MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Legislator Goss takes Falklands' voice to the UN: “We have nothing to hide”
The Member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly Michael Goss on Tuesday presented the archipelago's position before the Regional Seminar of the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation, known as the Committee of 24, held in Managua, Nicaragua. In his address, Goss defended the right to self-determination of the inhabitants of the archipelago, reiterated the Legislative Assembly's invitation for the body to send a visiting mission to the Islands, and questioned Argentina's failure to comply with the bilateral cooperation package agreed with the United Kingdom in September 2024. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMr. Goss family arrived in 1841 from England to Port Louis, the very place from which the British expelled the Argentine islanders.
May 27th, 2026 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Mr. Goss cannot and should not ignore this fact as if it never happened.
*The United Kingdom's legal and moral duty is to return the islands to their rightful owner*
-José María Ruda.
Excrement alert, the sad little character is back with his lying brown stuff,
May 27th, 2026 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2You can argue the historical narrative till the cows come home
May 27th, 2026 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -3What matters is the here and now
The under lying truth is the South Atlantic Islands including the Falklands are a resource colony of the UK
Your version of history is just that your version. The Falkland Islands are a self governing British Overseas territory. Only Defence and Foreign Policy are covered by the Westminster Government. The Falklands are allegiant to the UK because under their right as a population to self determination that is what they have chosen. The UN resolutions do not recognise the Falklands as Argentine Territory they recognise a dispute. As with Mr Goss’s family, mine have made the islands home since the 1840s. They are no more an implanted population than any other in the Americas. Further a dialogue on the Islands can never be balanced when the Argentine constitution dictates the Argentine view, you can discuss when one position is so entrenched from the outset. The Falkland Islands are British because that is what the islanders want. Long may than prevail. Desire the Right!
May 27th, 2026 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +3You are clueless Shogun, Britain does not have one single colony, what it has is about a dozen self governing overseas territories, they can become independent any time they choose, Britain gets no resources from the Falklands, zero, any income from the Falklands own resources goes to the islanders not Britain, before posting crap do some research, finally what is the difference between the Portuguese settling Brazil, Spanish and Italians settling in Argentina, and the British settling in the Falklands, the big difference is no natives to displace in the Falklands, who by the way have people living there from 62 countries. every white person on the American continent is of implanted stock. you are right about one thing, its the here and now that matters, and that is the right of Self Determination is paramount and endorsed by the UN, not some false mythical claim of a Malvinas.
May 27th, 2026 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Freddie Foster
May 27th, 2026 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Could not care less about the historical narrative, or how any land was acquired
Colony is so 19th century lets rename them and call them Overseas Territories
Well about being clueless you are the one who cannot see the wood for the trees
By the way I have got a bridge to sell you in London going cheap
Its called being educated, something you are lacking about the Falklands, which is clear to see in your comments, resource colony, lmfao, colonies would be governed from London. not one of the BOTs are.
May 27th, 2026 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“The Falklands are a resource colony of the UK”
May 27th, 2026 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The United Kingdom has fulfilled all its international obligations under international law.
With the completion of the Referendum UK has met all it's legal obligations under the Charter, as the Islands are now “decolonized”
”The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote ...the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
https://www.ohchr.org › en › instruments-mechanisms › instruments › international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
Malvi
May 27th, 2026 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Still peddling things you know to be lies I see. You know your argument is so weak that you have to lie, and know you are doing so.
“Expelled the Argentine islanders”
Except it never happened and is not a fact as you very well know.
We have been through this 100+ times.
Once more, just for you.
in October 1832, there were 20+ remaining of the Vernet community. They wee led by William Dixon who was British, some were Argentine, some Uruguayan, some European.
In November 1832, Argentina (in full knowledge of the British claim) attempted to usurp the islands using military aggressive force, by sending the SS Sarandi under Captain Pinedo to drop off a militia, some convicts and a “governor” Esteban Mestevier.
Pinedo, dropped of the force and went exploring the islands before planning to return to Argentina, a number of the Vernet community asked to return with him.
Whilst Pinedo away, the militia mutinied, murdered Mestevier and raped his wife, who sought refuge with the British on the islands on the ship the Rapid.
The militia negotiated with the crew of the Rapid to give them safe passage to the mainland, but Pinedo returned and ordered them to stay. Pinedo then prepared to set sail with Mesteviers family and those of the Vernet community who wished to leave.
On January 6th Captain Onslow arrived on the HMS Clio, ordered Pinedo to leave (with exactly the same people on board who planned to leave) and allowed the militia to leave on the Rapid.
No 'Argentine islanders“, no ”expulsion”, just blatant lies.
As you know, everything I have written is documented in the logs of Luis Pinedo.
Malvi, you are quite a sick individual.
For the life of me i cant understand why he continues with his ridiculous false claims, it achieves nothing other than to make him look foolish, the fact that he uses the Malvinas 1833 as is name says an awful lot about his character and mind set, their is no difference between a polite liar and a rude liar, he most certainly is not 100% ok.
May 27th, 2026 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Shogun you are 100% wrong with your statement,
it is worthwhile remembering that self determination and internal self government with respect to the falklands and other bots are set out in uk law under orders made on the advice of the privy council. a bit like the lord who giveth and taketh away, the authority that gives us our laws can also take them away. the power of prayer and lobby should never be underestimated!
May 28th, 2026 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ FIdescendent
May 28th, 2026 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I agree with you; the UN resolutions do not recognize the territory as Argentine, nor as British. They recognize the existence of a dispute between two parties: the United Kingdom and Argentina. That much is clear.
The existence of this territorial dispute prevents the reintegration of the territory claimed by Argentina or the self-determination advocated by the United Kingdom.
We maintain that they are an implanted population because they arrived on the islands after expelling the inhabitants of Port Soledad/Luis, which belonged to a sovereign state called Argentina. At the time of this event, the islands were not even part of the British Crown, and that is perfectly logical because the islands did not belong to them.
As for dialogue... well, I think that's a large part of the problem. The United Kingdom has always refused to establish a dialogue. They made a small effort, but nothing serious, after Resolution 2065 of the last century. That's why I believe Argentina's response to this British lack of willingness to engage in dialogue is to incorporate their position into the constitution.
Thousands of Britons live and work without problems in mainland Argentina, so my question is, what are the islanders afraid of?
Why couldn't they integrate into the rest of the country and the mainland to which they naturally belong, respecting their way of life, laws, and customs? This could even be done under a special regime or status if the islanders so desired.
Like you, I desire balanced dialogue and justice, even if that justice ultimately favors the United Kingdom or the islanders. The point is to end this dispute once and for all for the good of everyone and future generations.
Regards.
“They recognize the existence of a dispute between two parties”
May 28th, 2026 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
“They are an implanted population because they arrived on the islands after expelling the inhabitants of Port Soledad”
“An attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#Self-determination_versus_territorial_integrity
Another lie Malvi. both the UK government and the Falklands Assembly members are happy to talk any time to Argentina, what you really mean is talk about sovereignty, that is not up for debate.
May 28th, 2026 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +2why should they integrate ? they have no wish to be governed by Argentina who are an alien country to them. they want to be left alone to live the life they choose.
as far as the so called dispute. the matter was settled in 1982 after an evil military invaded.
More stupid rubbish about implanted stock. what do you think you are ? you are not native to South America are you. a country that is 97% white, that is genocide of the natives, you then go on about your bullshit about Port Soledad and expulsion, monkey magic has given you the facts on why this as yet another one of your 100s of lies. and he is right about your health too. finally you do not want justice at all, you want one thing and that is never going to happen.
when you illegally invaded with in 5 minutes your military had changed the name of the town. made vehicles travel on the wrong side of the road, and you think you van be trusted.
you clearly do have some mental issues, living in an alternate world of facts . if you even had a 25% chance of winning a court case then you would have gone to court years a go,
posting lie after lie for how many years ? where has that gotten you ? its got you nothing but ridicule. which you most certainly deserve. you need to wake up. and accept that your claims/propaganda/lies have no substance and never did,
“They are an implanted population because they arrived on the islands after expelling the inhabitants of Port Soledad”
May 28th, 2026 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created ‘prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law’”
Akehurst’s Modern Introduction To International Law, Seventh revised edition
@ Monkey
May 29th, 2026 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We've been through this more than 100 times, and I'll answer you the same way.
1- The nationality of the inhabitants does not determine the sovereignty of the territory. In fact, they always mention here that the community is made up of people from more than 62 different nationalities, and that doesn't make the islands any less “British.”
2- The belated and malicious British protest was only made in 1829, without any legal right to the islands, having already recognized them as Spanish in 1774.
Vernet was not present due to the attack and destruction of Port Soledad by the American frigate Lexington, commanded by Silas Duncan. For that same reason, Pinedo was sent to the Malvinas.
3- Captain Onslow ordered, under threat, that the Argentine flag be lowered and everything belonging to the Argentine government be removed, otherwise he would do it himself.
There were preparations for combat, but seeing that he was outnumbered, with the mutineers imprisoned, Pinedo decided to leave.
The story is well known, and even assuming you are right, you are simply recounting the Argentine history that unfolded in the islands.
You introduce nothing that categorically states the islands are British.
If Pinedo had left with the entire population and Onslow had arrived days later to find the islands empty, it in no way makes them British.
Even when the Spanish had to withdraw from the islands due to the wars of independence, they didn't dare occupy them, nor were there any protests.
So, if you bring up the topic of Vernet, Mestivier, Pinedo, and the population that began to withdraw, I will respond in the same way.
By the way, if you haven't noticed, you continue to mention Argentine governors.
Saying Vernet was an Argentine governor does not make the islands Argentinian and does not make him a governor either,, sending Mestevier with a military to take the islands by force does not make the islands Argentinian. it means exactly that, you wanted to take them by force knowing full well they where British., your country didnt think Britain would respond, just like again in 1982. you where warned twice not to send any military to the islands and told to leave when they ignored the warning, again you lie, Britain never ever accepted Spanish sovereignty, you lie through your teeth, Vernet left because the business failed, your argument is so full of holes its like watching a comedy show, the dispute was between Britain and Spain. Spain eventually accepted they where British, Argentina was never in the game, inheritance is bullshit, your whole fantasy is bullshit, now please explain why you think it was ok to conquer the rest of what is now southern Argentina. the land was already occupied. oh thats right you stole it, committing murder rape and genocide. you have no case, you never did. the islands have never belonged to Argentina, you are indoctrinated with crap, seek therapy. you need help.
May 29th, 2026 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The stupid thing about this is that even if the Falklands had been indisputably Spanish, Argentina's claim has never had any legal basis. A unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), such as Argentina's in 1816, by itself can't change the sovereignty of any territory. UDI + uti possidetis juris? Legally impossible for UPJ to have changed the sovereignty of any Spanish territory by 1833. UPJ must be compulsory to change sovereignty if the existing sovereign does not consent. UPJ did not become international law till 20th century (the 1810 has nothing to with when UPJ became international law). UDI + right to SD? No right to SD before 1945. UDI + effective control? (Effective control was back then the only way to change the sovereignty of a territory without the consent of the existing sovereign) Argentina never established effective control, the UK did. UDI + Argentina's acts of government? Don't confuse government with sovereignty. It's like confusing management/administration with ownership. No change in sovereignty if government didn't result in effective control.
May 30th, 2026 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1On top of all this Argentina and the UK signed a peace treaty in 1849 ratified by Argentina in 1850. Back then, when 2 or more states signed a peace treaty sovereignty of a territory vested in the state having effective control unless the treaty dealt with the territory in some other way (then known as uti possidetis, but now known as uti possidetis de facto to distinguish it from uti possidetis juris). Argentina legally relinquished its claim precisely because the treaty does not deal with the Falklands in any way.
“British protest was only made in 1829, without any legal right to the island”
May 30th, 2026 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Peace Treaty of Utrecht 1713.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.”
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
They never have had a reasonable claim. Malvi interprets historical documents deliberately wrong. he denies British history of the islands which is longer than any other countries. he denies 90 years of silence. claims that self determination doesnt apply as the Falklands are a special case, claims Argentina had a sovereign settlement there and was usurped. and many other claims that have proven to be false. the bottom line is they tried to claim the Falklands by force when they sent the military. the ridiculous inheritance claim is not even worth mentioning as it has no standing what so ever, and the implanted stock claim is so funny its crazy, as every white man on the American continent is implanted stock who stole land from the natives. successive Argentine governments use it as a distraction. its in their play book. but Malvi will be back on Monday repeating the same old diatribe. he has zero credibility, just a fanatic who cant admit he is wrong. sad really.
May 30th, 2026 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1dab14763+
Jun 04th, 2026 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The effect of the treaty of peace is to put an end to the war, and to abolish the subject of it. (...) the effect (...) cannot be extended to things which have no relation to the war that is terminated by the treaty.
“The treaty of peace naturally and of itself relates only to the war which it terminates. It is, therefore, in such relation only, that its vague clauses are to be understood. Thus, the simple stipulation of restoring things to their former condition does not relate to changes which have not been occasioned by the war itself”..
Vattel
Regarding effective control, the United Kingdom never obtained it, unlike Spain and later Argentina. Of course, during that period there were no British protests because they had no right to the islands.
The malicious and belated British protest, as I explained in another post, only occurred in 1829, after years of effective control by Spain and then by the new Argentine state.
Therefore, without the United Kingdom having effective control of the territory, how can they now claim that the islands were always British?
The entire British narrative collapses under its own weight.
I hope that someday this whole controversy can be resolved.
Greetings.
You do spout some garbage Malvi British weight collapses under its own weight ? you are a very confused individual, The British claim is longer and stronger than any other nation, the Argentine claim is weaker than an empty bottle of whisky, how you interpret things is laughable. the controversy has been sorted out, it was in 1982 no matter how much silly little fanatics like you cry, what is important and relevant is the here and now, and that is the right to self determination. again the same questions you refuse to answer, 1 you will never go to court , scared of the outcome ? 2 the annexation of what is now Southern Argentina, stealing land from the native owners ? you have no case you never did,
Jun 04th, 2026 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Jack London
Jun 04th, 2026 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. The United Kingdom never wanted to submit the issue to arbitration or litigation; both require negotiation and dialogue, which the United Kingdom has systematically refused since 1833.
2. The annexation of southern Argentina is irrelevant to the discussion about the islands.
It's strange how the British are suddenly so self-righteous, given that they subjugated entire populations around the world.
Furthermore, you seem to forget that the administrative unit governed by Vernet comprised the Malvinas Islands and adjacent islands, as well as Tierra del Fuego. Not to mention that the first civil marriage and birth registered in Patagonia actually took place in the Malvinas Islands.
Therefore, what you stated is false. I believe I have answered your questions.
Regards.
“The United Kingdom never wanted to submit the issue to arbitration or litigation; both require negotiation and dialogue, which the United Kingdom has systematically refused”
Jun 04th, 2026 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Such a liar, the exact opposite is true.
“Although we have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich or British Antarctic Territory, some of my right hon. and hon. friends have suggested that we refer the matter to the International Court of Justice. Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision without her agreement. We have never sought a ruling on the Falkland Islands themselves from that court, but we have raised the question of the dependencies on three separate occasions—in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Each time Argentina refused to go to the court. In 1955, the British Government applied unilaterally to the International Court of Justice against encroachments on British sovereignty in the dependencies by Argentina. Again, the court advised that it could not pursue the matter since it could act only if there was agreement between the parties recognising the court's jurisdiction. In 1977, Argentina, having accepted the jurisdiction of an international court of arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.”
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland
@Terence
Jun 04th, 2026 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It results from the present Application that the United Kingdom Government accepts the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of the questions hereby submitted to it, and in particular that of the title to sovereignty over the islands and lands of the Falkland Islands Dependencies. The present Application does not constitute a submission to the jurisdiction of the Court in any other respect, or as regards the title to sovereignty over any territory outside the Dependencies.
”It will be understood that although, for reason of convenience, the territories to which the present Application relates were constituted Dependencies of the Falkland Islands for administrative purposes, the British title to them is a separate and independent one, which in no way derives from or depends on the title to the Falkland Islands themselves.”
(...) Her Majesty’s Government excises the bottom issue, as if all could be reduced to a single aspect, mentioning as the sole problem that needs solution the one referring to the Antarctic territories it demands and those that qualifies as dependencies of the Malvinas Islands (...) The Argentine Government cannot conceive nor accept as friendly nor juridical a proposal that has as its heart to sustain that usurpation (...). Consequently, while there is no resolution in the indicated direction on the pre-existing issue that has just been mentioned, it is not correct to propose, as Great Britain does, the subject of the issue to the International Court of Justice in Hague or an ad hoc arbitration tribunal.
Do you understand now?
Malvi, if you won the actual court case then international law would be on your side, the UN would be on your side,
Jun 04th, 2026 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your annexation is most certainly relevant, as it is exactly the same as what you claim Britain did, it makes you and your country hypocritical,
Vernet was not a governor, he was a business man whose business failed, he was not Argentinian. neither was Brisbane or the majority of the international settlement, Buenos Aires saying he was did not make him one, he was there with the permission of Britain,
your claim is false based on a pack of lies. it as no standing in any court of law.
and what is important is now, enshrined in the UN , no exceptions. just because refuse to accept that does not make it so,
“Do you understand now?”
Jun 04th, 2026 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perfectly!
“we have raised the question of the dependencies on three separate occasions—in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Each time Argentina refused to go to the court.”
Margaret Thatcher made it crystal crystal clear.
As you have reinforced her summary, to wit.
“The Argentine Government cannot conceive nor accept as friendly nor juridical a proposal that has as its heart to sustain that usurpation”
According to this world renowned jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
“if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.“
”There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
So I guess you're just going to have to lump it since you have legal claim what so ever.
Yet another lie one of many you have told over the years, both the UK and the islanders are happy to talk to Argentina any time,, Argentina refuses to talk to the islanders and only want to demand from the UK government a transfer of sovereignty, that is neither talks or negotiations is it ? you live in a fantasy world not reality both past present and the future.
Jun 04th, 2026 - 08:16 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!