MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ new Governor’s message in support of the Islands’ defense and future
The first formal address of the new Falkland Islands Governor, Colin Martin Reynolds, following the swearing in ceremony, in which he received all the symbols of his position, was well received by the local population particularly the reaffirmation of the United Kingdom’s commitment to the defense, future and cooperation with the Falklands’ people. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMr. Colin Reynolds: will be welcomed to the Malvinas Islands, Argentine Republic, when the illegal occupation by the United Kingdom ends.
Aug 05th, 2025 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain’s manipulation of the principle of self-determination is clear for a number of reasons: 1) because the General Assembly of the United Nations, and not the colonial power, is the body in charge of determining the procedures to be followed in order to put an end to a colonial situation, and the highest organ of the United Nations has never applied such a principle to the current inhabitants of the islands; 2) because this is a special case of colonialism in which the victim of the colonial action was a recently established State; 3) because after the dispossession of Argentina, the British government established their own settlers; 4) because since then, it has controlled the migration policies of this isolated and scarcely populated territory; 5) because the current residents do not constitute a separate “people” who is a victim of colonial actions; 6) because the United Kingdom, after evicting Argentina and introducing its own settlers, rejected all proposals to negotiate and arbitration put forward by Argentina, while consolidating its presence in the islands.
Accepting that the British subjects living in the islands may themselves decide the Anglo- Argentine dispute would mean a flagrant and arbitrary example of imposing a fait accompli. If there is a people who is a victim of colonialism to whom the principle of self- determination can be applied here, that people is the Argentine people.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez
Point 1: Entirely false
Aug 07th, 2025 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse +1The principal of self-determination is the ONLY acceptable route to the UNGA for the non-self governing territories, it offers 3 choices inclusion in the host country such as the French colonies, who are off the list, independence, or incorporation in another country. There is no fourth option where a rouge 3rd world failed state makes a demonstrably false and violent claim against the will of the inhabitants.
2) No it isn't in anything other than Argentine (Peronist) fantasy
3) No it isn't as proven by the logs of the SS Sarandi, no Argentine settlers were removed or ever existed.
4) No it hasn't, the Falkland population is ethnically very diverse.
5) They are no different to any other population in the Americas
6) As number 4, and there is no need to negotiate with a violent, corrupt 3rd world Peronist regime would are irrelevant to the islands past, present or future.
Unlucky Mali, even Milei knows this is is bollox.
You still haven't been able to present a single piece of evidence or tell me why the islands are British.
Aug 07th, 2025 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The Argentine settlers were expelled, as evidenced by the Sarandí records, the threats made by Onslow, the battle preparations, and the subsequent military trial to which Pinedo was subjected.
And even if it were true that part of the population was about to leave, it in no way favors the British position. Explain to me how this fact makes the islands British?
The British had no claim either during the Spanish occupation or during the Argentine occupation. They had no population on the islands. They had no naval port in Port Soledad or Port Egmont, they had one in Rio de Janeiro. At that time, the islands were not incorporated into the British crown.
Again, explain to me how the islands are British.
Stop lying. Have some intellectual honesty.
The Malvinas Islands are Argentine, and we will not forget.
Malvi
Aug 07th, 2025 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine settlers were not expelled, lying just makes you look retarded. The “settlers” who had asked Pinedo for safe passage back to the mainland were the remnants of the `Vernet business, mostly not Argentine and EVERY SINGLE ONE who left on January 6th had wanted to leave before the Clio arrived on January 5th. That is historic fact. Pinedo already and his crew already planned to leave, that is historic fact. The militia wanted to leave on the Rapid and had already paid for passage, but Pinedo wanted them to stay, Captain Onslow allowed them to leave. You are claiming allowing people who wanted to leave and already planned to leave an “expulsion”, you've been told to verify your lies and you wilfully do not...it makes you look stupid.
The British had. historic claim of East Falkland, and yes it was difficult to make good on the claim whilst the Spanish were there. The Spanish voluntarily vacated the island in 1810, that is historic fact.
Vernet was fully aware of the British claim and letter to Woodbine Parrish which are stored at Kew in London documented that Vernet had no issue if `Britain retook sovereignty.
Woodbine Parrish warned Argentina of the historic British claim BEFORE Argentina bestowed a fake title on Vernet, which he only accepted as he didn't want Argentina to give it to some else.
As soon as Argentine attempted to usurp the islands by force, in full knowledge of, but blatantly ignoring the British claim, then Britain acted. As it turned out it wasn't necessary as the usurpation failed anyway, because of the natural Argentine propensity to rape and murder
So, Britain had a historic claim, it was ignored by Argentina, who made up a claim of inheritance, there were never “Argentine settlers” and there was no “eviction”.
Subsequently there has been 200 years of Falkland Islander inhabitants of the islands, and they have self-determination.
I know everything I have just said will be ignored and you'll come back with the same cr4p
Intellectual honesty troll, really ? your whole claim is a pack of lies and distortions, the Islands are not Argentinian and never have been, and the islanders will never forget either the cruel vile illegal invasion which your countrymen did, go cry some more tears , pathetic is an understatement,
Aug 07th, 2025 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again, you're not answering my questions.
Aug 08th, 2025 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The fantasy story that tells the story of a kind British captain arriving on an island and allowing a certain number of people who were already settled there to leave or stay is very good. What you mentioned doesn't correspond to reality; after the events, there was an immediate Argentine protest.
Assuming the “historical fact” you describe is true, tell me how that magically makes the islands British.
Your other falsehood is that there was a historical claim to the eastern island. There never was such a claim.
There was an illegal British settlement on the western island, and after recognizing Spanish sovereignty, they abandoned the island.
There were no historical claims, as you would have us believe. From the British abandonment in 1774 until 1829, when Woodbine Parrish made an unfounded protest, there was no claim.
Therefore, you and Woodbine Parrish are lying.
The Spanish voluntarily vacated the island in 1810, that is historic fact.
At the beginning of the fight for independence, the Spanish forces under Vigodet´s command controlled the Rio de la Plata and the adjacent maritime areas. With the aim of joining the entirety of navy forces to fight the patriots, a Spanish war council meeting in Montevideo decided on Spain´s withdrawal from the Falklands/Malvinas on January 8th, 1811. The decision states
that this Port [of Isla de Soledad de Malvinas] is to be abandoned, by sending a ship to said port [...] with the aim that all belongings, both of Artillery and any other nature, found there are collected and brought to this City, as well as the Church ornaments, leaving all buildings well sealed and placing the King´s Coat of Arms to demonstrate ownership, and that in the meanwhile said abandoned Port remain, that annually a ship is sent for reconnaissance of the port, verifying that in it or in any other port of said Islands no other Power has established any kind of settlement.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez
1833. when will you finally get it in o your head that Kohen-Rodriguez are nobodies, they are nothing, just propagandists, but you orgasm over them as though its gospel, it is NOT,, yes your questions have been answered 100s of times and your own claims debunked just as many times, you can dispute the facts all you want its irrelevant what you think and say, you are like a spoilt little kid who wont take no for an answer, whether you like it or not the islands where claimed in 1594 by us, not Spain who have never made that claim or France who also never made that claim, Britain again informed everyone in 1690 that the islands belonged to them. France knew this, Spain also knew this, you are like a mouse stuck on its wheel and cant get off it, its embarrassing watching you post this diatribe for the 99th time, lots of politics went on between the European powers, you where never part of it ever, finally for the 600th time, it is not a special case at all. only in your fudged mind, the UN has said self determination applies to all, no exceptions, you also know no Argentine civilians where evicted, but you lie endlessly about that, so i say this to you for the 600th time, give your evidence to your government and take it to the ICJ, only nothing like that will happen and you know it, so you will just continue to cry on this site hoping someone believes your nonsense. grow up for goodness sake move on and go enjoy life, your nonsense is just a waste of precious time,
Aug 08th, 2025 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Esteban
Aug 08th, 2025 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -1It's known that the islands weren't discovered by the British—this is admitted by your favorite authors, Pascoe and Pepper—nor were they the first to land. This has already been answered 600 times, as you say. All this is known.
Now I'll follow your advice and go play paddle tennis; the sun is very good.
Best regards.
Malvi
Aug 08th, 2025 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The protest was about taking down the UP rag and replacing it with a UK flag. There was zero protest about an expulsion, they were leaving anyway. That is historic fact.
I have explained NUMEROUS times what makes the islands British.
All territories in the Americas were colonised, every single one, by Spanish, Dutch, French, British, Portuguese every single territory. The rule recognised by all was that you could “claim” what you like, but only a working civilian population gave sovereignty.
Between 1767 and 1810 Spain did indeed have sovereignty of East Falkland. They exercised it. But they voluntarily left to Spain, for an “inheritance” as you claim then one of those Spaniards would have to have become Argentine and claimed the islands as part of an independence movement...not a single person did. Not one. There was no inheritence.
From 1810 to 1828 the islands had no population, a few whaling ships, a few explorers, a couple of Argies who left...nothing.
In 1828 Vernet (knowing full well of competing claims) approached both the UP and the Woodbine Parrish to set up a business. Both were fine, Vernets deputies were both British.
When Parrish formally advised the new UP administration of the British claim they ignored it. When the Vernet business failed in 1831, he left the islands voluntarily. There were 30-40 civilians left on the islands in October 1832, when Argentina in an act of wanton aggression attempted to usurp the islands.
Sadly, the bandits being Argentine, liked to rape and murder, and poor Mr & Mrs Mestevier were the first victims of the false Argentine claim.
By the time Onslow had arrived, pretty much all the inhabitants and the new arrivals wanted to leave.
20 or so remained, joined by other thousands in nearly 200 years of peace. Interrupted only by more Argentine violence, murder and depravity in 1982.
Argentina never had a claim, never had sovereignty only murderers, rapists and liars. Of which you are at least one.
1833, it is well known, that no one knows for certain who saw the islands first, that is clear and been stated many manty times, but what is certain no one claimed them before us,
Aug 08th, 2025 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Aug 09th, 2025 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still peddling the same old Kohen nonsense I see.
Haven't you got anything better to do like getting a job?
Whatever nobody gives a flying f..k what Kohen et al think.
All that matters is what the Falkland Islanders think.
Now just move on with your life and stop being so childish.
What Mali appears to want to show is that in September 1832 the Argentine claim on the islands was stronger than the UK claim, and therefore the islands should be Argentine.
Aug 09th, 2025 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is a terribly flawed argument for the following reasons:
1) Neither had sovereignty only claims
2) Claims at that time were either negotiated through treaty or sovereignty was gained through a civilian population.
3) Argentina were well aware of the historic British claim and chose to ignore it, indeed Malvi on this thread dismisses it out of hand.
4) Argentina in ignoring the British claim sent a militia to seize the islands in October 1832, this was an act of aggression which Malvi dresses up as Argentina simply continuing Spanish sovereignty.
5) Argentinas military aggression failed, as the militia mutinied. It is clearly stated in the logs of the SS Sarandi that nobody was evicted from the islands against their will.
If, Malvi wishes to jump in his Time Machine and ignore 200 years of peaceful settlement by the islanders and revert to a discussion around who had the stronger claim in 1832, he should perhaps tell the Argie government of 1832 to negotiate BEFORE their act of war by sending the SS Sarandi. Its far too late now.
His argument is that it was fine for Argieland to ignore the British claim, and the Spanish claim, fine for Argieland to attack the islands twice, causing death and murder, but then all those things should be forgotten and we should go back to September 1832 and sit down and discuss sovereignty.
Sorry, Malvi.....never going to happen.
I know he wants to be a good Peronist, he would also have been first in the queue to throw nuns from Aeroplanes in 1982, as he swallows all propaganda whole. You simply can't attack a territory twice, cause 900+ deaths and then sit down and ask to negotiate.
My favourite authors 1833 ?, i have never mentioned their names once on this site in the 2 years i have been here, yet another thing you have got wrong, one amongst many, if just 1% of what you claim is true then that makes you and your countrymen hypocrites does it not, who invaded and stole, raped, murdered and committed genocide in what is now Southern Argentina, your whole case is laughable, its like watching the Benny Hill show, for goodness sake grow up and get a life a kiss the disastrous Peronism that has wrecked your country goodbye, the Falklands existed before Argentina existed end of story,
Aug 10th, 2025 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You didn't answer any of the questions.
Aug 11th, 2025 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Where was the British working civilian population that gives you and the United Kingdom the legal argument to expel the legitimate Argentine inhabitants?
Spain exercised sovereignty over the entire Malvinas Islands archipelago.
If, according to you, the islands were uninhabited from 1810 to 1828, that means there was no British working civilian population. Can you explain to me how the islands are magically British?
........In 1828 Vernet (knowing full well of competing claims) approached both the UP and the Woodbine Parrish to set up a business.......
Far from favouring the British claim, the truth supports the recognition of Argentine sovereignty by Great Britain. All Vernet did was to have the Decree of January 5th, 1828 certified at the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. This certification was given on January 30th, 1828 and was signed by the British Consul Charles Griffiths. It was a typical consular legalisation by which a Consulate in a foreign country certifies that an official document is signed and sealed by the competent authorities of the State in which the Consulate is located or has jurisdiction. This function of “legalisation” of official foreign documents is still exercised in Consulates the world over. Why did Vernet have his official Argentine documentation certified or legalised at the British Consulate? Because his plan, which he effectively carried out, was to send the documents to Europe, with the aim of attracting European settlers to the Falklands/Malvinas.This was a way to prove that he was going to the islands to establish a settlement with State authorisation. The certification relates to documents referring to acts of authority and provisions of the Government of Buenos Aires regarding the Falklands/Malvinas.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez
How long do you intend to continue lying, Mr. Monkey?
You need professional help. counselling and deprogramming. what you post is so much nonsense and fantasy , book an appointment tomorrow asap.
Aug 11th, 2025 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Jack
Aug 12th, 2025 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0When attempts to distort history are exposed, they are either fantasies or nonsense.
To Mr. Colin Martin Reynolds, I remind you that you are standing on Argentine soil and will be welcomed when my country's territorial integrity is restored.
Regards, Jack.
The only distortion of history stems from fanatics like your self, not only distortions but down right lies, repeating your lies like a parrot does not make it true, you have never had sovereignty over the Falklands, a pathetic lie made up by Peron, and you will never ever get sovereignty either, and as been said so many times, why not take your so called evidence to court, but you will not because your so called evidence will be laughed at, by the way you are standing on stolen soil,
Aug 12th, 2025 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Aug 12th, 2025 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats the point dumbass for the thousandth time.
There was no civilian population of EITHER Spanish, Argentine or British inhabitants. THEREFORE NOBODY HAD SOVEREIGNTY.
All three knew full well of SOVEREIGNTY CLAIMS of the others. CLAIMS get it? Not full sovereignty.
Argentina knew of the British CLAIM when it sent a militia to seize the islands in October 1832. It IGNORED the British claim. Britain retaliated by ignoring the Argentine CLAIM.
Britain did not “EXPEL LEGITIMATE ARGENTINE SETTLERS”...for gods sake Malvi, you know its bollox. They planned to expel the militia who arrived 10 weeks earlier, but in the end didn't need to as they wanted to leave anyway.
I have said all this to you a hundred times, you are either thick or a troll, my feeling is both:
Five facts
Argentina had no legitimate settlers in 1832
Argentina ignored the British claim they were well aware of in October 1832
Nobody was expelled on Jan 6th 1833
Argentina caused a war in 1982 claiming 900 lives
Malvi is a thick troll
Fanatics see only what they want to see, 1833 is a prime example of that , distortion of facts, ignorance and denial of recorded history, and down right lies , had a bit of respect for him in the past, but thats all gone now as he has just turned in to a troll. a very silly one at that,
Aug 12th, 2025 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently according to Malvi, Vernet had to get approval from Woodbine Parish “with the aim of attracting European settlers to the Falklands/Malvinas”, but Malvi has told us previously that the Vernet business was all Argentine settlers....not European settlers.
Aug 13th, 2025 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0How interesting.....it's just lie after lie after lie from Malvi.
The truth, Vernet knew full well of the competing claims, they weren't relevant as his business was full of European settlers, and was simply a business. Argentina bestowed a title on him after they had received clear and unequivocal notice of the British claim which they chose to ignore.
After Vernet's business failed, Argentina sent a military force to sieze the islands, again ignoring the British claim, and caused rape and murder. By the time the British arrived 10 weeks later, all the new arrivals and 20 or so remnants of the Vernet business were planning to leave.
Malvi wants to turn back time to September 1832, before Argentina wilfully and violently ignored the British claim, and before 1982 when Argentina invaded costing the lives of 900 people, and try to negotiate that in September 1832 Argentinas very weak claim of “inheritance” was stronger than Britains historic claim.....
It is highly debatable, and utterly irrelevant whether he is right. The time for that negotiation was before Argentina sent the Sarandi and attempted to violently usurp the islands, wilfully ignoring the British claim.
The opportunity may have existed then, but Argie land wasted it...its 200 years too late now.
@Monkey
Aug 13th, 2025 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Since the British withdrew from their illegal settlement in Puerto de la Trinidad/Port Egmont in 1774, following the recognition of Spanish sovereignty, there were, of course, no further claims. Why? Because they eventually recognized Spanish sovereignty.
Try to find the British government claims you mention in Roger Lorton archives for the period 1774-1829.
I'll be waiting for you to tell me in which years these claims were made.
Malvi, Argentina's claim has never had any legal basis even if the Falklands were indisputably Spanish at the time. Which they weren't. Argentina's claim is based only on UPJ. Nothing else. It's legally impossible for UPJ to have changed the sovereignty of any Spanish territory by 1833 or even much later because UPJ had no legal power to do so.
Aug 13th, 2025 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Basic common sense: to change sovereignty UPJ must have a legal effect on the sovereign. For any Spanish territory that meant Spain. And given Spain had not consented it also had to be mandatory. It also had to be mandatory to have a legal effect on the UK when the UK occupied the Falklands. There's no evidence at all that UPJ had become mandatory international law at any time during the 19th century. On the contrary there's irrefutable proof it hadn't. Between 1850 and 1910 Brazil negotiated border treaties with its hispanic neighbours. Brazil argued borders should based on effective control (UPde facto) Hispanics argued based on treaties between Spain and Portugal (UPJ). Brazil prevailed, but even if it hadn't that fact that both sides argued for different ways to determine borders is irrefutable proof that neither method was obligatory. If UPJ didn't compel Brazil between 1850 and 1910, then neither could it have compelled Spain by 1833 or even much later. So no Spanish sovereignty could have been changed by 1833. Basic common sense.
It's called juris 1810 for S America for the same reason its juris 1821. Nothing to do with when UPJ became international law. As those were the first years independence was declared the Hispanics agreed their common borders would be as the Spanish colonial borders were in 1810 for S America and 1821 for C America. This agreement was between themselves and had no legal effect on Spain, the UK, Brazil, or on the border of any territory that wasn't Hispanic.
Malvi
Aug 13th, 2025 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's say you are right, and Britain accepted Spanish sovereignty between 1774 and 1810....so what? They didn't but it changes absolutely nothing.
In 1810 Spain withdrew.
You “believe” Spanish sovereignty automatically passed to Argentina. I “believe” it did not. I believe Argentina at the time knew full well it did not, and knew they needed a civilian population. I also believe Argentina knew full well that the international business run be Luis Vernet (you finally admit in this thread was an international community) did not give Argentina sovereignty/
That is why in October 1832 Argentina sent the Sarandi and mestevier to plant the UP flag and claim the islands for Argentina. This was done in the full knowledge of the British claim, which Argentina ignored.
Argentina had the choice to “negotiate sovereignty”, to have a “full and peaceful dialogue” all the things it demands now, but instead it sent a violent raping militia and a bunch of convicts, and complained that Britain reacted.
Britain ordered Pinedo to lower the UP flag and to continue his plan to leave the islands, and he let the militia leave on the Rapid as they planned to do. Argentina and you lie and claim an Argentine population was evicted it simply never happened.
The better test for you Malvi is to reverse the position. Lets say Britain arrived in October 1832, Onslow dropped of a few soldiers and some convicts and raised the union flag. The militia mutinied and raped and when Onslow returned they all wanted to leave. Pinedo arrives a couple of weeks later, and orders Onslow to take down the flag.
What follows is 150 years of peaceful Argentine population until Britain attacks unprovoked in 1982 costing 900 lives.
Now 40 years on, would Argentina sit down and discuss sovereignty, or would they see such claims as retarded and imbecilic propaganda?
we both know the answer.
Britain withdrew from their illegal settlement ? are you on drugs ?
Aug 14th, 2025 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain accepted Spanish sovereignty ? yes you are on drugs,
your posts and claims get more stupid by the week, too many drugs,
Malvi
Aug 14th, 2025 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are claiming something not even the most rabid Malvinistas claim. That the UP unequivocably gained sovereignty from Spain of the Falklands. The UP didn't even claim that in the 1820s. If they had unequivocal sovereignty, why did they bestow a made-up title on Vernet? Why did Mestevier plant the UP flag and claim sovereignty in October 1832. These are very odd things to if as you claim the UP had unequivocal sovereignty.
The truth is, they know they didn't and they also knew of the British claim.
You are attempting a fake straw man argument that Britain didn't have unequivocal sovereignty either, That is an undeniable statement of fact. It in no way weakens the British argument in 2025.
After Spain vacated, the UP, Britain and Spain all had a claim to sovereignty.
You, today, and the UP government in 1832 dismiss the British claim and attempt to seize sovereignty by force in 1832 and 1982. You now demand “negotiations”.
Had perhaps the UP government had the negotiations in 1832 BEFORE attempting to usurp the islands by force in October an agreement could have been made, but you ignored and dismissed the British sovereignty claim.
A claim which after 200 years of peaceful settlement (other than your shameful act of cowardice in 1982) has given a successful and fully self-determining prosperous community.
I am sorry Malvi, you are trying to boil the debate down to who's claim was stronger in 1832, the time to have had those negotiations was before you sent Argentine murderers and rapists to claim the islands. Not now.
Now, ALL non-self governing territories without exception have the right to self-determination and the islanders have expressed their view.
You can continue your retarded research, and your parroting of kohen-Rodriguez it just makes you look like a moron.
it doesnt matter who's claim was stronger in 1832 because Argentina acted violently, agressively and unilaterally to seize the islands and have lied about it for 70 years.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!