MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, November 28th 2023 - 12:35 UTC



Alberto Fernández meeting with Javier Milei to kick off transition

Monday, November 20th 2023 - 10:27 UTC
Full article 18 comments

Despite the Nov. 20 national holiday in Argentina, President Alberto Ferfnández is expected to show up for work Monday and hold his first meeting with President-elect Javier Milei to finalize the details of the transition toward the Dec. 10 inauguration. “I trust that tomorrow we can start working with Milei to ensure an orderly transition,” wrote the head of state on social networks. It was yet to be determined whether the encounter would be at Casa Rosada, at the Olivos presidential residency, or elsewhere. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Chicureo

    Finally Argentina has made a historical change for the future!

    ¡Viva Argentina!

    Nov 20th, 2023 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Korndogg

    Wonderful news.

    Nov 20th, 2023 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Esteban Domingo Fernandez

    Finally the Argentine electorate have seen sense, getting rid of the useless Peronists is just the first step in a long road to recovery,

    Nov 20th, 2023 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Falklands-Free

    So the former president claims he believes in democracy. Yet he denies the people of the Falkland islands the right to democracy.
    More like hypocrisy .
    Here's hoping that the new president will recognise our right to determine our own future as I am sure he will want the same for all Argentines who up until now have been a suppressed people. He will have a huge task on his hands to turn Argentina around from where it is now to where it really should be.
    The people have put their trust in him to make this transition.
    If as he claims he worships lady Thatchers talent of rule , he will surely start the process of removing the biggest crime against all Argentine people. That is indoctrination.
    Argentina needs to be told the truth about the Falklands claim and then South America can start to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours.

    Nov 20th, 2023 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Liberato

    Falklands-Free, the truth about what????. You think students in Malvinas are told the truth?. You teach them they live in the middle of the South Atlantic as if there was not a huge continent right beside them. Are you afraid they will ask you why they live in South America with europeans neighbours and chilean servants?.
    The first new borns and marriadges were made in Malvinas by argentines. Do you guys teach them about it?. Or the “history book” starts from 1834?.
    You forgot to mention that the british claimed Trinidad Island when Malvinas was already claimed and settled. Your Forgot to mention that Britain “had” a claim becouse it went silence with no prescence at all for 60 years of peacefull spanish and later argentine administration of the whole area.
    Good or wrong, you should teach your students the truth.So they dont get scared when near to them there is a government claiming the whole territory.
    But how could you?. Most of the teachers were born in Britain. Most of the students have parents born in Britain. Schools uses British curricullum. all of the doctors, lawers, engineers, legislatives, public servants, etc were born in Britain.
    Do you want me to put again the list of all public servants that were and are imported from Britain or its bots?.
    The definition of colonialism suits perfectly to Malvinas. I suggest you that before Argentina, you go to the UN to first convince them about your “truth”. Becouse since the islands were colonised by the UK in 1833. There was no other definition to describe the administration of the islands than a colonial administration where (according to the UN) the administering power is the UK:

    Nov 20th, 2023 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Jo Bloggs

    Where are all the oxygen thief low low Peronist deadbeats going to get their money for nothing now?

    Nov 20th, 2023 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • FitzRoy

    60 years, Libby? 1765 - Britain settled there. 1776 - 1811 - Spain tried and failed, reminded they were British.... Where do your “60 years” occur? Vernet asks Britain if he can start a business culling the cattle - 1828...

    Nov 21st, 2023 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh


    Nobody gives two funkies mucks for your garbage.

    What happened 2 or 3 hundred years ago is totally irrelevant.

    We live in the 21st century not your 'paradise lost'.

    All that matters is what the Falkland Islanders want.

    So grow up and stop acting like a 5 year old.

    Nov 21st, 2023 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    FitzRoy, “1765”? The islands was already claimed and settled by 1764. Without to mention that the british landed in Trinidad Island hidden from Spain ( that had refused permission to a similar expedition), and France.
    The 60 years occurred between 1774 and 1833 where the spanish and Argentina administered the whole area without a single british protest (except for 1829).
    Vernet did not seek permission from the british at all.

    darragh, “What happened 2 or 3 hundred years ago is totally irrelevant”. We are not talking about its relevance. We are talking about the truth.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Monkeymagic


    I have read your “facts” with interest.

    I agree that Spain had a small colony on East Falkland between 1767 and 1810. Please could you advise whether this colony left voluntarily, whether they returned to Spain via Uruguay and whether at that point the Falklands were uninhabited for at least the next 18 years? A simple “yes they are the facts I forgot to mention” would suffice.

    Your next “facts” concerning the Vernet business and indeed the “marriages and births” facts. Can you confirm that Vernet left the islands in 1831 taking his family (including the baby you mention) with him, this was after 3 years of running his business. Could you verify that he could have returned at any time but chose not to. A simple “yes they are the facts I forgot to mention would suffice”

    Could you also verify that in 1833 only the Argentine militia who arrived 10 weeks earlier were ordered to leave by Captain Onslow, a handful of Vernets business people were already planning to leave with Pinedo and this is clearly confirmed in log of the Sarandi.

    You want to talk facts but omit critical historic facts that do not suit your narrative

    Spain chose to leave after 40 years, Vernet chose to leave, after 3 years, Britain chooses to stay after 190 years. They are the FACTS.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Juan Cervantes

    Libby, your post is so funny it has made my day,

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Monkey, Spain had a the ONLY colony from 1774 and 1811 and they were the first to control the whole area, including the islands where the british briefly settled hidden from France and Spain. Their departure from the island was not a recognition of any british rights that settled in an island already settled and claimed a territory already claimed

    By your statements regarding Vernet, you are not debating why he did not seek permission from the british and had not made any protest of any kind since 1774. Vernet seized the American ships Harriet, Breakwater and Superior for breaking his restrictions on seal hunting and in 1831 returned to the continent for the trial. Nothing that granted Britain any right whatsoever to a territory that was not controlled by Britain, that was controlled and administer by another power and that Britain had never protested in any way.

    In 1833, Military ships of a foreign power that 68 years before, made a brief and hidden settlement in a place already claimed and settled, descended for the first time in Isla Soledad taking power with the threat of use of force invading a small settlement. There were civilians that left and civilians that remained protagonizing a rebelion later.

    quotes:“Spain chose to leave after 40 years”. Not for a “british” claim nor anything like that.

    “ Vernet chose to leave, after 3 years,”. Not for a “british” claim nor anything like that.

    “Britain chooses to stay after 190 years”. Britain did not choosed to stay. They choosed to invade and occupy. Thats different. It is called colonialism and in this century, the islands are still under a UN process of decolonization. Along with 9 other territories under british colonialism in this 21 century.

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Monkeymagic


    Spain left so it became a vacant territory. You cannot have it both ways.

    There are dozens of territories in the Americas which changed hands either by conflict or by vacation.

    If you can “claim” a territory and then leave it and it always remains yours...then the Falklands are British

    If when you leave a territory it passes to the next person who colonises it it becomes theirs...then the Falklands are British

    You wish to apply a new rule...either if the British leave a territory they lose it forever, if Spain leave a territory, it automatically becomes Argentine even if empty, or if a German business man marries on an island and his wife has a baby the islands are Argentine 200 years later......

    Sounds gibberish to me

    The British did not invade a small settlement in 1833 that is a blatant lie, the civilians that left on the Sarandi had already requested to leave BEFORE the British arrived, the remaining civilians chose to stay, the later rebellion was not against British rule but against Vernets deputy who returned in 1834, dispelling your lie that the civilians were refused the right to return.

    Perhaps you should read Pinedos logs Liberato, then you will see your version is fantasy and mine is accurate.

    The “colonisation” you refer to has nothing to do with 1833 or Argentinas claim, it is simply because the islanders do not vote in UK elections. The reason they do not vote is because they don't want to. They want the current status. Same for the other territories.

    You seem very confused about these issues Liberato. Perhaps you should stop commenting until you have completed further research to stop making a fool of yourself.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Monkey, you said::“Spain left so it became a vacant territory”. You got out of argument dont you?. It is your interpretation an abandonment on the spanish part. Spain left the port, not its claim over Malvinas or over the continent if you like. But also, for Britain to claim an abandonment of the spanish, they would had to recognize a prior spanish right and then prove it. None of that ever happened or proposed, even by british historians.

    quote1:“There are dozens of territories in the Americas which changed hands either by conflict or by vacation”. For example?.

    quote2:“If you can “claim” a territory and then leave it and it always remains yours...then the Falklands are British”. Spain did not abandoned the islands. They abandoned the port to fight for its colonies that were strugling for independence. Britain was the first to recognize that new nation in 1825 while no claim or protest was made to the formal posession of Malvinas in 1820 or the subsecuent colonization of Argentina in the islands.

    quote3:“If when you leave a territory it passes to the next person who colonises it it becomes theirs...then the Falklands are British”. Who are the next person?.

    quote4:“The “colonisation” you refer to has nothing to do with 1833 or Argentinas claim, it is simply because the islanders do not vote in UK elections.”. Hahahah oh really?. I think it is you the confused one, If you think they should vote in UK elections, they are not a people with self-determination rights. And if they are a people with selfdetermination rights, then they are not british and not a territory under colonialism either. Have you ever read any of the many many many resolutions regarding Malvinas?. Or any other resolution of any other territory under british colonialism under the UN process of decolonization?.
    Do you know how many forms of colonialism exist?.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Monkeymagic

    Quote 1

    the Bahamas, were Spanish became British now independent
    Dominica, were French became British, now independent
    Grenada was French became British now independent
    Montserrat was French became British
    Jamaica was Spanish became British now independent etc

    Quote 2

    “Spain did not abandon the islands” removing every living soul from the islands and never returning for 213 years and counting is not “abandonment”. Oh dear! They left and returned to Spain...not to fight on mainland South America.

    Quote 3 Britain there was no usurpation in 1833, Vernet had already left, there was no Vernet business even if you believe it represented an Argentine colony, which it did not.

    Quote 4: I think you are confused. All the French former colonies vote in French elections therefore are not on the UN list Martinique, French Guiana, Guadaloupe etc. This is exercising their self determination. British Overseas territories do not.

    There are only 3 ways to come of the list

    1) Full incorporation into parent state (Like Martinique)
    2) Full independence (Like Jamaica or Bahamas)
    3) Incorporation into another state

    All three are the choice of the inhabitants

    I have read all the resolutions. Argentina have not a single right to the Falklands unless the islanders want it.

    Sorry Liberato, you are wrong on every point.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Monkey quote1:
    Bahamas- In 1783 in the Peace of Versailles, Spain permanently ceded The Bahamas to Britain,
    Dominica- France formally ceded sovereignty to the UK in 1763.
    GRANADE- formally ceded by France to the UK in 1763 in the Paris Treaty. Taken and devolved in the Versalles treaty of 1783
    Montserrat- Also devolved to the British by France in the Versalles treaty in 1783.
    Jamaica. Formally Ceded by Spain to the UK in 1670 in the Madrid Treaty.

    Sovereignty rights is not gained by wars unless there is a peace treaty or by negotiations.

    quote2: Spain did not returned becouse their colony, that also controlled the Malvinas, gained independence. Spain recognized the newly formed nation as succesor of the former vicerroyalty of the Rio de la Plata.

    Quote3: You should really read about Vernet before comenting nonesenses.

    quote4: It is not about if they vote or not. It is about if they are a different people, with self determination rights (in that place) or not. Again you should read all the forms of colonialism.
    Besides, General Assembly resolution 1541, add to those 3 characteristic of a territory considered to be self-determined the “emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people” constituted “modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”
    The question is why Malvinas and the other nine territories under british colonialism are still in the decolonization process?. Well, you have to read all again the resolutions regarding Malvinas going through the british absurd that the members of the Decolonization Committe are against Britain becouse they are bad guys or axis of evil.


    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    So we have established that many many territories changed hands in the Americas, good progress for you
    We have established that the Spanish garrison vacated the Falklands voluntarily and returned to Spain, they did not become Argentine or stay and fight the insurgents. Good progress for you
    We have established that Vernet left the islands voluntarily in 1831, he could have returned at any time, indeed he sent Brisbane back in 1834 (who was murdered). but he chose not to.

    Argentina did not inherit sovereignty of a territory 1000 miles away just because Spain administered it from Buenos Aires, Britain administered Aden from Bombay, it doesn't make Yemen part of India.

    Argentina never has had sovereignty, the failed Vernet business does not constitute Argentine sovereignty

    Yes, the decolonization committee is packed full of corrupt Latam states and failed states from around the world, which is why none of their resolutions and recommendations get through the General Assembly.

    The nine British Overseas territories chose not to meet one of the three criteria to come of the list (unlike the French territories I have cited), they could do it tomorrow if they wanted to.

    I am afraid you have misunderstood all aspects of the Falklands argument, assumed an inheritance that never happened, misrepresented the events on 1833 deliberately, and lied about the UN General Assembly position.

    Other than that...Good job

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Monkey, quote:“So we have established that many many territories changed hands in the Americas”. I think everyone in here, can easilly underestand the description i made of those places you mentioned, with regard to the legitimacy under international law, in comparison with the illegality and ilegitimacy of the current colonial situation.

    The spanish who you are recognizing as the legitimate owner of the islands. Did not abandoned the islands and later recognized Argentina as its succesor of all rights that confered the former Vicerroyalty.

    Vernet was the governor of Malvinas, when the british never had one in the first place. And beyond his duties, the settlement he developed, was the first in succed. This was even recognized by the british. Now, i have no idea what you are trying to say, the records of Vernets are the same for Argentina and for the official British position. He would not back to the islands as acting governor of a territory invaded by a foreign power, He tried his best to recover his investment but could never return to the islands under the british flag, even as entreprenour, becouse the british didnt alowed him. The british used his settlement without him. taking their own british settlers to occupy and colonize the islands.

    Malvinas was part of the vicerroyalty. It was not only administration. The spanish legally, incorporated Malvinas to the vicerroyalty.

    About the members of c24, they are:
    Saint Kitts and Nevis (former british colony which has King Charles III as head of state).
    FIJI (another former british colony).
    Antigua and Barbuda (its head of state is your king).
    Dominica (another former british colony)
    Grenada (another former british colony)
    Papua New Guinea ( Guess who is its head of state?)
    And 23 other nations, most of them suffered colonialism. Perhaps Britain would be more confortable with Nations that practiced colonialism to be in charge of the decolonization.

    The UNGA made many resolutions regarding Malvinas. Read them!.

    Posted 12 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0

Please log in or register (it’s free!) to comment.