MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Greetings from the Falkland Islands
By MLA Gavin Short for Infogate - We have passed nearly through spring and are but a few days away from summer which has proved to be cooler and wetter than in previous years, which is a blessing after the dry seasons experienced over the last few years and I believe that despite the lower temperatures, grass growth is good which will be welcomed by our rural sector. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMr. Gavin Short conveniently forgets to say that livestock was started by the Argentine settlers of the islands, even before Vernet, both cattle and sheep, which were later continued by the Argentine governor Vernet and his settlers, among whom were natives. and gauchos from different Argentine provinces.
Nov 27th, 2024 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -6There are also family ties -marriages- between inhabitants of the mainland (Argentina) and the Malvinas/Falklands Islands (Argentina)
Your country, Mr. Short, which is our country, is usurped by a foreign power.
Greetings from Malvinas/Falklands, Argentine Republic.
Malv
Nov 27th, 2024 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Nah, you’re talking bollox as usual, there were Spanish speaker there hence the amount of old Gaucho Spanish in modern Falklands English.
The Islands have never legitimately been occupied by, or formed part of Argentina, or the UP.
The British claim is much older and has always been maintained, hence the British recovering the Islands from foreign invasion three time, in 1771, 1833 and 1982.
Argentina did not exist until 1816 and then only extended 100 miles from the river Plate, by which time the S. Atlantic was long established British territory and Antarctica was being established as British territory.
Argentina is the ‘new kid on the block’ in that part of the world, where the British are the oldest regional power there.
Not to mention Argentina acquiescing to British claims in the 1850 treaty and ending of diplomatic protests.
Saludos
Pathetic fanatical troll above, no one has ever said there where not any United Province people on the islands, they where part of a failed multi national business venture, Vernet was German, Brisbane was British, the final leader of the failed business was Irish, but having a sensible debate with you is pointless, no usurping on the islands at all but plenty of usurping in Patagonia by your lot, no matter how many times you lie, it will not make it fact, it must hurt like hell to find out that you have been conned. so take some friendly advice and go live your life to the full, and stop wasting it on this silly crap,
Nov 27th, 2024 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Pugol
Nov 27th, 2024 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -5As I have said many times, the nationality of people does not determine the sovereignty of the place, Bouchard, Brown, Liniers, Thompson, Jewett and many men of various nationalities fought for the independence of our country.
Does the United Kingdom belong to India because Rishi Sunak is of Indian origin?
I'm being a bit extreme so you can understand.
The treaty of 1850 is another nonsense.
The same treaty was signed with France, according to you the islands were also handed over to France, nonsense.
Saludos.
This map clearly shows that in 1882 Argentina had abandoned her claim to the Falklands. Latzina Map and the Falklands: https://www.academia.edu/108294347/The_Latzina_Map_and_the_Falklands
Nov 27th, 2024 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +3(Successfully used in the Beagle Islands dispute Arg/Chile 1977)
Poor Malvi
Nov 27th, 2024 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2He ran out of proper arguments so he turned full troll.
Apparently the islands are Argentine because a German businessman brought some cows there 200 years ago.
Oh dear oh dear.
Good grief, the desperation in 1833 arguments get more ridiculous by the day, there where Brazilians and Uruguayans on the islands, does he claim them as UP citizens, but wait they chose to return to their own countries not Buenos Aires, he has no rationale or credibility, just posting idiotic nonsense and making a complete burk of himself,
Nov 27th, 2024 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Livestock?
Nov 27th, 2024 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +2First introduced by the French Acadian settlers in 1764.
Like Lorton said? British? No, Acadians which reinforces my argument, did the English introduce cattle? No. Were the islands occupied by the English? No.
Nov 28th, 2024 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Did the islands belong to the English? No.
Please pass that information on to Mr. Gavin Short.
@Potts
“Whether in frontier delimitations or in international territorial conflicts, maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial titles, that is, a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights.” C.I.J.
You are behaving like a very silly little school child 1833, you also know that Vernet always asked Britains permission to visit the islands, but again you either ignore or twist fact the rest of your post is just waffle,
Nov 28th, 2024 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@ Esteban
Nov 28th, 2024 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -5I have looked for that British permit that they talk so much about.
I haven't been able to find it. I'm afraid that permission only exists in feverish British minds.
Malvi
Nov 28th, 2024 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Rishi Sunak is not of Indian origin he was born and bred in Southampton which is in the UK.
All your bluster and waffle about what did or did not happen 200 - 250 years ago is as I've said many times before totally irrelevant the only thing that matters are the wishes of the Falkland Islands in the here and now.
Nobody is interested in what you think.
@ darragh Darragh
Nov 28th, 2024 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -3As far as I know, Rishi Sunak's parents are Hindu and I believe his wife is too.
It was as an example.
What happened 200 years ago is not relevant to you, but to us it is, because a portion of our country remains occupied by the United Kingdom.
It is a conflict that from minute zero your country refused to solve.
Saludos.
Malv
Nov 28th, 2024 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Yes, the presence of Spanish speakers in the Islands did not alter British sovereignty of the Islands.
Just as Rishi Sunak being of Indian origin does not make India British once again.
The treaty of 1850 along with the treaty of 1771 are the two documents which demonstrate the fallacy of any Argentinian claim, hence you always try and argue they don’t mean what they say, or even say what they say, if you get my meaning.
And what treaty with France are you referring to???
As far as I am aware Britain has never signed any treaty/accord with France about the Falklands.
Did the British find the Islands first – yes
Did the British land on and claim the Islands first – yes
Have the British always maintained their claim, with force when necessary – yes
Are they still British – yes
Sorry Malv but Argentina was never in it, as recognised in the 1850 treaty.
There is no dispute to resolve, Argentina does not have a valid claim.
And, I could be wrong here, but I think you’ll find Darragh is Irish, that being so his country is not involved.
Saludos
You have looked for the permits have you 1833, boy you are childish, and no, not one jot of your country is occupied by Britain, however you do occupy vast swathes of land you stole from the natives, nothing but a lying troll,
Nov 28th, 2024 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1He reads like Pat the Expat...
Nov 29th, 2024 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse +1The Malvinista fanatic posts are pretty laughable, his so called arguments would get shredded in a court of law, a polite poster he may be, but when its filled with lies and distortions then he becomes nothing more than an embarrassment, their is not one single bit of evidence to say the islands are Argentinian, why he persists with this crap beggars belief, the islands belong to the islanders, no one else.
Nov 29th, 2024 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse +1@Pugol
Nov 29th, 2024 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse -4The treaty of 1771 is the United Kingdom's recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands. This is demonstrated by the treaty with the reservation of sovereignty of His Catholic Majesty. This is demonstrated by the protagonists of the time, discussions in the English Parliament and letters.
The British withdrawal demonstrates this.
This is demonstrated by the permanence of Spain on the islands.
This is demonstrated by the absence of protests over the Spanish presence and then the Argentine presence until 1829.
Regarding the convention of 1850, its fallacy has also already been demonstrated.
In order not to extend too much:
The ridiculousness of the winning country giving up the Malvinas.
The ridiculousness of the president of Uruguay agreeing to the resignation of Malvinas.
The ridiculousness that the treaty signed with England Arana-Southern is the same one signed with France Arana-Le-Prédour.
According to you, Argentina then handed over the Malvinas to England and France, a complete nonsense.
Who is a fan? Who is wrong?
Maybe I don't have the complete truth but open your eyes, open your eyes.
https://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Convenci%C3%B3n_Arana_-_Le-Pr%C3%A9dour
Malvi
Nov 29th, 2024 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You have looked for a permit?
But have you looked for logs of the ARA Sarandi, you don't need to look far they are in BA. Alternatively they are reference in Pascoe and Pepper.
You will see the following.
> Pinedo dropped of Mestevier, the garrison and convicts and went to explore the islands in November 1832. Mestevier put up the flag of the UP and declared the islands UP territory. An odd thing to do as you claim inheritance from God!
> When he returned in late December, Mestevier was murdered, his wife raped and the garrison had mutinied.
> The mutineers had requested transit back to the mainland on the British whaling schooner the Rapid
> Pinedo ordered the mutineers to remain.
>Pinedo offered safe passage to the remnants of Vernet's business to the mainland. Most accepted claiming Vernet had lied to them.
> The HMS Clio arrived on January 6th and ordered Pinedo to remove the flag. Pinedo considered an armed defence but decided not to.
>Pinedo left on the Sarandi with EXACTLY the same people he planned to leave with before.
>The mutineers were allowed to leave on the Rapid.
> The remaining 20 people or so on the island under the control of the Irishman William Dickson remained.
Over 100 years later, a Peronist imbecile made up a story that an Argentine population were evicted from the islands and replaced by a British one. It is simply not true.
There was NEVER an Argentine population on the islands.
There was a Spanish population on the islands, they left in 1810 and returned to Spain. Not one of them became Argentine, chose Argentine Independence and therefore there was no inheritance.
The Vernet business failed in 1831, Vernet and the majority of his workers were on the islands for 3 years, and left voluntarily. Some, like Matthew Brisbane returned after Jan 6th 1833.
but apparently a Frenchman put some cows on the islands 60 years before Argentina existed gives Argentina sovereignty.....Grow up!
@ Monkey
Nov 29th, 2024 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -3None of the unfortunate events described by you favor the British position, nor do they make the islands British, they are events that occurred in the Argentine colony.
He says that there was never an Argentine population. Darwin, Fitz Roy, María Saez de Vernet and her diary, etc. deny it.
This too is refuted by the destruction of the colony by Captain Silas Duncan. If there was no population, then what did the American captain destroy?
Strangely, the United Kingdom did not protest the destruction of “its” colony since it was built with “British permission.”
Vernet was on the continent because of this fact.
Onslow lowered the Argentine flag, telling Pinedo to retreat, threatening to open fire if he did not do so.
Suppose the island was left empty, that did not make it res nullius for any country to take over.
It is possible that without the intervention of Onslow, Vernet, Pinedo and perhaps other settlers would have returned to rebuild the colony.
And as you say, there was also a Spanish colony, they had to withdraw due to the struggles for self-determination, the territory usurped by the British was in dispute, I repeat it again it was not terra nullius.
Having said all this, then how is it possible that the territory is British? Can you explain it to me?
Good weekend. Saludos.
Malvi you are blathering again.
Nov 29th, 2024 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +2You know that only a working population gave sovereignty. They were the rules everyone was working to in the Americas at the time. This is frequently how many islands changed sovereignty.
Spain withdrew, thats true
The territory Britain took was in dispute...thats true, Argentina, Spain and Britain all knew full well of each others claims
So when Argentina sent Mestevier they were ignoring British claims they were well aware of? Isn't that usurping a disputed territory Malvi? Or is it ok when Argies do it? How about genocide in Patagonia is that ok too?
You are still wailing 200 years on that Britain ignored your claim in abstentia.
You made up a story about an eviction. It never happened
You made up a story about inheritance of a Spanish sovereignty.It never happened
You made up stories about continental shelves. they are irrelevant.
You said Pinedo was your Governor, he was the Captain of a ship sent to take Mestevier he was neither ordered nor proposed to stay.
Argentina wanted the islands, So what? You sent 650 to die for your myths and lies and you are still to arrogant and pig headed to see you were wrong.
Do you think it might sink in this time MM ?, or will he just come back with the same old meaningless irrelevant waffle, my guess is the latter, it hurts him too much to admit he is wrong. fanatical people never see the whole picture, just the bits they want to see,
Nov 29th, 2024 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Juan
Nov 30th, 2024 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course it won’t sink in.
Sadly Malvi has changed. When he first appeared he genuinely believed the eviction myth, he genuinely believed the Argentine population myth, he genuinely believed the inheritance myth.
As one by one his brainwashing was revealed to him, and what is left is a wafer thin set of what ifs….he turned full troll and now doesn’t care about the truth in his posts.
Of all the Argies Malvi is the poster I pity most.
MM, That is why i have stopped responding to Malvi, he knows the historical facts dont match what Argentina claims, but he is too far gone to admit it, and will continue the big lie,
Nov 30th, 2024 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malv
Nov 30th, 2024 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The treaty of 1771 contains a general reservation of sovereignty, which applies equally to both parties, its in the agreement as I have shown you.
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.
As to 1850:
‘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.’
No mention of the Malvinas and followed by the cessation of Argentinian
diplomatic protests for the next 93 years?
However, you recognise that it was a peace treaty and therefore 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’.
It is clear, Argentina was obviously not the ‘winner’ in that treaty.
As to ‘Arana-Le-Prédour’, this is an agreement between Argentina and France only, again with no mention the Malvinas, and as such can have no effect on British claims to the Falklands whatsoever, it’s totally irrelevant, as is much of what you post.
Once again you try and argue agreements don’t mean what they say, or even say what they say and now apply to countries that never even signed them.
Most unconvincing arguments yet from you, if indeed they can be called arguments in the first place.
Saludos
“The ridiculousness of the winning country giving up the Malvinas.”
Nov 30th, 2024 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
The agreements that concluded the War of the Spanish 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.”
@Pugol
Dec 03rd, 2024 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You are completely wrong like most here. The reservation of sovereignty was made by His Catholic Majesty. The return of the Port and the Fort in no way affects the previous question of Spanish sovereignty over the island.
The two points you mention are correct, the third point is not.
It is demonstrated by the documents written by the protagonists, not even you or me, and also by the British withdrawal.
This reserve [that of the Spanish sovereignty] has supplied matter for much clamour, and, perhaps the English ministry would have been better pleased had the declaration been without it. But when we have obtained all that was asked, why should we complain that we have not more?
Dr Johnson
1850:
Convention to reestablish perfect relations of friendship between France and the Argentine Confederation
Arana-Le-Prédour Treaty.
Another nonsense as I already said.
It's the same treaty, so Argentina also ceded the islands to France, a complete nonsense. Not to mention that the approval of the President of Uruguay, Oribe, was needed.
This shows that Argentina did not give up the islands, only the fanatics, even with all the evidence, repeat the same thing.
@ Terence
Another treaty demonstrating Spanish sovereignty in the South Atlantic, Admiral Anson's expedition was rejected by Spain and accepted by England due to the validity of this treaty.
“Another treaty demonstrating Spanish sovereignty in the South Atlantic”
Dec 04th, 2024 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Only over Argentina, but excluding the Islands as is shown in the superseding' Declaration of 1771.
Thus, Argentina is bound by the 'Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain'
ARTICLE VIII
“...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.”
Malv
Dec 05th, 2024 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh no, what the treaty says is:
‘to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called
Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland's Islands.’
As I said, ‘a general reservation of sovereignty, which applies equally to both parties’.
And no mention of the name Malvinas, guess at that point they didn’t exist.
Again, you try and argue that a treaty doesn’t mean what it says.
You are perfectly free to believe that, but no independent adjudication or court would agree with your interpretation, if fact anyone who can read can see it is simply wrong.
As to the Arana-Le-Prédour Treaty, I’ll say it again its completely irrelevant as the UK did not sign it nor does it mention the Malvinas, and as the UK did sign the South Aran treaty, they clearly cannot be the same treaty.
Admiral Anson's expedition was in 1749 long before the 1850 agreement, anyway the British rejected the Spanish protest stating that, ‘HM Government could in no way accept the Spanish ambassador’s statements, as surely nothing could impinge there right to establish a settlement on their uninhabited territory’.
So in 1749 the Spanish knew that the British maintained their claim to the Islands, which the British then enforced in 1771.
Your attempts to re-write and misrepresent history are necessary I suppose, as otherwise Argentina doesn’t have a case, which you clearly have realised hence the emphasis on changing history.
Saludos
1833 has lost all credibility and turned in to a full blown troll, just posting now to get a reaction. sad really, he will probably now go read the next chapter of lies from Kohen Rodriguez to make himself feel better,
Dec 05th, 2024 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!