MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands Day, August 14th
Today, the 14th of August, the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly proudly marks Falklands Day and extends warm wishes to all Falkland Islanders and friends of the Falklands. This day marks the anniversary of the first recorded sighting of the then-uninhabited Islands by John Davis in 1592. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAh yes, the “John Davis discovered the Falklands” myth — because nothing says rigorous history like ignoring decades of prior sightings and the fact Davis’s own log doesn’t even prove he was looking at the Falklands.
Aug 15th, 2025 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse -1But sure, let’s pretend one vague 1592 entry outweighs Vespucci, Gómez, and the first actual documented sighting by Sebald de Weert in 1600. Why bother with primary sources or scholarly consensus when you can cling to a nice, neat, and wrong little story?
Its not about sightings, its about recordings the islands and sovereignty claims, something we did before anyone else and long before you existed, its funny how Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands have never claimed that they claimed the islands first, but you do, as for fairy stories, the biggest one ever was when an unpopular government led by Peron made up a story about a mythical Malvinas, a mythical eviction and a mythical Argentine town. when asked why he made it up, his response was it makes a good story, and a great deflection , and clowns like you fell for it, first documented sighting was by the Brits when they returned in 1594, nice try in rewriting history though Argentine Zit,
Aug 15th, 2025 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who discovered and first settled in the Falklands? Falklands – Discovery and Early Expeditions: https://www.academia.edu/125397444/Falklands_Discovery_and_Early_Expeditions
Aug 15th, 2025 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0It never ceases to amaze me how uniformed the Malvinas fanatics are. education is a wonderful thing Citizen,
Aug 15th, 2025 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0go and get some and you will find everything you have been force fed for the last 80 years is either wrong or distorted,
The British claim is based on British history, the oldest history of the Islands.
Aug 15th, 2025 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Argentina’s claim is based on a completely inaccurate version of Argentinian/Spanish/French history, where even the French arrived long after the British.
But they must try and change that, or their claim doesn’t stand up.
Meanwhile, the Islands continue to develop apace and Argentina remains irrelevant in the S. Atlantic, which I suspect is what hurts them the most.
“Meanwhile, the islands continue to develop apace”
Aug 16th, 2025 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0So true, so true.
Argentine Cityzen, 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 20th, 2025 - 09:25 am - 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 for C America. The year 1810 has absolutely 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.
What Argentine citizen said demonstrates the misinformation in this article. It doesn't mention other possible sightings, and therefore lacks accurate reporting.
Aug 21st, 2025 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -1At least seven decades before Davis false “discovery,” the Spanish landed on the islands.
British settlers arrived after displacing the long-established Argentine settlers. The British never had sovereignty over the islands.
I've waited several days, and Monkey Magic hasn't responded. He filed no British protests during the period 1774-1829 while the Spanish and then the Argentines occupied the islands.
I hope he'll stop parroting that there were always British claims. Woodbine Parrish is also a liar.
@dab14763+
I appreciate your lengthy explanation, but it's incorrect.
By 1810, Argentina had established its own government.
In 1816, Argentina declared its independence from Spain.
In 1823 and 1825, Great Britain recognized Argentine independence.
Therefore, there was a change of sovereignty, although without formal Spanish recognition.
The Malvinas Islands were part of Spanish territory, the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, and so they later passed into Argentine hands, taking formal possession in 1820 without any protest from Great Britain. The islands were never British.
The land the islanders love so much is Argentine.
Regards.
grow up 1833,
Aug 21st, 2025 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By 1810, Argentina had established its own government.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Basic common sense: don't confuse government with sovereignty. It's like confusing management/administration with ownership. In 1810 Argentina did not have sovereignty over any territory on planet earth. Not even Argentina itself.
In 1816, Argentina declared its independence from Spain.
A unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). ie without Spain's consent. Basic common sense: while a UDI is necessary to change the sovereignty of a territory without consent, the UDI by itself can't change any sovereignty whatsoever. Back then the only legal way to change the sovereignty of territory without consent combined with a UDI was to establish effective control over it. Which Argentina never did over the Falklands.
In 1823 and 1825, Great Britain recognized Argentine independence.
Basic common sense: recognition of a State by itself does not necessarily mean recognition of all of that State's territorial claims. In the case of Argentina in 1823 or 1825 there was no Argentine presence on the Falklands to recognise.
Therefore, there was a change of sovereignty, although without formal Spanish recognition.
Basic common sense: Not needing formal recognition only applies to territory under effective control. Any Spanish territory the rebels didn't control at the time was still legally Spanish territory.
Compare these 2 scenarios
1)Rio de la Plata rebels against Spain and establishes control over part but not all of the colony and declares UDI.
2)Imagine that when conquest was still legal Brazil had invaded the Argentine province of Corrientes and established control over part but not the whole province and unilaterally declared sovereignty.
These situations are exactly legally parallel. It’s obvious that the unilateral declaration in both cases can only apply to the territory under effective control.
A bit of common sense: If all these facts are useless in conferring sovereignty on Argentina, then explain to me the legal facts that confer sovereignty on Great Britain. If the demand is so great, then you can't mention Davis's fantasy like this article.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse -1Another bit of common sense: If you yourself mention that any territory not controlled by the rebels is Spanish, then could you explain to me how the hell the islands belong to Great Britain?
Back then the only way to change sovereignty without consent was by establishing effective control. Something the UK did and Argentina didn't. So even if the Falklands had been indisputably Spanish sovereignty would have passed to the UK not Argentina after 1833.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can't legally have effective control over a territory if it belongs to another power. If the territory wasn't Argentine because you didn't have effective control, as you mistakenly state (because Argentina had taken possession in 1820 and expelled its population), at least the territory was Spanish, as you yourself mentioned.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Again, you don't explain Britain's legal arguments for illegally taking possession of the islands.
Malv
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain took possession of the territory in 1765, having landed on and claimed them in 1690.
For Argentina to have ‘taken possession’ of the territory in 1820, you need to explain how and when they stopped being British? Before you can talk about them becoming Argentinian.
Also, there was no ‘Argentina’ in 1820.
And no civilian population was expelled by the British in 1820 or 1833 or at any other time.
I believe the British sent the first ‘diplomatic protest’ regarding the Islands, to the UP government in BA in 1829, telling them the Islands were British.
Not to mention the treaty of 1850 and Argentina’s acquiescence to the British claim and the cessation of diplomatic protests by Argentina until 1943.
The Islands have been legally British since 1690 and have never legally been part of, or occupied by Argentina.
Argie troll. please explain to me how all what is now southern Argentina actually belongs to you, oh that is right you stole it because you where more powerful than the natives that it belonged to, are you really that stupid that even if what you claim was even half true you did exactly the same that you claim the Brits did, what a plank,
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Great Britain was prevented by various treaties from establishing a settlement in the Malvinas, as an example: Admiral Anson's expedition to the South Atlantic in 1749 was blocked by the Spanish government.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long before 1690, Spanish sailors landed on the islands.
The English settlement in 1765 was therefore clandestine and illegal, not to mention that the islands were already occupied.
Then, in 1774, they withdrew, once again recognizing Spanish sovereignty.
It is not necessary to explain when and how they ceased to be British because they never were.
Argentina existed long before it was Argentina. Of course, in 1820, it was not the Argentina of today, but it already existed.
In 1833, the civilian and military population was expelled from the islands, as evidenced by Pinedo trial and the threats of combat issued by Onslow.
The only thing you're right about is that the first British protest was in 1829, which was unfounded, malicious, and belated.
You haven't answered me either; the islands were never British.
Regards.
Still not answered my question about how you stole what is now southern Argentina have you fanatic, because you can not,
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as for the rest of your parroting lies..
England neither accepted or recognised anything the Spanish or the Pope said about the Falklands, no Spanish sailors landed before 1594 before England claimed , that is a fact , never ever have they recognised Spanish sovereignty over the Falklands , and the worst lie of all which you know to be a lie is the whopping great lie of eviction, your propaganda is full of holes, just like your pathetic dubious claim, why you continue with these lies is beyond a joke, but for the 100th time take it to court .
Well, Jack Jones, you've run out of arguments. Even though these aren't similar examples, you've admitted the British theft of Malvinas Islands to Argentina and, consequently, that the islands were never British, proving me right.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Regards.
Not at all fanatic, you couldnt be more wrong, the examples are exactly the same if your claim that Britain stole the Falklands is true, which it is not, so read it again. so now please explain why it was ok for you to steal thousands of square kms from the natives, you have never presented one bit of historical fact that the islands where Argentine, not one bit, you try to ignore the English./British history saying they where illegal. but Spanish historical archives do not support your lies,
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can't legally have effective control over a territory if it belongs to another power.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So Argentina did not have sovereignty over any territory whatsoever until Spain recognised it in 1859. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. You can't have it both ways.
If the territory wasn't Argentine because you didn't have effective control, as you mistakenly state (because Argentina had taken possession in 1820 and expelled its population), at least the territory was Spanish, as you yourself mentioned.
Basic common sense: It takes more than taking possession of a territory to change the sovereignty of that territory without consent. Between 1820 and 1833 Argentina never established effective control so never established any legal rights. The Uk established effective control and maintained control for long enough for any Spanish rights to lapse due to the absence of any protests by Spain
Again, you don't explain Britain's legal arguments for illegally taking possession of the islands.
Either the Falklands were British in 1833 in which case there was nothing illegal or they were Spanish in which case British actions became legal in time due Spain's failure to protest
Note about Spain's claim:
1) only the sovereign can cede sovereignty. No Pope has ever held sovereignty of any territory outside Europe, so no Pope could ever have ceded sovereignty of any territory outside Europe
2)in 1648 Spain and The Netherlands signed the Treaty of Münster, in which Spain recognised the independence of the Netherlands. In that treaty both States accepted that their territories were what they held at the time. At the time Spain did not hold the Falklands or Patagonia or other parts of the America. So Spain's claims against France and GB were baseless. The fact France caved into them did not mean GB had any obligation to do the same.
Again back then the only way to change the sovereignty of a territory without consent was by effective control, which Argentina never did
Yes please do explain 1833 why it was ok to rape steal, murder, enslave and conquer Southern Argentina,
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So Argentina did not have sovereignty over any territory whatsoever until Spain recognised it in 1859. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. You can't have it both ways.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Uti possidetis iuris means that the territory belonging to the old colonial administration is transferred to the newly independent State. No express cession of sovereignty is required by the colonial power. The new State inherits the same territory by virtue of its existence as a State. The fact that Spain had not formally recognised Argentina, and only signed a Treaty of Recognition, Peace and Friendship on September 21st, 1863, is absolutely irrelevant for the sovereignty dispute. Moreover, by virtue of this treaty, Spain
recognised the Argentine Republic or Confederation as a free, sovereign and independent Nation, made up of all the provinces appearing in its Federal constitution in force, besides the territories that legally belong or will belong in future to that Nation.
Article 4 further recognises the 25th of May, 1810 as the date of Argentine succession to Spain’s rights and obligations.
to be continued...
Uti possidetis iuris means that the territory belonging to the old colonial administration is transferred to the newly independent State.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was no UPJ in international law at the time so it couldn't have changed any Spanish sovereignty whatsoever
The sheer desperation of 1833 is so laughable its embarrassing to see.
Aug 22nd, 2025 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0desperate to post his false propaganda, especially the K-R garbage,
desperate to talk to anyone about it, just constantly parroting disproven Argie claims,
desperate to ignore British history, history that happened long before Argentina existed,
desperate to ignore evidence and recorded historical facts,
desperate to keep the Malvinas myth going, otherwise 10 years of life wasted,
desperate to keep the false eviction lie going, proven beyond doubt id did not happen,
desperate to keep claiming inheritance, no legality to that either then or now,
desperate to deny rape ,murder ,torture, theft an genocide while annexing land,
desperately making claims for Spain that Spain itself does not claim,
but not desperate enough to take his case to court, funny that, he knows he has no legal leg to stand on,
all in all a pretty sad desperate little man wasting his life away,
but he will be back on Monday posting the same old same old,
meanwhile the Falklands continue to prosper and grow, and the rest of the world is sick to death of the Peronists moaning, crying ana whinging,
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!