Buenos Aires for the murder!
With them went a handful of people who were desperate to get off the island because it had become impossible to have a decent life after the Lexington raid.
Your suggestion that Mestevier was “temporary governor” in the absence of Vernet is laughable.
“The nationality of people doesn't determine sovereignty” except for everywhere in the world!
So...we are getting nearer the truth...the Vernet business (not an Argentine community) had failed, not because of the British but because of the Lexington raid.
Those remaining on the islands were few, and none were forced to leave by Captain Onslow.
Why do you think Britain was quite happy for vernet to be on the islands but acted immediately when Argentina sent Mestevier?
Because nobody recognised Vernet as Argentinas representative (even Vernet except when he though he might benefit from it).
So, Argentina tried to seize the islands in October 1832 and were removed in January 1833.
Anything else is fairy stories and lies.
@Monkeymagic
Mar 06th, 2023 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Did you realize that the Argentine population is always discussed? That happens because nothing British existed on the islands.
You say that Vernet's business failed because of the Lexington warship raid. That was not a failure. It is an attack of treason and destruction.
For this reason, not many people remained.
The nationality of the people does not determine the sovereignty of the place. So if there are people of French, English, Irish, German nationality, would the islands be from each of those countries? ridiculous.
A business is not an Argentine community?
What is laughable is his argument.
A community is made up of businesses, work, development. It's what Vernet was doing.
There was a community, but what did the United Kingdom have?
How does he justify his alleged sovereignty?
With a plaque?
Captain Onslow forced the people to withdraw, few remained.
Argentina arises from the territories that were Spanish including the Malvinas / Falklands Islands, we achieved self-determination a long time ago.
Fairy tale? Tell the whole truth to the islanders.
“Argentina arises from the territories that were Spanish including the Malvinas “
Mar 06th, 2023 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +2It is evident that Spain could not transfer more rights than she herself possessed.
The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Most Serene and Most Potent Princess Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. and the Most Serene and Most Potent Prince Philip the Fifth, the Catholic King of Spain, concluded at Utrecht the 2/13 Day of July, 1713. Article VIII
Adding to what you comment @Malvinense1833, It must be added that they did not let the citizens expelled by the attack attack return and they banished them. These people, among whom there were citizens who had been born on the islands, were never able to return to their homes. The same pattern they used with the Chagossians in 1955.
Mar 07th, 2023 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse -2Inglés
el asentamiento argentino, es discutido por algunos historiadores isleños de bajo referato y que no tienen reputacion academica.. Nada ingles existia en las islas antes de 1833.
y la historia del “negocio de vernet” ni siquiera tiene lugar hablar de eso todas las comunidades se forman con negocios, desarrollo y trabajo, era lo que vernet estaba haciendo.. Asi mismo argentina habia realizado actos de soberania.
De hecho, muchos paises se formaron de esta manera, como ser nueva zelanda o Austrialia (prision inglesa&prostitutas)..
En resumen, los ingleses abandonaron port egdmont en 1774, pasaron 55 años , 36 gobernadores españoles y un asentamiento y comunidad argentina. Hasta el acto injustificable de fuerza y ataque que realizaron en 1833 con
The Argentine settlement is disputed by some low-referred island historians who have no academic reputation. Nothing English existed on the islands before 1833.
And the story of the “Vernet business” doesn't even have a place to talk about it. All communities are formed with business, development and work, that was what Vernet was doing. Likewise, Argentina had carried out acts of sovereignty.
In fact, many countries were formed in this way, such as New Zealand or Austrialia (English prison & prostitutes)..
In short, the english abandoned port egdmont in 1774, 55 years passed, 36 spanish governors and one argentinian settlement and community. Until the unjustifiable act of force and attack they carried out in 1833 with the intention of evict the argentine population.
Malvinense
Mar 07th, 2023 - 07:27 am - Link - Report abuse +2You are lying again, please stop.
Argentina arises from territories that were Spanish. We agree, so did nearly all of Latin America except Brazil. When Argentina declared independence the Falklands were empty and 1000 miles from where Argentina stopped, This is FACT.
Vernet knew full well that the islands were disputed in 1826 when he first proposed setting a business up, and talked to both Buenos Aires and London. He also is on record of saying he had no interest in sovereignty just making money.
The business was on the islands for 2 years, and yes, we agree made up of mostly Argentines, with other nationalities. After the Lexington raid, most left. Nothing to do with Britain at all.
Britain never associated the Vernet venture with Argentine sovereignty, clearly Argentina does. This is a point of difference...however as nearly everyone left in 1831 its a moot point.
Argentina clearly tried to seize the islands in October 1832, raising their flag (an odd thing to do if they'd already had sovereignty for 5 years!!!), Britain objected immediately (another odd thing to do if Argentina had already had sovereignty for 5 years).
Captain Onslow did not evict a single person who hadn't arrived just 10 weeks earlier, you know it, I know it. Stop lying.
Those who did leave chose to because life on the islands were hard.
So, your entire claim rests on three failed arguments, that the Vernet business constitutes Argentine sovereignty, clearly this is at best ambiguous at worst untrue, second that the business was still in operation in 1833, quite clearly it had failed, and thirdly that Onslow evicted anyone other than those who had arrived 10 weeks earlier, he didnt.
It is a flimsy, pathetic argument, 200 years out of date.
Odd that Brisbane left on the Sarandi to do business in Buenos Aires and then returned a year later if those “evicted” were never allowed to return.....PMSL
@Monkeymagic
Mar 07th, 2023 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The dispute only exists in the British fantasy, in fact the islands were occupied by the Spanish and there was no dispute.
Argentina officially raised its flag in 1820, there was no British protest. The news was published in The Times.
The concessions began with Pacheco in 1823, not with Vernet, therefore the time of 2 years that you mention is an error.
Both Pacheco and Vernet went to the Argentine state to request the concessions.
There were also no British protests.
As you can see, the Argentine acts of sovereignty began much earlier.
If the islands were empty as you mention and it is a FACT then how is it possible that the islands belong to His Majesty?
Again, did you realize that the Argentine population is always discussed?
“The same pattern they used with the Chagossians in 1955.”
Mar 07th, 2023 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Who were merely tenants, they held no propriety ownership.
“Thus, at no time did anyone living on the islands actually own a piece of real property there”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
Malvinense
Mar 07th, 2023 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Spain left the islands, as did Britain...when doing so sovereignty ended. Argentina did not raise its flag in 1820, as there was no population.
You can make concessions to whoever you like, without a population it means nothing.
So, simply in a nut shell Argentinas whole sovereignty claim is based on two things
1) Was the Vernet business an Argentine sovereign community on the islands?
2) Was the business in operation in 1833 and were any of the evicted?
Argentina says yes to part one, yet you recognise Vernet in writing has stated he did not wish to be involved in the sovereignty dispute, and Britain did not protest his presence. It would seem there is and always has been a dispute there.
On part two, Vernet had left, 80% of the inhabitants had left, Brisbane was in charge of the business, and none of them were expelled. The only people who were expelled were the military garrision who were clearly an Argentine sovereignty claim, which Britain protested immediately.
Your whole argument is based on Vernet, and you know it fails.
@MM
Mar 07th, 2023 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The united kingdom argues and made it clear during these years that its settlement of port egdmont (which never had a civilian population), build bases for his claim.
Spain never abandoned the islands, after your exit agreement (Rochtford-Masserano) 55 years of silence passed without oposition of the uk., 33 Spanish governors and a Spanish presence on the islands, until Argentina took possession in 1820 with the hoisting of the flag and performance of sovereign acts the concessions began with Pacheco in 1823.
Spain had a continuous presence from 1774 to 1811
Some British online commentators consider the activities of British fishermen during this period to be acts of sovereignty. The activities of private persons are not manifestations of sovereignty. International jurisprudence is absolutely clear in this regard: for example, the arbitrator in the case of Isla de Aves considered that the activities of the inhabitants of the San Eustaquio y de Saba Islands, who would visit the disputed island to fish for turtles and gather eggs, to be irrelevant.
If the activities of fishermen and hunters should be considered sovereign acts, the United States and France must also be considered to have performed sovereign acts over the Falklands/Malvinas, which is absurd, especially when the Spanish government carried out enforcement actions over these activities in the entirety of the archipelago.
AC
Mar 07th, 2023 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I disagree with the position that Britains historic claim was genuine sovereignty, I agree that sovereignty passed to Spain as they had as you say 33 governors etc.
Spain relinquished that sovereignty as they left the islands.
The question is whether Argentina picked it up.
I say that the Vernet business does not constitute Argentine sovereignty, which is why the British let it happen, and why Vernet was in regular contact with Woodbine Parrish the British consul in BA, making it clear that he was only interested in profit and not sovereignty. He of course could have been lying.
As soon as Argentina formally tried to claim sovereignty by sensing Mestevier, Britain evicted the garrison that had been there a couple of months.
The Argentine claim rests solely on a highly ambiguous Vernet business, and based on that is not sufficient, in my opinion to suggest 200 years later, the Falkland islanders should be forced to live under a corrupt joke of a country like Argentina
@Monkeymagic
Mar 07th, 2023 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You are wrong again, the situation of the Spanish withdrawal is not similar to the British withdrawal.
First of all the English withdrew after the Masserano-Rochford agreement.
Second, once the English withdrew, the Spanish remained on the islands. When the Spanish withdrew, no one remained on the islands.
Thirdly, the first national government executed acts of government and sovereignty by considering the islands as a ship in navigation and payments to the personnel of the islands.
Fourthly, our liberator General San Martín writes to the Minister of War, Colonel Luis Beruti, asking him to release prisoners who were in the territories of Patagones and Malvinas so that they could join the Army of the Andes.
A prison, a garrison, a community are not sovereign acts?
Fourthly, concessions are also acts of government.
The inhabitants were expelled and as you yourself say they were 'invited' to stay.
For what reason would they be invited to stay if they were already there? Which proves once again that they would be expelled if they did not accept his gracious Majesty.
As you can see the whole argument is not based on Vernet.
Capisce...?
“55 years of silence passed without oposition of the uk.”
Mar 07th, 2023 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not according to the US in answer to an appeal to the US invoking the Monroe Doctrine.
'As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
@MM “Spain relinquished that sovereignty as they left the islands.”
Mar 08th, 2023 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse -1but they did not relinquished or leave the islands, the Spanish continued to be present and exercise acts of sovereignty:
The Governor of the Malvinas, in an order dated August 1798, is instructed how to act in case American or British ships are found at Port Egmont or the surrounding areas. The instructions establish that in case any ship of those nations is found at anchor in the port “preparation for combat will immediately be made” and “licenses and logs will be registered”
There are hundreds of examples of the control exercised by the Spanish authorities, but suffice it to cite the following: a note dated August 17th, 1790, requesting the payment of expenses incurred for the transfer and rations of the “British individuals” found fishing illegally in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands on the corvette Sta. Elena.
The preliminary Memorandum dated September 17, 1946 drafted by the Research Department of the Foreign Office, is also revealing. The subtitle leaves no room for doubt: “Spanish Sovereignty 1774-1811”. It recognises that after Britain´s withdrawal from Port Egmont, the Spanish Governor of the Malvinas was instructed to ensure that the English did not return and that their facilities were destroyed, and that nine governors succeeded one another in Port Soledad, placing the date of Spanish withdrawal between 1811 and 1813.
Taken together, these documents show that the British had no doubt about Spain´s sovereignty over the archipelago. This is not an isolated assertion, but a series of concurring opinions given over more than thirty years, among which that of Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, and three memoranda that are working documents of the Foreign Office, as well as an internal research document on the matter.
In short, until 1811 Spanish possession was effective, exclusive, continuous, peaceful, public and in good faith.
Adding to what @ malvinense1833 comments about that for international law prison, a garrison, a community are full acts of sovereignty...
Mar 08th, 2023 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse -1Just like the ones your empire carried out in New Zealand, or in the founding of Australia (English concession & prison)
There is something much more serious, there were people from the Río de la Plata, who were born on the islands between 1815 and 1833... and they were not allowed to return to the islands, they were banned and evicted as they did with the Chagossians one houndred years later...
We will never forget
“Trying to “incorporate” new evidence to the british cause while none in your own government believe in that crap.”
Mar 08th, 2023 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0I’m simply showing the readily available historical evidence. What the UK believes or doesn’t, they’re not going to reveal their hand. But I sure get great satisfaction in revealing falsity of liars claims, like you and your government.
“But it IMPLIES a violation of international law.”
No, it doesn’t otherwise you would be able to prove it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
They were not allowed to return to the islands, they were banned and evicted as they did with the Chagossians one houndred years later.
Then if what you clam is true. Then you also making the following admission.
“Thus, at no time did anyone living on the islands actually own a piece of real property there”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
“We will never forget” and we will never let you.
“and we will never let you” , you already let us on the 70“, 82”, etc and will happen again and again..
Mar 08th, 2023 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse -2AC
Mar 08th, 2023 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse +2Keeping lying makes you look like a pr1ck!
The garrison had been there 10 weeks, they had already murdered and raped, and were warned before they set sail they would be evicted. Therefore not evidence of sovereignty.
Nobody born on the islands was evicted ever!
Nobody other than Argentine militia who ever lived on the islands were banned from returning...ever
Stop lying.
“A garrison, a community are full acts of sovereignty”
Mar 08th, 2023 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0’ Vattel goes on to describe settlement as ‘a fixed residence in any place with an intention of always staying there.’
Hardly as rape, murder and mayhem don’t constitute a settlement.
Bringing things up to date.
“A State which has ceased to exercise any authority over a territory cannot, by purely verbal protestations, indefinitely maintain its title against another which for a sufficiently long time has effectively exercised the powers and fulfilled the duties of sovereignty in it.''(Theory and Reality in International Law, de Visscher, 1957, p201).
Nobody born on the islands was evicted ever!
Mar 08th, 2023 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse -2https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilde_Vernet_y_S%C3%A1ez
General San Martín
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilde_Vernet_y_S%C3%A1ez
@ Terence Hill
Annual report British embassy in Buenos Aires 1934:
the occupation of Vernet in 1820 enjoyed “
the protection of the government of the Republic” and that had been installed
in the Islands until Great Britain “expelled the agentine soldiers and colonizers...”.
“The occupation of Vernet in 1820 enjoyed the protection of the government of the Republic until”
Mar 08th, 2023 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Hardly as rape, murder and mayhem don’t constitute a settlement
I am calmer because the crimes/felony of Port Stanley do not constitute a settlement in the Malvinas/Falklands.
Mar 08th, 2023 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Letter General San Martín. August 14, 1816.-
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/noticias/conoce-la-carta-en-la-que-san-martin-se-refiere-las-islas-malvinas
Malvinense.
Mar 08th, 2023 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I assume Matilde Vernet left the Falklands with her father in 1831, she certainly was not on the SS Sarandi in 1833. Therefore she was not evicted from the Falklands.
Vernet, on several occassions was encouraged by the British to return to the islands, he didnt want to, not because of British sovereignty but becqause his business had failed.
Nice try, but still a lie.
Vernet visited the islands in 1826, and started his settlement in 1828.....left voluntarily in 1831.
How did his settlement (that didnt exist for another 8 years) enjoy Argentine protection?
Clue, its another lie....
It is true, Matilde Vernet and her family left before the British usurpation but they were evicted like many by the destruction caused by the attack by the Lexington warship.
Mar 08th, 2023 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Circumstance that was used to take advantage of the British.
It must not forget, furthermore, that among the families expelled there were children.
Vernet's business did not fail, Puerto Soledad was partially destroyed and the population that remained was evicted by Onslow.
Vernet and his family, like so many others, were never able to return.
Vernet did not leave voluntarily, he was in Buenos Aires in talks with the government for the reconstruction of the community, which is why he was appointed interim governor Mestivier.
Luis Vernet enjoying the protection of the Government
of the Republic of Buenos Aires, installed a colony in Puerto Luis. “... Finally,
in 1833, Great Britain, which had never relinquished its claim to sovereignty over
the Falkland Islands, expelled the aforementioned Argentines and colonizers who still remained
in Port Luis and resumed the occupation, which has continued without interruption until the
present”.
Annual Report 1934 British Embassy in Buenos Aires.
Finally, everything you can say does not matter because for you everything is a lie, all the Argentine actions that I listed above are not enough, the curious thing is that it cannot be compared with anything because the British actions, as was demonstrated, simply did not exist.
Again, taking your lies in turn:
Mar 09th, 2023 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +21) The only people evicted had arrived 10 weeks earlier
2) Lexington raid nothing to do with Britain
3) Vernet did leave voluntarily, over a year before Jan 1833...hell of a long “talks”
So, I repeat:
1) The Vernet business had permission to be there from both the Argentines and the British, Vernet himself said he had no interest in sovereignty just profit.
2) According to the logs of Pinedo, nobody except the militia who had arrived 10 weeks earlier were evicted, the remaining 20 or so who left chose a free passage back to Uruguay or Argentina
3) As soon as Argentina sent Mestevier, Britain protested and removed him. If they had seen Vernet as a formal representation of Argentine sovereignty they'd have done the same.
So, quite simply...The British didnt recognise Vernets business in 1828-31 as a sovereign Argentine community either then or now. They did recognise sending Mestevier as a sovereign Argentine attempt, and removed the militia.
If you/Argentina are so convinced as to the strength of your case, you would stop confusing (lying) about the two.
a) Nobody from the Vernet community was evicted by Britian
b) The only people evicted had arrived 10 weeks earlier, and we told you we'd evict them
c) It is far from clear both then and now that Vernet's business represented an Argentine sovereign claim, and clearly Britain didnt think so.
Those are the FACTS.
As I said before, everything I can tell you is a lie, now if all the argentine actions are insufficient to establish sovereignty, can you tell me without the existence of a British population on the islands if a plaque is superior to all the argentine actions?
Mar 09th, 2023 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -2All ‘Argentine actions’ happened long after the territory had become established British territory.
Mar 09th, 2023 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Violations of established British sovereignty do not constitute a valid sovereignty claim for Argentina.
The British have the prior claim and nothing ‘Jonny come lately’ Argentina can do changes that.
Malvinense
Mar 09th, 2023 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +2To my mind the plaque is irrelevant, it is simply an counter-answer to an inheritance claim from Argentina. i.e.who was on the islands first.
If Argentina had set up a sovereign community, and that community had thrived on the islands for 200 years a plaque or historic claim is irrelevant.
But again, Argentina did NOT establish a community on the islands.
The Vernet business is highly ambiguous, he was playing both sides. You know it and I know it. The problem is that Argentina lies about it.
Nobody from the Vernet business was evicted, Nobodt from the Vernet business was banned from returning.
The militia had been there 10 weeks and Argentina was warned they'd be evicted.
This is deliberately and repeated misrepresented as hundreds of Argentine men , women and children who had been on the islands for decades maliciously thrown off by British colonisers.
As opposed to a few militia who'd been on the islands for 10 weeks evicted after they committed murder.
I repeat you know the facts and choose to lie about them, because the facts show there is zero Argentine claim.
Even If the misrepresentation was true (it isn't) it doesnt trump the self determination of the islanders, but as its a blatant and deliberate lie, it means nothing
“In short, the english abandoned port egdmont in 1774,”
Mar 09th, 2023 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not according to the US in answer to an appeal to the US invoking the Monroe Doctrine.
'As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
@Monkey
Mar 10th, 2023 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse -2clearly the british didn't settle the islands first so i agree the plaque is irrelevant.
Argentina established a sovereign community that was thwarted by two treasonous attacks.
If the usurpation had not happened, the Malvinas community would have been much more than 200 years old.
Vernet was appointed governor, he was never able to return, he tried to recover the investment, the misrepresentation is made by you because you have absolutely nothing. As I showed you before, there was a prison, a garrison, a population of men and women who worked there.
You mention 10 weeks, it's a misrepresentation of yours, you can read Vernet's wife's diary. As I said, you also conveniently ignore the Spanish population.
It also ignores that before the usurpation and the arrival of the British colonists we had already achieved self-determination recognized by the United Kingdom.
Argy_Planter
Mar 10th, 2023 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina could not establish a ‘sovereign community’ on territory that was already long established British Territory.
Any more than you could have an Argy Governor of said British Territory.
The Vernet settlement had permission from the British to be there, but not as an Argy settlement.
The fact that Vernet wrote to the British Government for permission to establish the settlement in the first place, clearly show who he thought had sovereignty over the territory.
@Pugol-H
Mar 10th, 2023 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Can you explain to me how it was British territory with nothing on the territory?
Tell you what 1833, i will go and land on one of your many uninhabited islands, ring London and say this island is empty, make me governor and ill claim it for the UK, a bit silly isnt it ? but that is what you are technically, saying ,just stop making a fool of yourself, and if you cant see that, then their is no hope for you, go and watch a game of footy, much more enjoyable, watching players from all over the world.
Mar 10th, 2023 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will tell you something Juan, I will take some of your islands from England, I will evict their inhabitants, I will bring Argentine colonists and we will say self-determination, we are a country.
Mar 10th, 2023 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Sounds ridiculous right?
Malvinense
Mar 10th, 2023 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again you are lying.
I dont ignore the Spanish population, it (like the British population) left of its own choice, leaving the islands empty.
You lie continually about the Vernet business.
1) Not one single member associated with that business was evicted
2) Not one single member of that business was stopped from returning
This is historic fact in Pinedos own ships log.
I am not denying that Vernets business was on the islands for 3 years, he asked Britain's permission to be there, knowing full well that there was a dispute on sovereignty, he asked Britain for compensation because he claimed Britain had sovereignty at the time of the Lexington raid.
So, the Vernet business was highly ambiguous and not recognised by the British between 1828-31 as a symbol of Argentine sovereignty
It had 90% disbanded by 1832, leaving a small remnant of people under the British Matthew Brisbane
Not one of them were evicted, not one!!
Not one of them were refused the right to return
Only when Argentine clearly sent an unambiguous militia to the islands did Britain act to remove them.
They are the facts, sadly you know they are.....
You are deliberately conflating an irrelevant Spanish community, with a failed and ambiguous business venture, with an Argentine militia...you know you are.
you last point to Juan shows your lie: No inhabitants were evicted....not one!
Who is this guy Liberato, not seen one shred of truth in his posts,
Mar 10th, 2023 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Monkey
Mar 10th, 2023 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The British population did not withdraw by choice, they withdrew after the Masserano-Rochtford treaty, leaving the islands solely occupied by the Spanish. Therefore the situation is not the same.
The Spanish withdrew because of the self-determination struggles not only in our country but in the entire continent.
Immediately our country took measures in relation to the islands and I already mentioned the order of the first government.
The historical fact is that the expelled persons were registered by Pinedo. So much so that Pinedo was tried for not fighting against the British.
Vernet was not on the islands at the time because he was looking for government help to rebuild the community. For this reason Mestivier was appointed as governor.
There is no document that proves British authorization to settle on the islands. What is the name of the British official who approved said authorization?
The Spanish community is not irrelevant because they remained on the islands for a long time without any British claim and also the Argentine community is a continuity of the Spanish one. Do you know the word self-determination?
No one yet, neither British officials throughout history, nor you have been able to explain how the islands belonged to the United Kingdom.
WITHOUT ANYTHING!!!
“No one yet, neither British officials throughout history, nor you have been able to explain how the islands belonged to the United Kingdom.”
Mar 11th, 2023 - 02:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm aren’t you the proven liar just like your government was.
'As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
Monroe Doctrine? funny Terrence Hill keeps quoting phrases and opinions from foreign countries such as the United States, or phrases from the US Army... (irrelevant)..
Mar 11th, 2023 - 04:57 am - Link - Report abuse -1Neither international law are interested in what the northern country may think about the matter.
“Opinions from foreign countries such as the United States, or phrases from the US Army... (irrelevant)..”
Mar 11th, 2023 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse +1Which Argentina asked for in first place, which was proved to be just typical Argentine viveza criolla.
As the Americans told you can’t apply law retro-actively, like UN Charter ‘territorial integrity’ to preceding Charter times.
“Or phrases from the US Army”
Accept ,they are the highest level of the US government to pronounce on the issue, which Argentina caused. As international law is their primary focus.
Malvinense
Mar 11th, 2023 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The Argentine community has nothing whatsoever to do with the Spanish community. Its like saying the Cuban community is Argentine, or the Jamaican community is Argentine. Most of the Spanish on the Falklands left and returned to Spain, the few who remained in South America went to Uruguay.
Vernet left the islands 18 months before January 1833...they are bloody long talks!!
The expelled persons were registered by Pinedo, and he clearly states these were ONLY the militia who arrived 10 weeks earlier, NOT the handful of civilians who wanted safe passage back to Argentina, or Brisbane who wanted advice from Vernet about what to do next.
Woodbine Parish gave Vernet permission to set up on the islands. He was the British Consul General in Buenos Aires.
So, self-determination.
Please provide evidence that the handful of people on the islands in September 1832 under the authority of the British Matthew Brisbane living in squalor and destruction after the Lexington raid, preferred an Argentine authority to a British one.
Not people who had left, not Spaniards who left decades earlier, not Mesteviers militia or Pinedo....the 40 or so civilians on the islands in September 1832.
A dozen couldn't wait to get of the islands.
The remaining 28 or so? The squalor they had, or prosperity brought by the British?
If you cant provide evidence they didnt prefer British rule, then your invasion of October 1832 is every bit an usurpation as the so called usurpation in 1833.
Thems the facts.
Malv
Mar 11th, 2023 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Large parts of Argentina today are completely uninhabited ‘with nothing on the territory’, But this does not mean that Argentina has relinquished sovereignty, does it???
No, of course it doesn’t.
The British have claimed sovereignty over the territory since 1690, have never relinquished it and since then have had to recovered the Islands from foreign invaders no less than three times.
In 1771 from the Spanish, then in 1833 from the UP of the River Plate and then in 1982 from Argentina.
Not only do the British have the oldest claim, only the British have consistently maintained, and when necessary defended, their claim.
Unlike Spain which dropped their claim in (I think) 1886, or Argentina which certainly did drop their claim in 1850.
First you need to prove when exactly it was that the Islands stopped being British territory, for any later actions to be considered the basis for a valid claim.
Also, in the Masserano-Rochtford treaty, the Spanish having been threatened with war, agree to hand back the British settlement unconditionally:
https://www.fiassociation.com/shopimages/pdfs/1.%201771%20Agreement%20between%20the%20British%20and%20Spanish%20Governments.pdf
‘his Catholick Majesty engages to give immediate orders, that things shall be
restored in the Great Malouine at the port called Egmont, precisely to the state in which they were before the 10th of June, 1770: For which purpose, his Catholick Majesty will give orders to one of his Officers, to deliver up to the Officer authorised by his Britannick Majesty the port and fort called Egmont, with all the artillery, stores, and effects of his Britannick Majesty and his subjects which were at that place the day above named, agreeable to the inventory which has been made of them.’
Nowhere is there any mention of any ‘British withdrawal’.
It was entirely and only a British choice to withdraw.
Unless of course, you have any EVIDENCE to the contrary???
Argentinian posters, why is it so difficult for you to understand that Britain never gave up its ownership of the Falklands, thousands of uninhabited islands all over the world but still claimed by someone,
Mar 11th, 2023 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I take a different view to many on here, whilst I would agree that after 190 years of habitation, there is no historic or moral alternative to the islanders choosing their future...If (and its a big if) the Argentine fairy stories and lies were true, they would be justified in their grievance.
Mar 11th, 2023 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem is that they are simply untrue, and repeated over and over like some fantasy.
1) There is no “inheritance” from Spain
2) Vernet was interested in a business venture and had no preference on sovereignty
3) Vernet's business all but failed due to the Lexington raid and most of them left
4) Brisbane was left in charge of the business
5) Argentina realising the business had failed sent Mestevier with a militia
6) The militia mutinied, and murdered Mestevier
7) Only the militia were evicted after 10 weeks
8) A few remnants of the community chose safe passage back to South America
9) No civilian was evicted
10) No civilian was refused right to return
11) There is no evidence whatsoever whether the handful of civilians on the islands Sept 1832 wanted Argentine or British sovereignty other than many remained there for years
12) Vernet sought recompense from the British for the Lexington raid as he accepted Britain had de facto sovereignty in 1831
None of these events match the Argentine lie of a successful community of hundreds of men, women and children being evicted by British colonisers
So, the shameful acts on the islands....all Argentine and still they continue.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!