MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Keir Starmer: “Falklands are British and will remain British; it's personal for me”
British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer made a conclusive statement of support for the Falkland Islands during the Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, hoping to put an end to speculations over the future of British Overseas Territories following on the decision to hand the Chagos archipelago sovereignty (British Indian Ocean Overseas Territory) to the Republic of Mauritius. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOf course Mr Starmer, as does Chagos
Oct 10th, 2024 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -4“We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.”
Malvi, you seriously need to grow up and stop wasting your life with this silly nonsense. it does not matter what you think or believe, the Falklands matter is a closed book,
Oct 10th, 2024 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +3@ Juan
Oct 10th, 2024 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -5The truth is I would like to be drinking beer in a pub or playing football in a friendly way but you make it very difficult.
Have you read Simon Jenkins' latest article? He is very sensible and pragmatic in his thinking in relation to conflicts with other countries that still maintain the Kingdom in its imperialist delusions.
How am i stopping you, how am i making it difficult, what imperialist delusions, ? these are just silly meaningless words, Britain as you well know gave up its Empire voluntarily, over 90% of it peacefully, it has no desire to have another, you constantly quote Kohen Rodriguez, their comments are not historical fact to say the least, the numbers just do not add up, many posters have given you the true history of the islands, why hasnt successive Argentine governments gone to court, you know exactly why, you would lose and still wouldnt accept it, just like many of you still dont accept the Chilean dispute ruling, a few thousand Peronist and ex military keep banging on with this stupidity, what do you think it achieves, the answer is nothing, it jut alienates the islanders even further away from you, repeating the same same old same old same old makes you look like a child, your better than that, unlike you other country men that post on here, the matter is settled and all the crying and whinging from Buenos Aires also will achieve nothing, , the UK gets nothing from the Falklands, and wants nothing from there, the people from over 60 different countries that live there decide their future, as for Simon Jenkins, no one takes anything he writes seriously, for goodness sake go live a life without the crazy crazy rubbish,
Oct 10th, 2024 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +3@Juan
Oct 10th, 2024 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Sorry, I wrote it wrong, I wasn't referring to you, but to the British who insist on making things very difficult instead of people from both sides being able to meet in a pub to drink beer or play a game of football.
“The only future that makes economic sense for the Malvinas is on its adjacent continental territory.”
Simon Jenkins
Malvinense 1833
Oct 10th, 2024 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Did the 2019 UN ICJ Chagos Opinion give any support to Argentina’s Falklands claim or benefit the Falkland Islanders?
Falklands – Chagos Ruling : https://www.academia.edu/38498842/Falklands_-_Chagos_Ruling
Two tier Kier has lots of names now he has a new one: Surrender Kier!
Oct 10th, 2024 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -1From the past Sir Kneeler (another one of his names) because he kneels to black criminals and puts English patriots in prison. Sir Kneeler is the one who allowed the rape of thousands of little English girls from whom he/ New Labour took their police protection away.
Poor Kier has a problem with his integrity he gave strong assurances to the pensioners and when it suited him they were the first ones he hit! So watch it guys, there was no need to touch Chagos, Labour expelled the population and has just given away the islands always working against the islanders and England.
Ok Malv
Oct 10th, 2024 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +10The only sensible future for Cuba is to become part of the USA, the only sensible future for Taiwan is to be part of China, should Japan be part of Russia or the UK part of France?
Since when did islands have to be part of the nearest continent.
You do realise if that rule existed the Falklands would choose Chile.
There is an undeniable fact that the Falklands were British long before Patagonia was Argentine.
The only thing stopping peace is your ridiculous and false obsession. Your President knows this.
Jenkins got torn apart on Breakfast TV. He's been flogging the same dead horse to 40 years. I can only assume that he didn't enjoy his time in the Falkands in 1982.
Oct 10th, 2024 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +5As for Argentina, until such time as it chooses the Mauritius option of an advisory opinion, the matter would appear to be closed.
Who do people trust to best protect the Falklands, Sir Keir or Baroness Margaret?
Oct 11th, 2024 - 06:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0no mention was made in good morning britain by either of the simons or the presenters that argentina's claim extends to south georgia and the south sandwich islands. those islands, the falklands and the british antarctic territory comprising the artarctic pensinsular, south shetlands and south orkneys make up the uk's possesions in the southwest antlantic. it makes practical sense for the uk to have it's military base in the falklands to defend all of its territtory in that region. the defence costs for the falklands are therefore only a relatively small part of the total cost when compared to the massive area of uk territory defended from that military base.
Oct 11th, 2024 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse +3No British government of any colour will ever give the Falklands away, this whole over blown situation has been initiated by the Tory press, scare mongering, its what they do best,
Oct 11th, 2024 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Malv
Oct 11th, 2024 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +3If the last 40 years have proved anything it’s that the Falklands are more than able to develop very well economically despite constant hostility from Argentina, never mind any ‘cooperation’.
Indeed, had they become part of Argentina it would have been an economic disaster for them along with the rest of Argentina.
The belief persists in Argentina that Argentina is somehow important in the S. Atlantic, it is not, it is a region where Argentina has no influence or ability to affect anything.
It is Argentina that suffers from ‘imperialist delusions’ on this matter, the British position merely reflects the reality, the British are the administering power and Argentina is a South American country with no history or presence in the S. Atlantic.
This cannot be wished away, no matter how strongly you believe it should be otherwise.
We have an expression ‘pissing in the wind’.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/be-pissing-in-the-wind
‘to be trying to do something when there is no hope of succeeding’.
Just seen the so called Simon Jenkins interview, clearly he has not done a thorough research,
Oct 11th, 2024 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +5he cant even get the population correct, 3600 not 1500 and that does not include the military, made an utter and complete fool of himself,
Malvi
Oct 11th, 2024 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +6I think you should give Patagonia up. You usurped it by force in the 1880s. This is historic fact not a make believe myth.
I will write it in my constitution as non negotiable and refuse any “friendship” until you hand over sovereignty.
It is an imperialistic anachronism that Argentina is in Patagonia.
I will now forget this claim for nearly 100 years, then launch a failed invasion costing 900 lives and still whine about it, even though I made it up.
“Simon Jenkins' latest article? He is very sensible and pragmatic”
Oct 12th, 2024 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Hardly, as “under the guise” is absolutely atributed to Jennings.
“The meaning of UNDER THE GUISE OF is by saying or acting as if something is other than what it really is”.
In the guise of Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
“Central Thesis:
”Review of Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, The Battle for the Falklands
They argue that the operation was under the guise that this was what the Falklanders wanted and that under UN mandate for self-determination of peoples, the British were justified.“
Scope of Book:
”The authors are convinced that this was a war that shouldn’t have happened: the Falklanders should have accepted the “lease-back” agreement;
Jenkins and Hastings acknowledge that the question of sovereignty is somewhat ambiguous,”
Only to those that do not search with due diligence.
https://www.rfmwilliams.com/book-reviews/review-of-max-hastings-and-simon-jenkins-the-battle-for-the-falklands/
Having established beyond any doubt that the eviction myth of 1833 is indeed false as recorded in the logs of the ARA Sarandi, it would suggest that Britain re-establishing sovereignty was a victimless act. Nobody was evicted, nobody had their livelihood negatively impacted, nobody was hurt. In all the acts of colonialism this would appear the least impactful.
Oct 14th, 2024 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse +2To all intents and purposes, once the eviction myth is proven false, the Falklands were just another uninhabited rock, a thousand miles from the United Provinces of River Plate
On this basis, Argentina have used a false claim of “inheritance from Spain” 150 years earlier (no such thing exists) to wage war at a terrible cost of human life, and to try (and for the most part fail) to bully the islanders whose home it has been for 200 years.
Malvi talks about the UK ceding something so we can sit in the pub and drink beer together.
No Malvi, it is Argentina who has to move, to fully and unequivocally drop its false and offensive claim, to apologise unreservedly to the islanders, and pay full reparations for the cost of the 1982 invasion. To remove any reference to Malvinas from all its constitution.....and beg forgiveness.
Then, and only then, would I want to share a beer :-)
@Monkey
Oct 15th, 2024 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse -3I understand perfectly what you mean but you are ignoring the historical facts. As far as I am aware, neither Russia claims Japan, nor Japan Russia, the United States does not claim Cuba nor Cuba claims the United States.
The only similar case is that of China - Taiwan.
Taiwan is effectively part of China.
Taiwan claims mainland China and mainland China claims Taiwan.
The republican rebels escaped to the island after the communist triumph and have remained there since then.
Taiwan's independence is unacceptable to China, but I personally as a Taiwanese would not accept living under the communist regime.
They are very similar cases but not the same.
It's very funny when they mention how many miles away the islands of mainland Argentina are, when the United Kingdom is on the other side of the world.
The concrete fact is that the United Kingdom clandestinely and briefly occupied the islands, this occupation was immediately protested and after a treaty the English recognized Spanish sovereignty and abandoned it.
After our self-determination, they usurped the islands, expelling their legitimate inhabitants, taking advantage of the weakness of the new nation, they did not dare to expel the inhabitants or the Spanish governor on the islands because they knew perfectly well that the islands were Spanish and because, as we say here
It would be facing the other big guy in the neighborhood.
Regards.
Malv
Oct 15th, 2024 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2That posting is pure fantasy, a new extreme even for you.
The only big guy in that neighbourhood is and always has been the British.
I suppose in this fantasy world of yours one-day Argentina gets possession of the Falklands/S. Atlantic/Antarctic?
Still ‘pissing in the wind’ then.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/be-pissing-in-the-wind
‘to be trying to do something when there is no hope of succeeding’.
I understand the expression we also use it here. Thanks anyway for the help because there are also other British expressions that I don't know if I would understand.
Oct 15th, 2024 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Whenever there is hope, life has meaning, otherwise what would be the life and dreams of human beings?
Hope, work and taking the necessary steps towards what we propose often leads us to achieve what we want.
Read the article that brought us here, there was no hope for Chagos and yet...
I hope that someday the United Kingdom will act intelligently and give us back some of the territory we are missing.
Regards, Pugol.
I hope one day the UK will act intelligently and give us back some territory ???
Oct 15th, 2024 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +1the Falklands have never been yours 1833, pure fantasy
the UK can not give anything to you unless the islanders want it,
the Falklands will become a fully fledged independent sovereign nation in the future.
The Chagos situation was not even remotely the same as the Falklands,
Britain clandestinely and briefly held the Falklands ???, what a whopper of a lie (1594)
Ignoring historical facts ?, you mean the lying propaganda of Kohen-Rodriguez, which is not remotely factual,
go research Spanish archives and you will see a completely different story,
Your claim is false, based on lies and a myth and used by your politicians as a diversion,
but the worst thing is you know all this and still repeat the crazy nonsense,
the matter is closed end of story,
@ Esteban Domingo Fernandez.-
Oct 16th, 2024 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse -3You can fool the inhabitants of the islands but not me.
1594? Really?
There are several maps that show that the English did not discover the islands, to mention just one, that of Pedro Reinel from 1522.
Even your favorite author Pascoe and Pepper acknowledge that the islands were not discovered by the English.
Greetings.-
yes Malvi. historical recorded fact, the islands were claimed in 1594 by us, no other country except you disputes that, and if you bothered to take your head out the sand and do some genuine research then you would see that too, as for who saw then first no one knows for certain, but one thing is most certain is that they where claimed long before you existed, Argentina was never in the game, take your pathetic claim to court, and lose just like you dis with Chile, you claim you are not indoctrinated, your posts prove otherwise,
Oct 16th, 2024 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@ Esteban
Oct 16th, 2024 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -11594? If you take off your blinders a little you would realize that in those times discovery alone did not grant rights but was perfected with occupation.
The islands were part of the Spanish province called Viceroyalty of Rio del Plata and were occupied and inhabited by Spain.
So why didn't the UK expel its governor? Why didn't he expel its inhabitants?
The answer is simple, the islands were never British and the sad thing for you is that you cannot prove otherwise.
Anything else, does this sound familiar to you?
“Madam President, the United Kingdom is not in doubt about our sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. It has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Contrary to what has been said today, it has never been part of the Republic of Mauritius.”
You have been given the facts over and over again, by various posters, if you feel so confident then you know where to take your evidence, see you there, it will be a good laugh.
Oct 16th, 2024 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“discovery alone did not grant rights but was perfected with occupation.”
Oct 16th, 2024 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How about these apples.
“The Island of Palmas tribunal of the PCA at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
“If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title—cession conquest, occupation, etc.—superior to that which the other State might possibly bring forward against it.”
”There is a general principle, in international law jurisprudence, that claims may be extinguished by the passage of time.
“The principle of extinctive prescription, that is, the bar of claims by lapse of time, is recognized by international law. It has been applied by arbitration tribunals in a number of cases. The application of the principle is flexible and there are no fixed time limits…. Undue delay in presenting a claim, which may lead to it being barred, is to distinguished from effects of the passage of time on the merits of the claim in cases where the claimant state has, by failing to protest or otherwise, given evidence of acquiescence’”: I Oppenheim 526 and 527. See Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (1953), Chap. 18; King, Prescription of Claims in International Law, (1934) 15 B.Y.I.L. 82. Cf. prescription, acquisitive.
So the UK can prove jurisdiction as to title, and the last time I looked they have tossed a claim that exceeded thirty years (The Gentini case PCA 1903).
Moreover, you cannot apply modern law. With so much precedent in their corner, they look like their claim is in pretty good shape
Spain only claimed one island brainwashed Malvi, and Spain is not Argentina by the way, more research required Malvi, your post get more bizarre and desperate,
Oct 16th, 2024 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malvinense,
Oct 17th, 2024 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse +1when does Argentina return the provinces it stole at gunpoint from Paraguay: Chaco, Formosa and Misiones?
@ Juan
Oct 17th, 2024 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wasn't brainwashed. I would say that you Brits should check if you have all the information.
Spain claimed a single island, a nonsense that many like Pepper and Pascoe, Lorton and company repeat.
Can you imagine Spain occupying the islands for nearly half a century and claiming just one island?
When the English clandestinely occupied Port Egmont, the Spanish went in search of them and expelled them.
They signed a treaty recognizing Spanish sovereignty and left the island.
After that the Spanish destroyed the buildings. There was no English protest.
In 1811, when the Spanish momentarily abandoned the islands due to the independence struggles, in the Spanish documents it can be clearly read that the Malvinas Islands were abandoned in plural.
You can read it at the link provided by Lorton.
Please, you are an intelligent person, do not repeat like a parrot that Spain claimed a single island when it clearly considered the entire archipelago its sovereignty.
@ Don Alberto
As far as I know Formosa, Misiones, Chaco were never part of Paraguay.
And in case you are right, again as far as I know, there are no territorial claims on the part of Paraguay.
Regards..
Malv
Oct 17th, 2024 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The relevant point about the history of the S. Atlantic and Antarctic is that the British are in that history, Argentina isn’t, didn’t exist until what, 1816?
By your own admission, Argentina didn’t try and take possession of the Malvinas until 1820.
For all the history before that, which is most of it, you must argue other people’s history as you have none of your own.
A history in which competing sovereignty claims were settled, in Britain’s favour, long before Argentina ever existed.
The uncomfortable truth for you is that Argentina is the new ‘kid on the block’ (meaning the last to arrive there), in that part of the world, not the British who have been there a very long time.
Also, Spain abandoned it settlement in 1811 because the British capture of Montevideo cut the supply line.
The Spanish navy administered the Malvinas from Montevideo, not BA, again Argentina not involved and not even existing yet, again arguing someone else’s history, and a someone else who doesn’t even claim the territory.
Your argument is a tissue of lies spun from other people’s history.
Saludos.
You are talking absolute rubbish Malvi, but then i expect nothing more from a man who cant see the wood from the trees. Spain inherited one island from France, Britain never accepted the islands where French or Spanish, and in time Spain also recognised the islands where indeed British, the UP was never in the game, it is you who does the parroting, as many many people have said, go to court if you believe in your diatribe, you have no legal leg to stand on,
Oct 17th, 2024 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Oct 17th, 2024 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As soon as you use the words “usurped the islands and expelled the inhabitants” you lose any ounce of credibility.
I have advised you time and again to read the logs of Pinedo which are completely at odds with the blatant lie above.
Every single civilian onboard the Sarandi had already chosen to leave before the HMS Clio arrived.
The militia had already requested passage back to Argentina on the Rapid before the HMS Clio arrived.
Not one single person left the islands in January 1833, who didn't already want to in December 1832. Not one, none.
Stop repeating the same lie like a parrot, it makes you look incredibly foolish.
Fewer than 30 remained on the islands. There is zero evidence that they were unhappy with British sovereignty.
As for your note that the US doesn't claim Cuba....of course it doesn't because it would be stupid and they have no rights to it...just like Argentina and the Falklands.
Your entire claim is based on a fake inheritance that nobody on the islands was there to claim, a fake usurpation disproved by your own ships Captain, a failed Germans business activities for 3 years 200 years ago...and geographic proximity due to a genocidal campaign 50 years later.
For that pile of horse dung, 900 people have already died, yet you dishonour them further when you know full well you are repeating lies.
@ Pugol
Oct 17th, 2024 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@Pugol
You do not understand that Argentina is in this story, the predecessor state is Spain and the successor is Argentina.
Argentina emerges from what was previously Spanish, not British, territory.
As you rightly say, Argentina took possession of the islands in 1820, published in The Times of London, this fact did not provoke any protest from London, obviously because the islands were never British.
In addition, sovereign acts were carried out with the first national governments starting in 1810.
And no, sovereignty claims were resolved in favor of Spain long before the Argentine state existed.
Furthermore, the one who does not have any history to discuss is you because all previous history is discussed based on Spanish or Argentine history, there is no first English discovery, there is no first English settlement, there is no first incorporation of the islands into the english state etc.,
Spain abandoned its settlement on the islands due to the independence struggles, the Spanish government had to move from Buenos Aires to Montevideo and I remind you that Montevideo was just another city in the Spanish province of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata.
You yourself say that the Spanish navy administered the islands from Montevideo, so can you explain to me how the islands are British?
Malv
Oct 17th, 2024 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina was the successor state to Spain in the territories that were Spanish.
Which did not include the S. Atlantic, that matter was settled in 1771 in Britain’s favour, long before Argentina ever existed.
Britain’s first sight of the Islands, first landing on the Islands, first settlement and first recovery of the territory from foreign invasion, all happened long before Argentina ever existed.
Can you explain to me how it is Argentina thinks they are Argentinian in today?
Other than by completely ignoring the previous British history of the whole region.
Fact is the British have been there for a long time and are there to stay, so you may as well get used to it.
Also, I have to say, we had none of these problems with the original neighbours in Patagonia and TDF, only since Argentina spread south and reached the shores of the British S. Atlantic.
However, as Argentina found out the hard way, unlike Atahualpa or the Mapuche the British can defend their territory.
Saludos.
Successor state ?, you mean a small break away region from the Spanish empire, why didnt you inherit Cuba or any other Spanish speaking territory then, because its garbage thats why, 2nd their was nothing to inherit, 3rd their is no law to support that bonkers statement, get a grip ma n,you are losing the plot,
Oct 17th, 2024 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Pugol
Oct 18th, 2024 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse -1You repeat things without meaning, without arguing. 1771 is proven to have been resolved in favor of Spain, the British withdrew and the Spanish remained occupying the islands so I don't see a way for the South Atlantic to be British.
You say: which did not include the South Atlantic. I must inform you that yes, because at the time of the independence struggles the islands were occupied by Spain.
I have answered again and again but they can't tell me how the islands are British.
“Britain’s first sight of the Islands, first landing on the Islands, first settlement”
Even his favorite author Pascoe and Pepper deny all this.
With respect to the native peoples, neither Spain nor Argentina had problems since neither they nor the British inhabited the islands.
We know that they defend “their territories” in Asia, Africa, America, etc.
I don't know who has to get used to who, because you are the ones on the wrong side of the planet and we are going to be here for a long, long time.
Malvi
Oct 18th, 2024 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse +2you argument now appears to be that South America including the South Atlantic is Spanish territory and can only be under Spanish successor authorities.
This is patently nonsense, there are parts of South America that French, British, Dutch and Portuguese.
What you also claim is that a territory 1000 miles away from an administering capital automatically cedes to one off the successor states at independence. There is no law or rule now or at the time that even suggests that it is remotely true.
The way Uruguay became Uruguay as a successor state is that the people chose to be Uruguayan, same for Paraguay, Chile, Argentina. Patagonia belonged to nobody, and the Falklands (or at least the island of East Falkland) remained Spanish until 1811 when they voluntarily withdrew.
The only possible way Argentina becomes the successor state is if the Spanish inhabitants had chosen to be Argentine, they did not....not one of them. They remained Spainish.
Argentina no doubt wanted the islands in 1820, but knew that without a working population theirs was only a claim, the same claim either Britain or Spain had....you were 1000 miles away at that time because you hadn't yet committed genocide in Patagonia for another 50 years.
Luis Vernet played both sides, had his business worked and prospered it might be relevant, it failed and therefore isn't.
So, when Argentina finally and unequivocally tried to claim the islands officially in 1832, Britain responded. As it turns out they didn't actually need to, becaus ein true Argentine style their attempt to colonise the islands in 1832 failed and the governor was murdered, his wife raped, and the militia had chartered a fishing boat to return to Argentina.
The remnants of Vernets business had requested safe passage to the mainland BEFORE the British arrived.
No Malvi, Britain threatened to go to war with Spain over the eviction, so it was given back, when Spain left finally they said the islands belong to Britain, not a renegade Spanish province that Spain did not recognise for many years, you have been told this time and time again, but you choose to ignore it, the islands where are and will remain British until the day they choose something different, its irrelevant what side of the planet Britain is on, the people who live on the islands are what matters, they where there before you stole Patagonia, they will in time when the population is what it needs to be, become an independent sovereign nation . JC is spot on when he says, get a grip and stop wasting your life on this nonsense, because that is what it is, nonsense, the matter is solved,
Oct 18th, 2024 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malv
Oct 18th, 2024 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Here, the 1771 agreement, read it and weep:
https://www.fiassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/1.-1771-Agreement-between-the-British-and-Spanish-Governments.pdf
As you can see the Anglo-Spanish agreement of 1771 was a triumph for Britain as Spain was forced to give way on all three points:(i) To ‘disavow’ Bucereli’s expedition to expel the British;(ii) to return Port Egmont to Britain exactly as it was before the Spanish expelled the British on 10 June 1770; (iii) and to refrain from asserting that Spain had prior rights in the Falklands. Furthermore, Spain had never asked Britain to surrender her claim of sovereignty which had not been discussed during the negotiations and there is no evidence of any ‘’secret promise’’ being made by Britain that she would abandon the Falklands.
You must be reading a different Pascoe and Pepper.
As for your ‘independence struggles’, well the Spanish abandoned the Islands in 1811 and Argentina declared independence in 1816, so the Malvinas were not part of the territory on independence, not withstanding the prior British claim.
The most you can claim to have inherited is a dispute and you signed that away in the 1850 treaty and the cessation of diplomatic protests, which did not begin again until 1943.
For 93 years Argentina did not dispute British sovereignty of the Falklands.
Effectively Argentina’s claim in today dates from 1943 as everything before that had been settled and is recorded as such.
Saludos
@Monkey
Oct 18th, 2024 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -1At no point did I mention that all of South America was Spanish or Argentine.
As I said in another comment above, the entire discussion is based on Spanish or Argentine history, why? because there is no British fact to discuss why? because there was practically no British history.
Let's look at it more simply: you demand from Argentina what you do not demand from the United Kingdom.
In his own words:
“but he knew that without a working population theirs was only a claim”
Other words:
“you were 1000 miles away”
My questions are: how is it possible for the Isles to be British without a “British working” population and without an administrative capital?
And in the supposed case that this administrative capital existed, how is it possible for the islands to be British at a much greater distance?
”and the Falklands (or at least the island of East Falkland) remained Spanish until 1811”
Both Spanish islands. There is no differentiation between them. As I explained above, the English were expelled from the western island, which shows that the archipelago was considered Spanish.
The islands did not stop being Spanish in 1811, they stopped being Spanish in 1863 like the rest of its territory at the time of the recognition of Argentine independence.
In 1811 they withdrew from the islands due to the independence struggles, they did not abandon them, they were not terra nullis, but rather the entire territory was being disputed between the Spanish state and the nascent Argentine state.
....the same claim either Britain...
There was no British claim, in 1820 Argentina claimed and occupied the islands, published in The Times without any protest.
Everything that happened with Vernet, Mestivier, Pinedo and the Argentine colony in no way transforms the islands into British ones or favors their claim, on the contrary, it shows the presence of the Argentine state, its population and its effort to settle in those difficult latitudes.
Reagards.
Malv
Oct 18th, 2024 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1What was publish in the back pages of the Times was a letter from a private individual, who paid for the advertising space.
This is not and cannot be considered as a diplomatic document of any kind.
The UP did not sent any diplomatic notes to the British or anyone else, or issue Letters Patent claiming the territory for all to see.
Next week I’ll put an ad in the BA Times making me King of Patagonia, ok.
@ Pugol: weep? really?
Oct 18th, 2024 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Thomas Pownall´s statement in the British Parliament, on March 5th, 1771, is clear:
whatever may be the present ostensible form of the convention, mark well the end: It will end on our part either in the actual cession of the island or in a gradual direliction of it. Without some such idea as this; namely that as soon as reparation is made to our honour for the violent and hostile manner in which we were driven off that island, and as soon as we were put in a situation to evacuate it of our own motion, its tacitly understood we are to cede it. Without some such idea as this; the whole of the negotiation is inexplicable and unintelligible. But taking this line, as going to a matter mutually understood, the whole is plain, definite and but of one construction.
No Malvi you are mistaken. I have explained this before and you just come back with the same drivel.
Oct 18th, 2024 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is sovereignty and sovereignty claims. They are different.
Anyone can have a sovereignty claim of an empty territory. That’s how the Americas were claimed.
By 1811 the islands were empty. There were three sovereignty claims but nobody had sovereignty. All three parties were well aware of the competing claims, Luis Vernet was aware of the competing claims, claiming that Britain didn’t have a “claim” is a blatant falsehood, the UP were well aware of it.
So in 1811 nobody exercised sovereignty, Spain had certainly exercised sovereignty but had vacated their settlement.
The Vernet settlement is a dubious case of exercising sovereignty and there is clear evidence he was happy with Argentine or British sovereignty claims, he accepted a ceremonial title from the UP to stop them sending anyone else, but at all times sought assurances from the British consulate.
Argentina attempted to unequivocally claim sovereignty in October 1832 sending a governor. It failed in true Argentine fashion with murder and rape, but Britain had already enacted their sovereignty claim too, as it turned out unnecessarily.
Subsequently Britain has exercised sovereignty for 190 years.
Argentina never had sovereignty, it had a claim no weaker or stronger than Britains in 1832, but it failed to exercise it then made up a fantasy story about usurpation that you repeat like a gormless parrot, even though you know it is false.
Malvi. yes weep, your so called inheritance has been debunked over and over again, your so called mythical Argie town has been proved to be a lie. the so called usurping has been proved to be not true, who cares what Pownall said, its irrelevant just the same as Jenkins comments are, you continue to dig a whole for yourself, its embarrassing to see, for goodness sake stop this fanatical rubbish, its over no matter what you think or believer, the matter is settled, life is too short for this bollocks
Oct 18th, 2024 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You do not understand that Argentina is in this story, the predecessor state is Spain and the successor is Argentina.”
Oct 18th, 2024 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Malv
Argentina was the successor state to Spain in the territories that were Spanish.”
------
State succession is not the cause of a change of sovereignty; it’s the consequence. The successor State is the one that manages to establish sovereignty, not the one that doesn’t. This is true regardless of the relation between the State that fails to establish sovereignty, and the former sovereign.
In the following link I explain why Argentina’s claim never had any legal basis even if the Falklands had been indisputably Spanish (which they weren’t)
https://en.mercopress.com/2024/04/03/milei-pledges-to-obtain-a-roadmap-for-the-return-of-malvinas-during-his-mandate/comments#comment530749
Argentina’s claim to have sovereignty by 1833 can only be based on the IL that existed between 1816 and 1833. Simple fact is the only way UPJ could have changed the sovereignty of any Spanish territory then without Spain’s consent was if UPJ had been obligatory. There’s irrefutable proof it wasn’t.
Not only did Argentina never have sovereignty, legally it relinquished its claim with the Arana-Southern Peace Treaty:
Uti Possidetis
uti possidetis n
[Late Latin, as you (now) possess (it); from the wording of an interdict in Roman law enjoining both parties in a suit to maintain the status quo until the decision]
: a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated
Malv
Oct 19th, 2024 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok, I’ll rephrase that, Argentina was the successor state to Spain in the former Spanish territories that it gained control of (established sovereignty over) upon independence.
Which did not include the Malvinas, there was no ‘independence struggle’ on the Islands, which Spain continued to claim until 1866 by which time they did not control any part of the territory and had not done so for 55 years.
So, on to the Arana-Southern Peace Treaty:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1850_Convention_of_Settlement
‘putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship’.
‘Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.’
And the cessation of diplomatic protests by Argentina for the next 93 years?
How do you explain the lack of any protest by Argentina for 93 years other than acquiescing to British claims, especially given Uti Possidetis:
‘a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated’.
Argentina’s claim today can only date from 1943.
Oh, and look out for my ad in the BA Times next week making me King of Patagonia, we can meet for a beer in my royal place, once I have decided where it will be, ok.
Saludos
It seems Malvi misunderstands.
Oct 19th, 2024 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyone can have a sovereignty claim of an uninhabited island. It could be argued in 1812 or 1832 that Spain, Uk and the United Provinces had claims, maybe France or Chile too. All the parties knew then that only a working population turns that sovereignty claim into unequivocal sovereignty.
The Vernet settlement was clearly seen differently by the UP and the UK and Vernet played them both, but that community failed in 1831.
This is why the UP sent Mestevier to unequivocally claim sovereignty and why the UK responded immediately.
The working population rule was not met, which is why Argentina made up the eviction and usurpation lie. There would need to be a population evicted….the muppet Malvinistas in this site still claim this lie.
So, lots of sovereignty claims, but no sovereignty. The UK broke no rule in 1833, no eviction, no usurpation.
900 died based on these lies, and poor Malvi can’t have a beer because he still chooses to believe the Peronist fantasy.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!