Fawklands, Who Should Have Them?

[Imperialpowersofkorea]

Then Manisdog starting bitching about being tricked, which was hilariously funny as it exposed his racist, crackpot tendencies.

Topkek, Manisdog.

Crucial things were withheld from me...It off topic

Next time I shall be more careful in dealing with them and their Trickery. This is not only right but plainly proves nothing

[Planita]

Oh for f*ck's sake

[The Two Jerseys]

Then Manisdog starting bitching about being tricked, which was hilariously funny as it exposed his racist, crackpot tendencies.

Topkek, Manisdog.

Crucial things were withheld from me...It off topic

Next time I shall be more careful in dealing with them and their Trickery. This is not only right but plainly proves nothing

What trickery? You saw a thread with "Falklands" in the title and said "HALLELUJAH, TIME TO BASH THE BRITISH!".

[Imperialpowersofkorea]

Crucial things were withheld from me...It off topic

Next time I shall be more careful in dealing with them and their Trickery. This is not only right but plainly proves nothing

What trickery? You saw a thread with "Falklands" in the title and said "HALLELUJAH, TIME TO BASH THE BRITISH!".

No, I saw an opportunity to bash British expansionism and I unfortunately fell for their cheap tricks, cheap tricks.

[Sun Wukong]

He's not saying that, though. The only person in this thread saying that is Manisdog, who is apparently Indian and only cares about this at all because he seems to hate British people with the same intensity Hitler hated the Jews.

Just go to Britain and have a walk over there you would see how much the British love people

I've walked around in many countries. I can't say that the Brits are the cheeriest folk, but it's not like they start randomly screaming at you for no reason. The Italians on the other hand...

I like the Italians, but they're not soft-spoken.

There is no need to add all this extra bits of information, this is not a thread about me, it is about the British occupation of Falklands and the hypocrisy of Britain

Yeah... no. Surely there's enough actual hypocrisy in British politics that you don't have to invent bullshit hypocrisy?

[Fartsniffage]

What trickery? You saw a thread with "Falklands" in the title and said "HALLELUJAH, TIME TO BASH THE BRITISH!".

No, I saw an opportunity to bash British expansionism and I unfortunately fell for their cheap tricks, cheap tricks.

Cheap tricks, but enough to catch you out. Perhaps you should be quiet and learn for a bit?

[The Two Jerseys]

What trickery? You saw a thread with "Falklands" in the title and said "HALLELUJAH, TIME TO BASH THE BRITISH!".

No, I saw an opportunity to bash British expansionism and I unfortunately fell for their cheap tricks, cheap tricks.

The British should never get Falklands, They should not even get Britain but that is for another day, Giving the British falklands would give them absolute power in the Antartic, something we cannot afford to do. Britain was, is and shall continue to be an enemy of liberty and freedom on this planet.

Now don't make these threads, I think these threads about Falklands should stop

Emphasis added.

Now please kindly tell us how you were tricked into making these remarks, and why you're still posting here if you think these threads should stop (which, face it, you don't)?

[Imperialpowersofkorea]

No, I saw an opportunity to bash British expansionism and I unfortunately fell for their cheap tricks, cheap tricks.

Cheap tricks, but enough to catch you out. Perhaps you should be quiet and learn for a bit?

Learn from people who do not argue straight, You need to learn how to be straight forward and not resort to trickery

I was thinking that these xyz people in some former British colony and were working for the British government and were white British people

The point is Yes it is a fact, I guess it would be difficult for any local population, I would not like to stay near Mr and Mrs .East India company.

[Imperialpowersofkorea]

No, I saw an opportunity to bash British expansionism and I unfortunately fell for their cheap tricks, cheap tricks.

The British should never get Falklands, They should not even get Britain but that is for another day, Giving the British falklands would give them absolute power in the Antartic, something we cannot afford to do. Britain was, is and shall continue to be an enemy of liberty and freedom on this planet.

Now don't make these threads, I think these threads about Falklands should stop

Emphasis added.

Now please kindly tell us how you were tricked into making these remarks, and why you're still posting here if you think these threads should stop (which, face it, you don't)?

and I stand by statements

I stand by them...

[Sun Wukong]

Cheap tricks, but enough to catch you out. Perhaps you should be quiet and learn for a bit?

Learn from people who do not argue straight, You need to learn how to be straight forward and not resort to trickery

I was thinking that these xyz people in some former British colony and were working for the British government and were white British people

The point is Yes it is a fact, I guess it would be difficult for any local population, I would not like to stay near Mr and Mrs .East India company.

So... basically what you're saying, is that you're an unapologetic racist, and you were tricked into discriminating against someone other than the British?

Poor you.

Poor, poor you.

[Imperialpowersofkorea]

Learn from people who do not argue straight, You need to learn how to be straight forward and not resort to trickery

I was thinking that these xyz people in some former British colony and were working for the British government and were white British people

The point is Yes it is a fact, I guess it would be difficult for any local population, I would not like to stay near Mr and Mrs .East India company.

So... basically what you're saying, is that you're an unapologetic racist, and you were tricked into discriminating against someone other than the British?

Poor you.

Poor, poor you.

Am I the one who is racist, seriously, Am I seriously the fucking racist here, no.. Serious fucking ly

Do you have any idea, what they have done ?

Why don't you go to Britain and find out yourself ?

[The Two Jerseys]

Learn from people who do not argue straight, You need to learn how to be straight forward and not resort to trickery

I was thinking that these xyz people in some former British colony and were working for the British government and were white British people

The point is Yes it is a fact, I guess it would be difficult for any local population, I would not like to stay near Mr and Mrs .East India company.

So... basically what you're saying, is that you're an unapologetic racist, and you were tricked into discriminating against someone other than the British?

Poor you.

Poor, poor you.

To be fair, he discriminates against poor people without having to be tricked into it.

[Sun Wukong]

So... basically what you're saying, is that you're an unapologetic racist, and you were tricked into discriminating against someone other than the British?

Poor you.

Poor, poor you.

Am I the one who is racist, seriously, Am I seriously the fucking racist here, no.. Serious fucking ly

Yes.

Do you have any idea, what they have done ?

Yes.

Why don't you go to Britain and find out yourself ?

I've been there.

I'd go again.

[Sun Wukong]

So... basically what you're saying, is that you're an unapologetic racist, and you were tricked into discriminating against someone other than the British?

Poor you.

Poor, poor you.

To be fair, he discriminates against poor people without having to be tricked into it.

I stand corrected.

[Fartsniffage]

So... basically what you're saying, is that you're an unapologetic racist, and you were tricked into discriminating against someone other than the British?

Poor you.

Poor, poor you.

Am I the one who is racist, seriously, Am I seriously the fucking racist here, no.. Serious fucking ly?

Yes. You are. I'm sorry to say it because I kinda like you, but you are a racist.

It's sad that you can't see it.

[Imperialpowersofkorea]

Am I the one who is racist, seriously, Am I seriously the fucking racist here, no.. Serious fucking ly?

Yes. You are. I'm sorry to say it because I kinda like you, but you are a racist.

It's sad that you can't see it.

Aren't you people the racists here ?

I certainly don't see myself as a racist

[The Two Jerseys]

To be fair, he discriminates against poor people without having to be tricked into it.

I stand corrected.

Wait, I was wrong, we do trick him into it. Those car threads on here are nothing but traps to catch Manisdog.

[Fartsniffage]

Yes. You are. I'm sorry to say it because I kinda like you, but you are a racist.

It's sad that you can't see it.

Aren't you people the racists here ?

I certainly don't see myself as a racist

No. I don't hate Indians for being Indian, or any other group of people just for being who they are.

You hate the British just because of their birth. That's racism.

[The Archregimancy]

Just for giggles, a quick summary of my past posts on the issue:

No, they really don't. Their claim rests on (amongst a whole bunch of other ridiculous claims) Argentina being a legitimate successor state to Spain in South America. Spain never recognised them as such, so they aren't. Plus, the people there want to be British. That is where the discussion should start and stop.

The issue of whether or not Spain recognised Argentina as a legitimate successor state isn't necessarily the real issue; most Latin American states claim boundaries that in some manner or another derive from their colonial predecessors even though Spain failed to recognise those states as the legitimate successors to the subkingdoms of the Spanish Empire for some decades.

No, a far more difficult point is whether the modern Argentine Republic is in any way the direct lineal constitutional successor of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata.

We tend to casually accept a direct historical relationship between the two, but that's a matter of convenience with little actual basis in historical fact other than a shared capital city (and even then, that capital city attempted to secede from 'Argentina' in the mid 19th century).

Let's take the Viceroyalty itself. Territorial overlap between the Viceroyalty and the modern Argentine state is surprisingly small. There was no settlement south of a line running roughly from Buenos Aires to Mendoza other than a series of often unoccupied forts running just south of that line. Occasional attempts to settle coastal Patagonia, such as the fort of Floridablanca, tended to be at best ephemeral - four years in Floridablanca's case. Furthermore, large areas north of that Buenos Aires line were unsettled and unclaimed - notably in what's now the Argentinian and Paraguayan Chaco - while vast areas of the Viceroyalty achieved independence as Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay. So really, the only territories of the Viceroyalty that modern Argentina controls are a strip along the south coast of the Rio de la Plata, the Cordoba and Tucuman intendencies, and part of the Misiones province. That's at best only slightly over half of the Viceroyalty, and less than half of modern Argentina.

But that colonial continuity isn't the only problem - there's the issue of constitutional continuity after independence, and here things get extraordinarily complex. I lack the time to outline the full history of the Argentinian Civil Wars of the early through mid 19th century, but let's just say that drawing a direct line of constitutional state continuity between the United Provinces and the post-1860s Argentine Republic is at best problematic. Article 35 of the Argentine Republic implicitly recognises the problem, stating that " Las denominaciones adoptadas sucesivamente desde 1810 hasta el presente, a saber: Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata; República Argentina, Confederación Argentina, serán en adelante nombres oficiales indistintamente para la designación del Gobierno y territorio de las provincias, empleándose las palabras "Nación Argentina" en la formación y sanción de las leyes" - in other words they try to claim that the United Provinces, the Argentine Republic, and the Argentine Confederation - all names used for different historical constitutional states based on Buenos Aires - remain legitimate names for the current nation; the problem of the lack of constitutional continuity is here dealt with by appropriation.

But even those three entities in Article 35 only tell part of the story. There were other separatist movements ebbing and flowing while the constitutional state centred on Buenos Aires constantly changed its nature and territorial claims. Some of the most important include the Federal League, a state that existed from c.1815-c.1820, and split the territory of the United Provinces in half, before it was defeated and separately absorbed into 'Argentina', the Empire of Brazil, and the nascent Uruguay. Then - rather amazingly - from 1852-1861, Buenos Aires itself successfully seceded from the Argentine Confederation as the independent State of Buenos Aires. It was only after Buenos Aires defeated Argentina (not the other way around!) at the Battle of Pavón that Buenos Aires allowed itself to re-merge with the rest of Argentina, though in a dominant position of control.

From the period c.1831-1861 - between the United Provinces and the modern Argentine Republic - what would become modern Argentina was the constitutionally distinct entity called the Argentine Confederation, which was a loose confederation of effectively independent local provinces that allowed the Governor of Buenos Aires Province - Juan Manuel de Rosas - to represent the confederation in foreign affairs (and control the confederation's sole major port; significant leverage) in return for a significant measure of local autonomy. As noted above, it was only after the secessionist State of Buenos Aires defeated the Confederation a decade after the fall of Rosas that an entity that's recognisable as modern Argentina comes into existence.

So, given the lack of either true continuity of territorial claim between Argentina and the Viceroyalty, or constitutional continuity between the Viceroyalty and/or United Provinces, modern Argentina's claim on a remote outpost of the Viceroyalty - which in any case was considered part of the Gobernacion de Montevideo - on the basis of either territorial integrity or historical continuity is drawing a fairly long bow.

I think you missed my point.
Immediatelly before the Independence of the United Provinces, the islands were Spanish. Since the Falklands were under the jurisdiction of the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate (which then became the United Provinces), the Falklands became directly part of the new country as soon as independence became effective.

We dealt with the simultaneous British and Spanish assertion of sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas via late 18th-century settlement back on page 2.

Otherwise, you've missed the fact that the United Provinces did indeed attempt to assert their sovereignty over Paraguay and Bolivia in the immediate aftermath of 1810-11, and that Chile wasn't part of the Viceroyalty anyway, so listing it with the other two is irrelevant. The Captaincy-General of Chile was excluded from the territory of the Viceroyalty at the express request of the cabildo of Santiago when the Spanish Empire was reorganised - and the Viceroyalty of Rio de La Plata was created - in 1776.

The May Revolution of 1810 found the Primera Junta expressly inviting all the Intendencies of the Viceroyalty to send representatives to Buenos Aires. The Asamblea del Año XIII in 1813 included representatives from present-day Bolivia and claimed the right to rule Paraguay. The formal declaration of independence of the United Provinces at the Congress of Tucuman in 1816 included five signatories from Bolivia. Armies from Buenos Aires directly attempted to enforce their control of both Bolivia and Paraguay. Upper Peru (Bolivia) - the wealthiest province of the Viceroyalty thanks to the silver mines of Potosi - was invaded from Buenos Aires on three separate occasions; it eventually broke away when its final liberation was effected by northern armies led by supporters of Bolivar (under Sucre) rather than armies from the south. The attempt to subdue Asuncion and Paraguay was personally led by General Belgrano (yes, that General Belgrano), and his defeat at the battles of Paraguarí and Tacuarí meant that Buenos Aires was unable to gain control of the territory, despite both military invasion and the nomination of José Espínola as civil representative of Buenos Aires in Asuncion.

So initially, the Primera Junta, the Junta Grande, the First and Second Triumvirates, and the United Provinces all claimed the right to rule over the entirety of the Viceroyalty, including Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay (the only one of several provinces attempting to break away after 1820 that actually succeeded) and the Falklands/Malvinas.

This also raises the extent to which the Argentine republic that was eventually consolidated in the 1850s and 1860s can be considered the direct legitimate constitutional successor to either the United Provinces or the Viceroyalty. It's conventional to accept that the former is the historical successor of the latter, but the constitutional, territorial, and political history of what would mutate into Argentina is particularly complex between 1810 and the Constitution of 1853, with provinces splitting away and reuniting, and splits between different territorial and constitutional factions; there is no real logical line of constitutional succession, and little line of territorial succession, between the Viceroyalty of April 1810 and the Argentine Republic of 1853. If you look at a map of the settled and governed districts of the Viceroyalty in 1810, the only realistic shared characteristics between the Viceroyalty and modern Argentina are sharing Buenos Aires as a capital and some common territory around Mendoza and Cordoba (this map may prove instructive in this regard). And even then, Buenos Aires itself attempted to secede from Argentina after 1853.

So given the territorial and constitutional changes since May 1810, it is indeed arguably illogical for modern Argentina to claim sovereignty over the Falklands on the basis of the modern republic's status as the constitutional successor of the Viceroyalty if Argentina also recognises the independence of Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia on the basis of self-determination, historical status since 1830, and/or military defeat. Especially since - as Angleter pointed out some pages ago - the Malvinas were part of the Gobernacion de Montevideo under the Viceroyalty; in other words, they were ruled from modern Uruguay.

The Sovereignity was transferred when Argentina declared the Independence, and not when the Independence was accepted.
The Falklands were formally administered by Buones Aires, as the Argentine Coast was.

Actually, following the creation of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata, they were administered from Montevideo as part of the Gobernacion de Montevideo.

Since Argentina now accepts the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all of the now independent territories of the Viceroyalty, including Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia, on this logic clearly the only possible solution to the dispute is to hand the Falklands back to their original colonial masters in Uruguay.

Las Malvinas son uruguayas!*

*yawn* Rattling of a DULL sabre.
(btw, one could always revoke mr.senor Peck's British citizenship...)

That's not as straightforward as it might seem. As I understand it, the only way for a native-born UK citizen (which Peck functionally was under the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act of 1983) to lose citizenship today is physically abjure their citizenship in front of an appropriate UK government representative.

Not from 1816 to 1833. Your lack of history knowledge is overcoming your argument.

Not quite, mi amiga venezolana.

Argentina's claim doesn't really stem from post-independence events in the early 19th century, but rather from Spain's pre-independence claim to the islands, and Argentina's rather tenuous historical claim to being the direct historical descendent of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata. The Spanish claim was itself contested by the British on the dual basis of initial discovery from settlement from 1765-1776; when Port Egmont (nice archaeology site, by the way) was abandoned in 1776, the British commander left behind a plaque asserting British sovereignty. This overlapped with the Spanish claim, which was asserted via the Spanish expulsion of a brief French attempt to settle the islands in the 1760s. The British and Spanish claims overlapped, and were being asserted simultaneously in this period, though the small Spanish settlement would last slightly longer - until 1811.

Following independence, Argentina - more accurately, the United Provinces, since the modern Argentine Republic wouldn't even realistically exist until the 1853 constitution - made up to three attempts to settle the islands between 1820 (not 1816) and 1831, the precise nature of which are under dispute.

1 - November 1820- April 1821: American pirate David Jewett, sailing under the flag of the United Provinces, lands and stays until April 1821. The extent to which his temporary settlement was official is dispute, and the United Provinces seem not have been aware that Jewett was making any claim to the islands on their behalf.

2 - 1826-1831: The United Provinces grant exclusive sealing and fishing rights in the islands to Hamburg merchant Louis [Luis] Vernet in 1823. He eventually settles on the islands in 1826, but aware of the conflicting British claim, seeks permission from the British consul in Buenos Aires before setting out. In 1829, Buenos Aires names Vernet the formal 'commander' of the islands, under protest from the British consul. Vernet's settlement is virtually wiped out by an American naval vessel (following a dispute over sealing rights) in 1831. Following this raid, the American representative in Buenos Aires wrote that he legally considered the Islands to be 'res nullius' - not under the legal or effective control of any state.

3 - November 1831: A United Provinces attempt to set up a penal colony almost immediately comes to grief when the troops mutiny, killing their commander.

Britain then seeks to physically reassert its claim in 1833, coming across the last desperate straggling remnants of Vernet's settlement, which were rapidly absorbed or expelled on the principle that Vernet's commercial activity was welcome, but not his recognition of Buenos Aires. British control has been continuous ever since, with the exception of a brief period in 1982.

What would become Argentina was in no position to contest British control when the United Kingdom reasserted its claim as Rosas was still consolidating his control of the incipient Argentine state following a debilitating 20 year civil conflict (often breaking into open war) between different groups contesting control of the new nation - or even attempting to break away entirely. Stability would only gradually come after 1853, and even then Buenos Aires attempted to secede from Argentina, and the first president of a stable united Argentina (Bartolomé Mitre) would only achieve power in 1862. Given the primacy of British commercial interests in Argentina even after the election of Mitre, no Argentinian president would have risked provoking Britain by attempting to revive a dormant claim anyway - so Britain's settlement and claim to the islands wouldn't be seriously contested until 1982, at which point there had been no Spanish, United Provinces, or Argentine settlement of any kind for 151 years.

So remember.... las Malvinas son uruguayas!

Viva Uruguay! Viva las Malvinas uruguayas!

[Imperialpowersofkorea]

Aren't you people the racists here ?

I certainly don't see myself as a racist

No. I don't hate Indians for being Indian, or any other group of people just for being who they are.

You hate the British just because of their birth. That's racism.

I don't hate the British, I disapprove of them and their imperialistic ways

You do realize what the British have done to the world ?

[Fartsniffage]

No. I don't hate Indians for being Indian, or any other group of people just for being who they are.

You hate the British just because of their birth. That's racism.

I don't hate the British, I disapprove of them and their imperialistic ways

You do realize what the British have done to the world ?

Not this generation of the British, or even the generation before.

You hate the ghost of Britain. And you really should try to stop doing that.

[Costa Fierro]

You do realize what the British have done to the world ?

Given them New Zealand?

[Fartsniffage]

You do realize what the British have done to the world ?

Given them New Zealand?

Indeed, we are utter bastards....

[The Two Jerseys]

No. I don't hate Indians for being Indian, or any other group of people just for being who they are.

You hate the British just because of their birth. That's racism.

I don't hate the British, I disapprove of them and their imperialistic ways

You do realize what the British have done to the world ?

Invent parliamentary democracy, start the Industrial Revolution, and help defeat both Napoleon and the Axis.

Those fucking sons of bitches!

[Wisconsin9]

The inhabitants of the Falklands are British and want to stay British. I say Argentina can piss right the fuck off.