Image

99% say Yes

12 Mar

The final result of the vote in the Falkland Islands’ Referendum reveals 99.8% of the Islanders affirming that they wish to retain their British status.

Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum, 1,513 (99.8%) were in favour of keeping the current status, and just three (0.2%) were against. There was a 92% turnout from 1,672 British citizens eligible to vote in a population of about 2,900.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9923801/Falkland-Islanders-vote-Yes-in-referendum-to-remain-part-of-Britain.html

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/126117/referendum-islanders-choose-to-remain-uk-overseas-territory

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291936/BREAKING-NEWS-Residents-Falkland-Islands-overwhelmingly-vote-remain-Britain.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750909

http://www.noticias24.com/internacionales/noticia/55784/los-residentes-de-las-islas-malvinas-votaron-a-un-985-seguir-bajo-dominio-britanico/

http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2013/03/11/1428712/residentes-de-las-malvinas-votaron.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-falklands-referendum-idUSBRE92B02T20130312

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324281004578355132846341280.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

92 Responses to “99% say Yes”

  1. timpany March 12, 2013 at 2:34 am #

    Hopefully now that the people of the island have made their choice very clear, the rest of the world will begin to see the Argentinian government for the bunch of buffoons that they really are.

    It’s one thing to use propaganda to control the general population but when the government starts to believe its own lies, and then repeat them on the international stage; it strips them of any credibility. Especially when they start saying that people voting in a fair and free referendum is illegal. The entire free world is demanding fair and free elections for peoples and nations to determine their own future. Surely now the major international players will see reason, get of the fence, and support the Falkland Islanders in their struggle, against the illegal bullying tactics of their neighbours.

    • Jovan Weismiller March 12, 2013 at 2:58 am #

      Timpany, you have more faith in the EU and B. Hussein ibn Barack than I do. They’ll hew to their ‘anticolonialist’ bollocks and still support the Argentines’ attempt at imposing colonialism on the Falklands!

  2. Don Alberto March 12, 2013 at 3:53 am #

    I just love Vivian Vienna’s T-shirt in the Buenos Aires Herald article.

    • Fernando March 13, 2013 at 11:54 pm #

      No aplica referendum, Britanicos votando en territorio colonizado, repito CIUDADANOS BRITANICOS!!, esto es un problema de soberania entre el gobierno de su majestad y la Republica Argentina,los isleños no pueden ser parte de las negociaciones por nuestras Islas.

      • Junius March 14, 2013 at 12:23 am #

        Utter rubbish. The referendum was very applicable and will have an effect on future talks at the UN. The people of the Falklands are protected by the UN’s Charter and have the right to determine their own future. As for talks – there will be none unless Argentina wishes to talk to the Falkland Islands Government.

      • Nico March 14, 2013 at 8:46 pm #

        Estimado, en esta ocasión mediante nuestro lenguaje natural:

        Resulta contraproducente a la estabilidad de la nación, acudir excesivamente al recurso del desconocimiento de actos de gobierno, que como democrático y Republicano, es ejercido por diversas personas y partidos, según los períodos, pero con un interés de bien e identidad común a todos.

        Gobiernos Argentinos anteriores, o, mejor dicho, funcionarios anteriores del mismo Gobierno, el de la Nación Argentina, han intentado destrabar el conflicto mediante acciones de acercamiento, que en cierta medida ayudarían a cicatrizar las heridas no solo de la injusta guerra del ´82 sino también de los numerosos problemas de integración que atañen a toda la humanidad.

        Si bien es cierto que el plano internacional se encuentra algo conmocionado por los crimenes de guerra cometidos por ejercitos de ONU en Afganistan e Irak, no creo que proceda pretender la “foja cero” en el camino iniciado hacia la paz por nuestro país, su pueblo, los humanos presentes en el archipiélago desde 1765 y sus instituciones.

        En definitiva, el hábito inflacionario ha sido un típico problema de nuestra bicentenaria nación, al cual pareciere volverse con las posturas exacerbadas como la suya; respetando su fe, lo invito a reflexionar sobre el concepto (antiguo) de soberanía: Orgullo, soberbia o altivez.

        “Considerando que la libertad, la justicia y la paz en el mundo tienen por base el reconocimiento de la dignidad intrínseca y de los derechos iguales e inalienables de todos los miembros de la familia humana”.

        “Que, en repetidas ocasiones, los Estados americanos han reconocido que los derechos esenciales del hombre no nacen del hecho de ser nacional de determinado Estado sino que tienen como fundamento los atributos de la persona humana”.

        ”Considerando también esencial promover el desarrollo de relaciones amistosas entre las naciones”…

        Saludos.

      • Fernando March 15, 2013 at 3:02 am #

        Sr. Nico:
        Me centro en el debate de este foro, el debate nos dice que hay un punto en cuestion que es la soberania del Archipielago, no es “una postura exacerbada” ni Nacionalismo barato, ojala pudieramos entablar una buena comunicacion con los isleños y una relacion de confianza mutua perdida por la guerra, eso es lo que me gustaria personalmente!!!, lamentablemente, la intransigencia y el oportunismo politico de la dictadura provoco la tragedia de la guerra. Creo, firmemente en lo que digo, no es orgullo, no es soberbia, no es altivez.

      • Nico March 15, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

        De acuerdo estimado Fernando, probablemente no haya en ti mala fe al expresar tu opinión al respecto, no obstante, creo que el desconocimiento de hechos posteriores al conflicto de 1982 empaña tu cordura, quizás en modo equiparable al desconocimiento de los acontecimientos de 1806 y 1807 por parte de las noticias que comentamos.

        No obstante, hablar de soberanía no debiera significar “sobervia, pedantería, altivez”; quizás los conflictos que en América del Sur han surgido con las Guayanas, sean de interpretación correlativa a este caso.

        Expresa la Carta de Naciones Unidas:
        “Los pueblos de las Naciones Unidas, resueltos a presevar a las generaciones venideras del flagelo de la guerra… reafirman la fe en los derechos fundamentales del hombre, en la dignidad y el valor de la persona humana, en la igualdad de derechos de hombres y mujeres y de las naciones grandes y pequeñas…” Se comprometen a “crear condiciones bajo las cuales puedan mantenerse la justicia y el respeto a las obligaciones emanadas de tratados y de otras fuentes de derecho internacional… con la finalidad de practicar la tolerancia y convivir en paz como buenos vecinos”.

        Todo esto, pretendible no solo de los otros, sino también de nosotros mismos.

        Salu2.-

    • Fernando March 14, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

      Sr. Don Alberto:
      En un diario que se edita en la Argentina vemos esa agresion a mi pais por parte de la ciudadana Britanica con la remera donde no esta mi pais, todos tienen derecho a disentir en la Republica Argentina, porque tenemos una Democracia que se va robusteciendo con el paso de los años, vaya usted a hacer lo mismo a Inglaterra???. a ver como le va!!.

      • Don Alberto March 14, 2013 at 10:49 pm #

        “Britain accuses Argentina of ‘strangling’ Falklands economy by harassing cruise ships near the islands
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245320/Argentinas-coastguard-stoking-Falklands-tension.html

        Argentina promises more public harassment on Falklands: “you wait and see”
        Argentine ambassador in London Alicia Castro … has promised more of the same stuff.
        http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/02/argentina-promises-more-public-harassment-on-falklands-you-wait-and-see

      • Fernando March 16, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

        Sr. Don Alberto:
        La confianza debe ser mutua, usted me dice que no dejan abastecer los cruceros en la Argentina por la famosa ley gaucho Rivero por lo consiguiente Argentina quiere “ahogar” a las islas, el tema de la confianza tiene que ser mutuo, el reino unido tiene una base militar en las Malvinas, Dios nos libre de que no tengan armas nucleares!!, eso de por si habla del grado de militarizacion y agresion de una potencia en el extremo sur. Le repito si fuera por mi como ciudadano Argentino, ojala pudieran tener vuelos todos los dias a Malvinas, seria un gran paso, no sabe la cantidad de gente que querria visitar las islas, aca en la Argentina, el afecto por las islas es enorme, pero bueno…sucesivos gobiernos democraticos adoptan posiciones politicas mas blandas otras mas duras, eso es politica. “El puente se tiene que construir de a poco y de las dos orillas”.

      • Mike March 14, 2013 at 11:41 pm #

        That picture on the Tshirt was not by the British public but by someone you also call a Kelper or an Islander … a resident of the Falklands Islands.

        And the democracy in the UK allowed your leaders to come and spout rubbish in our parliament aswell as give them letters etc … reverse the roles and the UK nor the Falklands government gets the same treatment from your dictator.

      • Don Alberto March 15, 2013 at 12:15 am #

        Last year Argentina celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war.

        As you are undoubtedly aware, the celebration took place on the most inappropriate day possible, April 2nd, the day of the attack.

        Do you really think the Falkland islanders are unable to see this for what it was, a threat.

        Imagine Germany celebrating September 1st 1939, the day of the attack on Poland.

      • Fernando March 15, 2013 at 3:23 am #

        Sr. Don Alberto:
        Entiendo su posicion, le dire que el recordatorio de la recuperacion de las Islas Malvinas antes era el 10/06 fecha en que nuestras tropas tuvieron que capitular, pero se cambio al 02/04 que es feriado nacional como “Dia de los veteranos y caidos de Malvinas”, es la fecha en que se recuerda a todos los hombres que dieron la vida por una causa a la que consideramos justa, creo que con esto usted entienda que los paises toman determinadas fechas para honrar y recordar, hombres, causas, gestas. Se puso esta fecha para honrar a nuestros caidos y veteranos, no para ofender al pueblo britanico.

      • Nico March 15, 2013 at 8:10 pm #

        Sin ánimo de ofender Fernando, no debieras olvidar que en 1982 el conflicto armado fue dispuesto por resolución de un gobierno de facto, que no fue escogido por el voto popular y democrático de la Nación Republicana.

        Hay un conocido aforismo que aconseja “no hacer leña del arbol caido”, sin perjuicio de la inprescriptibilidad de los crimenes de lessa humanidad.

        No se si viste, las imágenes de los aberrantes crímenes de guerra acaecidos en Afganistan e Irak:

        http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortura_y_abuso_de_prisioneros_en_Abu_Ghraib

        http://www.telesurtv.net/articulos/2013/02/08/onu-responsabiliza-a-ee.uu.-por-matar-a-cientos-de-ninos-en-afganistan-1160.html

        PD: Bicentenario de la independencia Argentina, no solo de la corona británica, obviamente, sino también de la corona española.

      • Fernando March 16, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

        Sr. Nico:
        ¿?. No entiendo al punto que quiere llegar con lo que me contesto en la epistola. Expliqueme como para un nene de tres años.

      • Nico March 18, 2013 at 10:34 pm #

        Hablar de la guerra como un “patrimonio” de orgullo (Sobre valor de uno mismo) o Soberanía Nacional (En su definición antigua, sobervia o altivez) probablemente nos lleve a pasar por alto el análisis integrado de la situación.

        La invasión del año ´82 fue ejecutada por un gobierno de facto en nuestra Argentina, donde se encontraba jaqueado el sistema Democrático, Republicano y Federal.

        Se trata de un mal recuerdo de nuestra identidad patria, que no creo sea útil invocar como fundamento de ninguna postura.

        bye.

      • Junius March 18, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

        In 1982 the Junta carried out the will of the people. You cannot hide behind the fact that the Government of the time was a military dictatorship. The dancing in the streets of Buenos Aires proved that!

      • Nico March 19, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

        Make beating a dead horse is an action undignified anyway democratic republican regime was hacked in 1982.

        Such indignity of memories of people celebrating in the streets, as in the invasion of Afghanistan and the war crimes and children killed.

        To be a little more clear what happened in Argentina to 1982 and de facto government, I advise you to enter: http://www.desaparecidos.org/arg/conadep/
        and
        http://www.derechoshumanos.net/lesahumanidad/informes/argentina/informe-de-la-CONADEP-Nunca-mas.htm

        In the latter, find the research done in the return of democracy on procedures inhuman force killed and force disappeared. by occupying the same totalitarian government functions.

        In 1994 for constitutional reform the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Duties and Rights of America, American Human Rights, non-discrimination, to the Convention interamerican on Forced Disappearance of Persons, joined the plexus supreme normative hierarchy.

        And finally, the pact “Roosevelt – Churchyl” established American and European commitment towards disarmament.

        So, because fighting?

      • Fernando March 19, 2013 at 9:25 pm #

        “No hay voluntad del pueblo en una dictadura, el pueblo esta subyugado a la misma”

      • Junius March 20, 2013 at 4:48 am #

        There was a lot of ‘will’ behind the Junta’s invasion of the Falklands – no denying it!

      • Nico March 22, 2013 at 9:32 pm #

        That is false, the sovereignty of the people was hacked.
        The comments by artists can not be used as evidence.

      • Fernando March 19, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

        Sr. Nico:
        Solo hice referencia a la fecha del 02/04 explicando que se recuerda el dia del veterano, no tengo una postura belicista, el hecho en si paso y es desagradable, no lo reinvindico para mi fue un gran retroceso, retrocedimos muchos peldaños y nos hizo un daño enorme a nivel internacional, se uso una causa justa para que unos pocos se perpetuaran en el poder, lejos de mi esta en esa postura. Si el dia de mañana las Islas Malvinas pasan a ser Argentinas, va a ser por la via diplomatica, no le quepa la menor duda. Saludos.

      • Nico March 22, 2013 at 9:26 pm #

        De acuerdo Fernando, ya entre nosotros, sinceramente en lugar de salir a reclamar soberanía sobre un territorio al parecer ocupado desde 1765 por otra Corona que no era la Española, estimo sería más procedente dignificar las condiciones en que estamos viviendo en los territorios que no son objeto de controversia.

        Me refiero aquí mismo, en las provincias unidas, donde como en todo el mundo, aún hay corrupción, delincuencia, indignidad, explotación, trata de personas, etc, etc.

        Por mi parte, considero que la política de este medio periodístico que comentamos, deja mucho que desear, por lo que en lo próximo dejaré de participar del mismo e intentaré un acercamiento social más directo con las personas que están viviendo ya en el archipiélago.

        Para terminar, tampoco nos olvidemos del desorden en que se encuentra el plano internacional, como consecuencia de los crímenes de guerra perpetrados en Afganistan e Irak, con matanza de niños, tortura de prisioneros, y lo peor de la lacra humana actuando en nombre de la Organización de Naciones Unidas.

        Quien sabe, si la suerte acompaña, vuelva a elaborarse un “mea culpa” por parte de las instituciones supranacionales, y se disponga una justa condena, como alguna vez ocurrió en las acciones de Yugoslavia.

        Saludos.

      • Fernando March 23, 2013 at 11:59 pm #

        No se canse de argumentar, el autor de este blog pertenece al “nucleo duro”, como le dije anteriormente la guerra nos hizo perder mucho, antes de ese hecho cruento, los Isleños venian a atenderse en nuestros hospitales e incluso muchos nacieron aqui, aparte para la poblacion de Malvinas es una locura el aislamiento que se autoimponen, me va a decir que cualquier Isleño que quiera visitar la Argentina, le van a decir que no??, la realidad es que hoy tienen recursos, pero es un gasto muy grande, si ellos pusieran su voluntad, habria mas conexion con nuestro pais y bajarian notablemente los costos de transporte y logistica, ademas de no estar tan solos, sabe la gente que quiere ir a las Malvinas a conocer el archipielago, yo soy uno de ellos!!, pero aunque uno lo pudiera pagar, solo hay una conexion, imaginese si habria conexiones desde Argentina, los Isleños se llenarian de oro!!. Pero bueno, yo los entiendo, si estas en tu casa y te empiezan a tirar bombas te hablan en otro idioma, encima te quieren cambiar las costumbres, yo tendria el mismo odio. Pero el “nucleo duro” tiene que entender que aca no va ver mas guerra, nosotros no vamos a darle esos argumentos a la gente que no quiere que las Malvinas tengan conexion con el continente.
        Nosotros no somos los malos de la pelicula, hay que ver como usted a traido en este foro las atrocidades de afganistan e irak, que paises han invadido la soberania de estos??. Creo que la pregunta se contesta sola.
        Con respecto a nuestro pais, (que no entiendo porque le dice provincia unidas¿?), los niveles de corrupcion son altos, pero no somos Africa y tampoco somos Suecia, eso es otro tema, como ciudadanos debemos votar a la opcion que nos de la seguridad de que va a ver mecanismos de control contra este flagelo, hay opciones, tenemos Democracia y ello nos blinda para seguir buscando la mejor opcion.

        A mi entender…. ellos en este foro no reconocen algo importante, El gobierno de Inglaterra en 1825 reconoce la independencia de la Republica Argentina y el hecho es que ellos no reclaman la soberania del archipielago!!!, no dicen “Recononocemos su Independencia pero…”, es mas hoy en 2013, no hablan de soberania, solo del “deseo de los Isleños”, a nivel mundial no hay reconocimiento a favor de Inglaterra (y eso que esta en el consejo de seguridad, el grupo de los 8, el grupo de los 20, ademas de desplegar su fuerza en Irak, chipre, afganistan, etc). No afloje, yo considero que el reclamo es justo, no es algo religioso, esta en la sangre genetica de cada Argentino, Mate, Asado, Dulce de leche, messi, maradona, Malvinas.

      • Junius March 24, 2013 at 12:31 am #

        There was a commercial treaty in 1825. It did de facto recognise your independence (not de jure – which we reassured the Spanish about) but it did not recognise your territorial pretensions. In fact, the Treaty of 1825 provided permission for Vernet’s commercial activities on East Falkland. British permission !

        Argentina’s claim is not just – nor even well founded. It is just belief based on systematic brainwashing by all the Governments since Peron. And globally – the whole world has signed up to the right of ALL peoples to self-determination. Fact!

      • Fernando March 24, 2013 at 9:33 pm #

        Usted menciona siempre el “permiso britanico” incluso en su historia, en que documento de los dos paises figura eso??, en nuestra historia, nosotros no pedimos permiso para ir a las Malvinas, me parece que ahi su argumento hace “Agua”.
        Usted esta fabulando y no quiere ningun acercamiento ni entendimiento, asi que seguiremos reclamando nuestro territorio, porque tenemos sobrados derechos sobre el archipielago.
        No tiene mas reputacion Inglaterra que Argentina en el mundo??. Expliqueme por que el mundo no le da el derecho de soberania que usted esgrime??. sabe por que ??, el mundo reconoce que es una zona de litigio de dos paises, el referendum paso “sin pena ni gloria”, ni figura en la agenda internacional.

        Usted tendria que bajar su posicion y aceptar que nosotros tenemos razon. Trate de construir no destruir. Yo expreso mis opiniones de buena fe, ponga tambien un poco de buena fe en lo que dice.

      • Junius March 24, 2013 at 11:20 pm #

        Permission to trade in all the King’s dominions (including the Falklands) is given in the 1825 Treaty.

        And no – the world only recognises that Argentina believes that there is a dispute. If Argentina stopped whinging, the world would pay no more attention.

        Argetina has no claim. Argentina has never had a claim. Just a myth.

      • Don Alberto March 16, 2013 at 7:35 pm #

        Estimado Sr. Fernando,

        the only reason for a (not very large) UK military presence in the islands is the Argentine threat, as it is shown by e.g. celebrating the day of invasion and Argentina shows off AT-63 Pampa II fighterbomber jet and warned that the British military presence in the South Atlantic “is the only element that upholds the usurpation of that part of our national territory”. A clear threat that without UK military presence, another Argentine invasion can be expected.

  3. CLopez March 14, 2013 at 5:27 am #

    99,8% only confirms Argentina’s point: they are an implanted population, told to be British in their diapers since centuries ago. In 1834, only a dozen of Vernet’s colony remained (and I think some of them even arrived after the Harriet incident). Fast forward a few years and they are hundreds. How would you call that?

    When you see a 99% result in a poll, it always smells bad…

    • Junius March 14, 2013 at 6:54 am #

      Or good ….🙂

      I call it natural settlement !

    • Mike March 14, 2013 at 11:45 pm #

      not all the inhabitants are of British decent … and no one in their right mind would vote for someone who is trying to bully them … thats why it was 99% … if your werent such A*** H**** to the Falkland Islanders you would have probably got more votes.

      and i like that your playing the implanted population card seen as the vast majority of residents and most of the government/dictatorship of Argentina are also implanted

      • CLopez March 15, 2013 at 12:02 am #

        I’m not following your argument: you are not an implanted population because some other people are/were an implanted population?

      • CLopez March 15, 2013 at 12:05 am #

        A nation that wants to be part of another nation is not a separate nation but the same one. You are British. QED.

      • Don Alberto March 15, 2013 at 12:20 am #

        No, CLopez

        If one implanted population does not have the rigth to self-determination, then, unless you have a strong bias, another implanted population does neither.

        – and in 1833 all but 4 of of Vernet’s colony remained under British rule. The number of the latter was 23. I have provided you with a link to an official Argentine source to who left – I suggest you read *and understand* it.

      • Mike March 15, 2013 at 2:05 am #

        Im not saying Falkland Islanders are an implanted nation … they have been there for 180 years.

        You are saying they are implanted, i am just pointing out the vast majority of the Argentine population are of spanish/europeon decent from just over 180 years.
        So 180 years makes you an Argentine but they cant be a Falkland Islander.

        -Just how long or how many generations would they have to live on the islands to have the same claim as Argentine people who have been in Argentinia?

        and the Falkland Islands dont want to be part of Britian. They would probably go it totally alone if it wasnt for the threat of invasion from you.
        They have no need apart for defence to stay part of Britian.
        To be fair they would probably switch to being a common wealth like Australia etc but given time if the/you Argentines were nice to them they may come round to your way of thinking … but that wont be in the life time of us due to the invasion and the current treatment it will take a long time for them to forget how badly you have treated them.
        -as to why Canada, Australia etc stay in the common wealth you would have to ask them

      • CLopez March 15, 2013 at 2:49 am #

        Mike, it is not about time but about identity. That is what it takes to have a nation. Mapuches, despite the genocide (a genocide that occurred from Tierra del Fuego to North Dakota) are still living among us, and they consider them both Argentines and Mapuches.

        Also: “When we realize that the international community, however, did not require that the colonizers of the lands of the American and Oceanic peoples to return those lands with full sovereignty, there appears to be a clear violation of the principle enunciated by the Court in the Western Sahara case. The sad fact is, that due to a legal principle usually referred to as “impossibility” – the European people were not obliged to cede land and power back to the American Indian and Oceanic peoples.”
        http://www.guidetoaction.org/parker/selfdet.html

      • Mike March 15, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

        Falkland Islanders (ex Brits and from other countries) identify themselves as Falkland Islanders just like Spanish immigrants see themselves as Argentines.
        Just because you choose to disagree with them doesnt mean 180 years of identity has changed, if they only refered to you as Spanish would that suddenly mean your not Argentinian? It would not in my opinion, yet thats what you are claiming of them

        Yes some of the Mapuches (and others tribes) make up a small part (and it is a small part) of the Argentine population but for the most part they are second class citizens sadly – yes in theory they are equal but in reality they are not and im sure they would rather you leave (no offence meant).

        Again you miss the point/I agree with what youve said.
        I’ve no problem with Spanish/Europeon people now being considered Argentine after all this time (and that would not change if there was no Falklands issue) .. but the same also applies to the Falkland Islanders.
        They have been there for as long as you on the scale of things – you cant have it both ways … its called being a hypocrite

      • CLopez March 16, 2013 at 7:18 pm #

        Mike, you’ll have my respect and my full cooperation (and I’d venture to say that it will be the same for most Argentines) the day you vote for independence.

        Until then, I have to reject the British presence in Latin America.

        Cheers.

      • Junius March 17, 2013 at 11:40 am #

        Reject ?? It is not your choice. We have as much right there as you. Maybe more.

      • Don Alberto March 16, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

        Oh, sure, the Mapuches are treated as ordinary Argentine citizens – or?

        “UN Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Asks Argentina to Stop Evicting Indigenous Peoples”

        http://indigenousnews.org/2012/09/21/un-rapporteur-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-asks-argentina-to-stop-evicting-indigenous-peoples/

      • Nico March 18, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

        Jesuit Missions of the colonial period have joined the natives into the organization western, being small groups preserve their old organization.

        In Argentina the native peoples have been recognized with legal status from the year 1994, they recognized their territories and been integrated into those.

        Bye.

      • Junius March 18, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

        Pity there are so few of them left!

      • Nico March 19, 2013 at 8:12 pm #

        The cynicism of Diogenes is very old.

      • Mike March 16, 2013 at 11:23 pm #

        There wont be a vote for independence for a long time, at least one generation and id say two generations minimum but probably closer to 4 generations if things changed right now. Falklanders already control most of the laws and daily things so they really arent far from being independent already.
        You/Argentina are just too aggressive, it will take you changing your stance and then time to forget before that happens but thats the only way i truely see this situation changing – its such easy vote winning for the politicians of both sides that unless it goes to court to be settled nothing will change. Your leaders can claim to have been abused in the past and the Islanders and British can point at whats happening now and before.

        If you were an Islander having being invaded (from an Islanders point of view it was an invasion) and the current rhetoric and actions its just to risky to not have British help when it comes to defence so for now nothing will change.
        Yeah you can point out Gaucho Law etc but once the deep water oil port is set up the islanders could probably all retire/suppliment the incomes with the money from that, so whats the loss? not being allowed to go to Argentina where the people hate you? no offence but i think i would take retired life on an island and put up with that)

      • Mike March 16, 2013 at 11:24 pm #

        that was a bit longer than intended

      • CLopez March 17, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

        Have you ever been to mainland, Mike? I really doubt people here would hate you just for being an islander.

        I agree that we are being too aggressive right now… I don’t like it but maybe that’s what it takes to finally get satisfaction. The “gentlemen’s diplomacy” is failing since 1834.

        I apologize to you, but we have to do this.

      • Junius March 18, 2013 at 12:02 am #

        “Gentleman’s diplomacy” ??? What was 1982 then ??

        You don’t HAVE to do anything other than recognise the falseness of your ridiculous claim and the stop brainwashing your children into believeing it.

      • CLopez March 18, 2013 at 2:38 am #

        Pull yourself together, Mr. Lorton…

      • Junius March 18, 2013 at 8:02 am #

        I forgot to mention the invasion of 1832 – another failure in Argentine diplomacy !

      • Nico March 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

        Do not forget the invasions of 1806 and 1807 from the UK to the City of Buenos Aires, where “diplomacy” of the kingdom failed, as simultaneously the resolutions of the Security Council of the UN, regarding the murder civilians and innocent children in Army invasions at Afghanistan and Iraq.

        I guess it would more useful comunicate without hurt us.

        Bye.

      • Junius March 18, 2013 at 11:50 pm #

        In 1806/07 Britain was at war with Spain. Buenos Aires was a Spanish city.

      • Nico March 19, 2013 at 8:16 pm #

        Have a delay in your self beibe !
        War its war, between anyone.

        http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortura_y_abuso_de_prisioneros_en_Abu_Ghraib

        http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Couso_Permuy

      • Don Alberto March 18, 2013 at 11:58 pm #

        1994?

        The report from the UN Rapporteur is dated 2012.

        Their rights may be set to paper, but the real world is different.

      • Nico March 19, 2013 at 8:20 pm #

        Easy to see the little problem in another, but not the big problem in oneself.

      • Don Alberto March 27, 2013 at 11:45 am #

        Nico writes: “Easy to see the little problem in another, but not the big problem in oneself.”

        Precisely!

    • Mike March 18, 2013 at 4:09 am #

      Sorry but Lorton is right though to be fair its much much worse currently – not including the invasion which obviously is a huge thing and pretty recent.

      The “gentlemen’s diplomacy” is failing since 1834. … from Britians point of view the The “gentlemen’s diplomacy” has been failing since before then so saying that is a bit of a mute point

      • CLopez March 19, 2013 at 2:03 am #

        Not true… from 1776 to 1829 there was no diplomatic protest from the British regarding the Falklands… not towards Spain (who occupied them until 1811 and destroyed the remaining of Port Egmont, carrying the British plaque to Buenos Aires) or Argentina (which had been granting cattle exploiting licences since at least 1823)

      • Junius March 19, 2013 at 3:43 am #

        Nothing to complain about. Spain stayed in its small presidio and didn’t interfere with anything else Britain was doing – such as the 1786 survey – and while there is an Order for Egmont to be destroyed (an act of war), there is no actual evidence that the Order was carried out. Indeed, the original dwellings can be seen there to this day. There is also no evidence that the plaque went to BA. As for cattle exploitation – the original attempt failed and was not resumed until 1826 when Vernet had British permission.

      • Nico March 19, 2013 at 8:32 pm #

        The story is told by the winners, not necessarily true.

        “yesterday”… and yesterday again; but… tomorrow? human family or utilitarian cynicism?

        anthropologists speak of ancient “reductionism”.

      • Junius March 20, 2013 at 4:49 am #

        You need some better translation software – nothing you say makes any sense!

      • Nico April 5, 2013 at 10:09 pm #

        I dont wont sense you… “all we need is love”.

      • Nico March 19, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

        The story is told by the winners, not necessarily by truth.

      • mike March 19, 2013 at 3:20 am #

        The British claim predates those dates so like I said gentlemen’s diplomacy is a mute point

      • CLopez March 21, 2013 at 12:49 am #

        I repeat: Spain destroyed the remainings of Port Egmont. There is written evidence of that: of course, you’d rather say they are lies. After all, Beresford already took care of the evidence😉

        Ohhh, you nasty Lorton… and you criticize Cristina Kirchner. You’re in no position to do that.

        Although she does deserve it sometimes.

      • Junius March 21, 2013 at 3:57 am #

        Produce your evidence Clopez – there is a written order, but no record of it having been carried out and the remains of the buildings are still there.

        There is also no evidence that Beresford removed the plaque – unless you have something that would count as evidence?

        Belief is not sufficient!

      • CLopez March 22, 2013 at 11:37 am #

        There is no point in arguing with you, since the following words reminds me that you know what I’m talking about, but you now choose to just lie:

        “1780 – Spanish troops, in an act of war, destroy the buildings at Port Egmont and remove the lead plaque
        declaring Britain’s sovereignty. This is taken to Buenos Aires.”

        That was written in your timeline, version of Jan 2012.

        Re. Beresford, that is written as a side note in an old document in the Archivo General de la Nación. That’s the only explanation for its disappearance that we know of.

      • Junius March 23, 2013 at 2:17 am #

        An old copy – as I’ve been unable to confirm it, I had to change it. The point is – you do not have any evidence do you? A side note – written by who ?? And what is the document (reference number?).

        Evidence is the only thing that counts. Belief certainly is not worth anything unless supported by the evidence.

        My work is under constant review to try and confirm everything there. If you think I am wrong, then all you have to do is produce some evidence to prove the contested fact. As I said – there is no evidence to prove that the order was carried out. Now please prove me wrong!

      • Junius April 4, 2013 at 8:55 am #

        You’ll be happy to know that I have discovered some documentary evidence that the plaque was removed. Albeit in 1775 not 1780. The information comes from a letter from Woodbine Parish to Lord Aberdeen in 1830 and suggests that Parish had gained access to the Spanish archive in BA. He is obviously surprised at the suggestion that Beresford took the plaque though – which would suggest that this was unknown in England.

        The only problem is that the removal of the plate was not connected to the later order to destroy the settlement at Port Egmont. So now – what evidence do you have that the order was carried out ??

        You see – once there’s some clear evidence I’ll adjust what I’ve written. ” 1775 – Towards the end of the year, a Spanish vessel commanded by Pascueal Callejas, arrives at Port Egmont. The lead plaque containing the British claim is removed, and taken to Buenos Aires.
        “… I find that towards the end of 1775 a Spanish Officer named Callegas in pursuance of these orders visits the remains of our settlement at Port Egmont and discovered there the Inscription left by Captain Clayton upon his quitting the place the year before. This Inscription fully set forth His Majesty’s rights and was on a leaden plate, and was sent by Callegas to Buenos Ayres, where I am told it was carefully preserved until General Beresford took possession of the city, and sent it to England.” ” Woodbine Parish to Earl Aberdeen 20th November 1830. PRO FO 6 499

        The digitization of records is causing me a lot of work🙂

        I should perhaps add that it would be surprising that news of the Uranie foundering could reach BA in the February – as she was wrecked on the 14th Feb. Do you have anything to support your statement ?

      • CLopez March 23, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

        Last time I proved you wrong, you edited your timeline. Port Egmont was destroyed by Spain, and that is a clear indication of sovereignty over BOTH islands.

        Besides, when I transcribed the sea tribunal resolution praising David Jewett’s service at the command of the Heroina, it conveniently “disappeared” because of a problem in WordPress. No, I don’t feel like wasting my time today.

      • Junius March 23, 2013 at 11:20 pm #

        If you prove something Clopez, then I will edit. You have not proven this !. Your belief remains insufficient.

        The tribunal was about the mutiny and made no mention of the Falklands. Which I proved.

      • Junius March 24, 2013 at 12:19 am #

        Forgot to add – it was a clear act of war – nothing else!

      • Don Alberto March 23, 2013 at 10:50 pm #

        “… como acto de propriedade desta, e authorisação para fazero Corso, passados em nome do Director Supremo das Provincias unidas ao Sul de America, … dados ao primeiro Commandante da Heroina David Jeevitt em 15 de Janeiro de 1820, … declarão expressamente que a Heroina de huma Corveta de Guerra de Buenos-Ayres, e que se destinava a fazer a guerra á Bandeira Hespanhola.”

        “… document … authorizing to operate as a privateer … declare expressly that the corvette ‘Heroina’ … shall wage war on [ships with] the Spanish flag.”

        Only Spanish ships! Upbringing of the Portuguese ships were acts of piracy.

        From the trial in Lisboa.

        “NOTICIAS NACIONÃES, 6 de Maio [1822]

        Sentença proferida pelo Auditor de Marinha, condemnando como preza a Corveta ==Heroina== aprezada pela Fragata == Perola.”

        “Diário do Governo, Segunda Feira 1.” Abril – Junho de 1822. Nº 77-151, Imprensa Nacional de Lisboa.
        books.google.com.ar/books/download/Diário_do_governo.pdf?id=PQ4wAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U1-kdYkUWRnqH4M8YEgOTKLV8mOBA

        [p. 752 (p. 251 in .pdf)]

      • Junius March 23, 2013 at 11:23 pm #

        I think Clopez is referring to the tribunal that took place after Jewett’s return to BA in which his summary executions following the mutiny were considered. The result was an approval of his actions. An approval that Clopez has tried to turn into an approval of ALL Jewett’s actions. The ‘Decree’ he refers to does not exist and is only the findings of the court jumped up to a higher status.

        Peter Pepper on his last trip to BA checked the records for me.

      • CLopez March 26, 2013 at 3:25 am #

        Don Alberto: enemy ships & enemy cargo, those were his orders. Read the original document, not the news about them. BTW, are you aware that Jewett served under the Portuguese banner after his venture in Rio de la Plata? How come they didn’t put him on trial?

        Lorton: your negative use of logic that goes:
        A. Peter can’t find this thing;
        B. Ergo, this thing doesn’t exist AND it didn’t ever existed!

        It is quite… how can I say? Silly… it only further proves how horribly biased you (and your friend with connections) are.

      • Junius March 26, 2013 at 8:30 am #

        30 years experience in the court system – if you can’t prove it, then it didn’t happen !! That IS legal logic – but it works in history too. If you cannot prove it, then it’s nothing more than a theory. Silly doesn’t cut it.

        Enemy ships and cargo ?? Nothing about sovereignty claims then ???

        Oh – and Mason took the rap for the whole thing, so the Portuguese had nothing else to pursue !

      • Don Alberto March 26, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

        Clopez writes: “Don Alberto: enemy ships & enemy cargo, those were his orders. Read the original document, not the news about them.”

        Show me the documentation.

        The reference from the trial is not “news”.

        It was taken from Jewett’s license as a privateer. If you had read it, you would have known that it was written in both French and Spanish – the Portuguese authorities had no problems reading it.

        “Os documentos de f. 9 e f. 12, unicos titulos que [p. 753 (p. 252 in .pdf)] o Commandante da Heroina apresenton como acto de propriedade desta, e authorisação para fazero Corso, passados em nome do Director Supremo das Provincias unidas ao Sul de America, escriptos o primeiro em Francez, e o segundo em Hespanhol”

        The license clearly states “… fazer a guerra á Bandeira Hespanhola.” i.e. “make war against the SPANISH flag”.

        Jewett crew gave statements about his piracy:

        “Quarenta e cinco homens porém dos aprezados na Heroina, espontaneamente confessárão nas perguntas do Appenso =D= que esta Corveta exercitava o infame trafico da pirataria, oubando no mar todos os Navios que lhe era possivel”

        Have you invented a war in 1820 between Buenos Ayres and Portugal or are you claiming that Portugal was part of Spain?

      • CLopez March 27, 2013 at 11:46 am #

        No, it is not supposed to work that way in History, specially when you have anecdotal signs that it happened as Jewett himself stating so. You can theorize about the possibility of them being untrue, but saying “it didn’t exist” is conveying the wrong message. That is, for history readers, not legal students.

        Want to talk about law? To law the only important aspects is that
        a) Jewett was an officially appointed Argentine officer;
        b) he claimed the Malvinas for Argentina
        c) Argentina never condemned his actions in any way.

        That’s why Vernet produced a copy of the Salem Gazette: you don’t really need more than that, except perhaps the documents appointing him in charge.

      • Junius March 27, 2013 at 2:49 pm #

        Wrong – Jewett was ONLY authorised to attack Spanish shipping. He was not authorised to make any sovereighty claim. AND his claim was unsupported by the appropriate action ie. a display of authority immediately following the claim. Jewett left nothing behind – not even a flag. The UP did not know of his actions as he never reported them. And no – the Salem Gazette is not sufficient. The Government was required to follow up the claim with an act of sovereignty. It failed to do so.

        And proof IS required in history. As I said – belief is NOT enough.

      • CLopez March 28, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

        And who authorized John Byron to lay claim over the Falkland Islands? Who ORDERED him to do so? What authority exercised after the left?

        See? Orders are not actually that important.

        And I DO NOT BELIEVE blindly in anything, I’m just trusting the accounts of those involved, accounts that you DENY unless some kind of official paper is presented. Ridiculous and unnecessary.

        YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT JEWETT WAS LYING, you have no basis for DENY him except the lack of a written document. So by saying that the orders “DIDN’T EXIST” you are actually taking a leap of faith.

        At most you can say that I cannot prove it beyond doubt. That’s a very different statement.

      • Junius March 29, 2013 at 10:31 am #

        Byron’s ‘job’ was to go out and make claims. Jewett’s ‘job’ was to go out and hunt Spanish ships.

        Orders are important.

        I have evidence that there was no direct Order for Jewett to make any claim. Evidenced by his failure to report the event in his report to BA and the fact that after decades of searching nothing has been found.

        Not that any of it really matters anyway.

        There were already two prior claims to the Islands – so Jewett really achieved nothing.

      • CLopez March 28, 2013 at 5:32 pm #

        What’s more, the arrival of the news in Buenos Aires about the sinking of the Uraine at Malvinas in Feb 1820 is plausible explanation for those orders. Wedell himself thought so.

      • Junius March 29, 2013 at 10:34 am #

        Weddell believed that Jewett’s only purpose in making the claim was to take control of the wreck – thereby giving some profit in his otherwise disasterous adventure. Weddell did not believe that Jewett was acting on behalf of the UP. He believed that Jewett was acting on behalf of himself!

      • CLopez April 1, 2013 at 9:42 am #

        He thought Jewett was going to claim the wreckage, which he didn’t.

      • Junius April 1, 2013 at 2:23 pm #

        Jewett went down with scurvy.

      • CLopez April 1, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

        Jewett arrived to Malvinas in October 1820, his letter asking for relieve is dated February 1821. It reached Buenos Aires aboard the Rampart, an American schooner carrying Spanish cargo that Jewett himself intercepted and captured.

        So I think you’re just making that up. What kind of evidence do you have for it?

      • Junius April 1, 2013 at 11:10 pm #

        What kind of evidence for Jewett not taking the salvage rights of the Uranie do you have ??

        When Jewett arrived many of his crew had scurvey. He got it too – no fresh fruit on the Falklands. My source was peter Pepper. His source, I believe, is the 13 page report (dated February 1st) submitted by Jewett – the one that fails to mention the claim he’d made.

        As for the Rampart – an act of piracy as his authority only extended to Spanish shipping.

  4. Don Alberto March 26, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

    CLopez,

    Doesn’t it strike you as utterly strange that

    1. Jewett had not received any orders from the Buenos Ayres government about claiming sovereignity, not even a hint?

    2. Jewett did not mention it in his 13 pages report to the Buenos Ayres government?

    3. the Buenos Ayres government did not remind him of his strange oversight?

    4. the Buenos Ayres government did not gazette Jewetts proclamation?

    • Junius March 26, 2013 at 11:59 pm #

      When Vernet produced his ‘Report’ in 1832 he also attached as much supporting evidence as he could – Decrees, Orders, documents, etc. In support of the contention that Jewett had claimed the Islands for the United Provinces, Vernet produced a copy of the Salem Gazette !

    • CLopez March 27, 2013 at 11:47 am #

      No Don Alberto, it is not “utterly strange” if you know about the anarchy that reigned here on those precise years.

      • Don Alberto March 27, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

        CLopez,

        don’t be ridiculous – especially point 2. Jewett did not mention it in his 13 pages report to the Buenos Ayres government.

        Anarchy in his brain?

      • Don Alberto March 27, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

        Let me add, that I have a thorough knowledge of the 40 or more turbulent years from 1820 to 1861 (as a matter of fact it wasn’t finished until 1876) – no Argentine state, but a bunch of caudillos fighting over what was left of El Virreinato de la Plata, several small states like Liga Federal (Unión de los Pueblos Libres), primera and segunda guerra entre unitarios y federales en el interior 1825-27 + 1828-31, the usurper Lavalle who murdered Dorrego the appointed governor of Buenos Ayres in 1828 and then appointed Vernet as comandante (which Rosas later declared null and void), La Liga del Interior y la Liga del Litoral, Revolución de los Restauradores 1833, Estado Oriental, primero y segundo ejército correntino contra Rosas 1838-39, Confederación vs. Estado de Buenos Ayres 1859 and 1861, at least 450 civil war battles, Primera guerra entre Artigas y el Directorio, Revolución de los Colorados 1866-67, Rebelión Jordanista 1870-76, etc., etc., etc.

        Boy, did they have fun!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: