I have met only good people from Argentina, good, kind and tolerant people who love and live life to it’s fullest. Why can’t all countries be as good as Argentina, treating all of their people equally and fairly with justice and respect. Argentina is setting the example for the rest of the world to follow.
Because many of the bad people have sold their soul to Rome.
Being more and more recognized as the super-highway to hell.
Argentina is indeed doing well, especially when you consider the extreme brutality of the Dirty War years.
Bravo Argentina! I wish I was younger and could speak Spanish. Argentina and Uruguay would be such wonderful places to live!
Spanish is a very easy language. Vaya con dios. (go with God – a good god.
God does not exist.
Stop peddling snake oil.
you couldn’t more patronising, could ya?
Well done Argentina. You have many reasons, but that’s a particularly good one that puts imperial colonial powers still operating in the continent to shame. Sooner than you think you’ll have all your islands back from the homophobic pirates who stole them.
Pirates from Somalia (where they murder gays) perhaps? Don’t tell me, while Britain and Argentina have been arguing over the Falklands those pesky Somalis have sneaked in and occupied them!!!
The Somali pirates are only the modern version of this old human activity. The Atlantic and Caribbean history is also full of stories about pirates. Many of them were being maintained and financed by groups associated with European Royal families and governments.
you are in danger in upsetting tory voting audience
Darling, How patronising are you to the Argentinians (darling)
Oh by the way, how are you supporting the Guyanese (or the Argentinians) for that matter, how have you established that anything you do will be helpful to them (have you asked them?)
Or do you merely try and find some words that further your obsession with the past rather than building for the future?
Ohhh Beberts I thought you were dead or in prison. We were expecting your insight on the Ben Bradshaw story but you were noticeable in your absence.
I presume as you are in support of the Argentinian claim to the Falklands, you’ll also be in support of the Argentinian exit from Patagonia and its return to its native peoples the Tehuelches?
Sister, I disagree with Ben Bradshaw. I think marriage equality is a subject as important as homophobia and bullying.
On your second question, are you really expecting the Tehuelches to fall in your lame “divide and conquer” pitch, you silly? The Tehuelches are Argentinian and would not be falling in such silly trap. You’d be very hard pressed to find a Tehuelche who’d be willing to back the British claim over their Argentinian and South American archipelagos.
How many of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands (uninhabited till the 18c) are willing to have their land handed over to the Argentinians?
imperial colonial powers still operating in the continent
Imperial colonial powers, really? Which would they be, and where exactly on the continent would they be ‘operating’?
Nice! If I ever live somewhere same sex marriage is recognized, then I might get married in Argentina someday!
Why wait until the place you live recognises same sex marriage? Go and get married and then fight for legal recognition of your marriage!
I’m not going to get married unless my marriage is recognized. There’s no point to that. I’m waiting until I’m able to get all of the benefits of a marriage where I live. It’s just the ceremony I’d like somewhere else maybe because I find foreign countries more appealing than the US a lot of the time.
Also, I live in the US, which is very stubborn, so that would be tough to marry and then try to get my rights
Light years ahead of us for sure. Well done, Argentina, you put us in the UK to shame.
Argentina sounds a lovely, romatic place to get married but until foreign marriages are recognised in my own country and where I’m probably going to have to live full time then it’s not an option for me.
It is time that we started to show Argentina some love. An ugly thing happened between our countries 30 years ago and I felt that the war to liberate the Falklands was justified. The result: military junta out on it’s ear, democracy restored and now they have gone one better than us by fully acknowledging the love between two people, whoever they are.
In 1997 we handed all of Hong Kong back to China, including Hong Kong Island and Kowloon which were granted to us in perpeturity so I cannot see why one day the Falklands cannot eventually being transfered to Argentina some time in the future. In the short term we must be prepared to discuss dividing up the mineral rights off the islands with Argentina. Argentina must be prepared to ‘sell’ themselves to the Falkland islanders as a great nation to live and and do business with and hopefully the islanders will have a more favourable view of life under possible Argentinian rule. Cristina Kirchner and David Cameron, NEGOTIATIONS NOW!!!
The difference is that the people of Hong Kong had a shared language and culture with the people of China and the UK was honouring the spirit of the treaty that gave Hong Kong to us originally. It is to our shame we failed to allow those people from Hong Kong who did not wish to stay after China took over a chance to come here to the UK and instead turned out backs on them.
The Falklands are inhabited by people who have a different language, a different culture to Argentina. Those same people, i.e. the ones who live there, absolutely do not want to be “handed over” to Argentina. It’d be like giving Kent to France without consulting us Kentish folk (hell it’s closer, and we even have a land link). I’ve no problem with Argentina getting the Falklands but only if the people of the Falklands are convinced of the case in favour. Argentina’s unkind words and nasty actions of late are hardly winning them over.
Saying that, kudos to Argentina for marriage equality!
Argentina is full of people and communities who differ from the main Spanish language and culture and live peacefully side by side. There are indeed many British expats that have been living in mainland Argentina for generations, not much far from the kelpers, and for as long as they have been living there. Would you accept Bradford as a Pakistani territory if the people of Bradford decided to live under Pakistani sovereignty? What about East London? Would you accept it to be declared an Indian or Bangladeshi territory where British laws don’t apply?
I would like to mention the 25,000 strong Welsh community in Chubut Provence, Argentina where the language is still spoken and main cities include Puerto Madryn and Trelew. In the event of a Falklands handover there is no reason why the Argentinians cannot preserve the exisiting way of life for the islanders but how long would it be before bi-lingual roadsigns appear in Port Stanley and they start insisting that they drive on the wrong side of the road?
What happens in those islands depend on many economic factors. One of them is tourism. I believe the Argentinians would be interested in maintaining the local British culture for touristic reasons, because that’s what already happens in many towns in mainland, not very far from the islands.
The people of the Falklands do not want to be Argentinian. Surely they have the right to self determination?
They have as much right to this silly interpretation of “self-determination” as the descendants of Pakistanis living in Bradford have to declare Bradford a Pakistani territory. If you accept that parts of your own territory can one day be declared as part of another nations, fair enough, but then don’t come here complaining when that happens…
False analogy: the Pakistanis came, as immigrants, to a well-established country in full knowledge of its existing laws. The same cannot be said of British settlers in the once-uninhabited Falkland Islands.
Tit for tat darling… The real and noble concept of self-determination does not apply to either immigrants or colonial settlers. Go figure in which case the kelpers fall in… And FYI those islands were already inhabited when the British decided to invade and occupy.
But, sweetie-darling, by the French – and even then only one island, a year before the British occupied another island (they could hardly have ‘invaded’ since it was uninhabited). So you recommend ‘returning’ the islands to France, do you?
They were inhabited by Argentinians honey. The British invaded and occupied after the displacement of the local Argentinian population.
If the case for Argentina is as water tight as you say, Beberts why would they not accept taking the case to the ICJ and accepting its jurisdiction?
They refused this – perhaps due to history not reflecting the tale you seem (for unknown reasons) keen to tell, when it is untrue.
I would not presume to speculate (unlike yourself) why you would behave in such a way.
However, the facts re the Falklands are displayed below- they are the untruths you seek to make people believe.
That question serves both countries. Why would the UK not accept taking the case to the ICJ and accepting its jurisdiction? Although the case for Argentina is very much stronger than the case for a colonial power, it is not water tight. Both countries should immediately sit down to settle the dispute. Argentina is ready. The UK should be too. That’s to avoid further and meaningless wars. Meanwhile you should conduct an emphatic and thorough research of the real facts surrounding the case, letting go of your Euro-centered view of the World.
Try again, it was the UK who suggested taking the case to the ICJ and Argentina refused.
If Argentinas case is so convincing why would they refuse justice?
Could it perhaps be because they know their case is flawed?
They were inhabited by Argentinians
No they weren’t, honey bunny.
The UK can approach the ICJ directly without asking for permission darling. The UK has been for many decades ignoring all UN resolutions about the dispute. It is falsely claiming the kelpers have a right to self-determination, and has been refusing to engage in negotiations with Argentina. The list of dodgeries doesn’t stop there, it carries on and on and on and on … since the invasion in 1833.
Ah Beberts continues with his lies.
The timeline of control of the Falklands is:
February 1764 – April 1767 France
January 1765 – July 1770 Great Britain
April 1767 – February 1811 Spain
September 1771 – May 1776 Great Britain
February 1811 – August 1829 None
August 1829 – December 1831 United Provinces
December 1831 – January 1832 United States
January–December 1832 None
December 1832 – January 1833 Argentine Confederation
January–August 1833 United Kingdom
August 1833 – January 1834 None
January 1834 – April 1982 United Kingdom
April–June 1982 Argentina
June 1982 – present United Kingdom
France was the first country to establish de facto control in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port Saint Louis in East Falkland, in 1764. The French colony consisted of a small fort and some settlements with a population of around 250. The Islands were named after the Breton port of St. Malo as the Îles Malouines.
Spain claimed the Falkland Islands under provisions in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which settled the limits of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. When Spain discovered the British and French colonies on the Islands, a diplomatic row broke out between the claimants. In 1766, Spain and France, who were allies at the time, agreed that France would hand over Port Saint Louis, and Spain would repay the cost of the settlement. Spain and Great Britain enjoyed uneasy relations at the time, and no corresponding agreement was reached.
The Spanish took control of Port Saint Louis and renamed it Puerto Soledad in 1767. On 10 June 1770, a Spanish expedition expelled the British colony at Port Egmont, and Spain took de facto control of the Islands. Spain and Great Britain came close to war over the issue, but instead, concluded a treaty on 22 January 1771, allowing the British to return to Port Egmont, maintaining territorial claims.
The Independence of Argentina was declared on July 9, 1816 by
the Congress of Tucumán. This is significantly after the British, French or Spanish territorial claims (the Spanish being the last of the three nations initially having claims).
The British first landed on the Falklands in 1690, when Captain John Strong sailed through Falkland Sound, naming this passage of water after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount of Falkland, the First Lord of the Admiralty at that time. The British were keen to settle the islands, as they had the potential to be a strategic naval base for passage around Cape Horn. In 1765, Captain John Byron landed on Saunders Island. He then explored other islands’ coasts and claimed the group for Britain. The following year, Captain John MacBride returned to Port Egmont, on Saunders, to construct a fort. The British later discovered the French colony at Port Saint Louis, and the first sovereignty dispute began.
The United Provinces requested British permission to establish a small base on the island – this was done by agreement
with the understanding that sovereignty was retained by Britain.
The United States of America did not recognise the presence of the United Provinces and they occasionally sent sealers to the area. Britain recognized Argentine independence on 15 December 1823, as the “province of Buenos Aires,” but like the US did not recognise the full extent of the territory claimed by the new state
The raid of the USS Lexington in December 1831 combined with the United Provinces assertions of sovereignty were the spur for the British to establish a military presence on the islands. The very small number of United Provinces people who had established a base left the Islands.
In 1833, the British began moves to begin a fully-fledged colony on the islands, initially based upon the settlers remaining in Port Louis. Vernet’s deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned later that year to take charge of the settlement and was encouraged to further Vernet’s business interests provided he did not seek to
assert Argentine Government authority.
In 1841, General Rosas offered to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to interests in the City of London.
Following World War II, the British Empire declined and colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean gained their independence. Argentina saw this as an opportunity to push its case for gaining sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and raised the issue in the United Nations, first stating its claim after joining the UN in 1945. Following the Argentine claim, the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in The Hague (1947, 1948 and 1955); on each occasion Argentina declined. It is not possible for the ICJ to enter mediation if one of the parties decline to participate.
In 1964, the United Nations passed a resolution calling on the UK and Argentina to proceed with negotiations on finding a peaceful solution to
to the sovereignty question which would be “bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).” A series of talks between the two nations took place over the next 17 years until 1981 but failed to reach a conclusion on sovereignty. Argentina then invaded the Falklands.
Whilst maintaining the British claim for sovereignty, the British Government considered transfer of sovereignty worthy of improved relations with Argentina. However, the British Government had limited room for manoeuvre owing to the strength of the Falkland Islands lobby in the Houses of Parliament. Any measure that the Foreign Office suggested on the sovereignty issue was loudly condemned by the Islanders, who re-iterated their determination to remain British. This led to the British Government maintaining a position that the right to self-determination of the Islanders
was paramount. In return, Argentina did not recognise the rights of the Islanders and so negotiations on the sovereignty issue effectively remained at a stalemate.
When Argentina invaded the Islands in 1982, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 502 calling on Argentina to withdraw forces from the Islands and to both parties to seek a diplomatic solution.
The European Community condemned the invasion and imposed economic sanctions on Argentina, although several EC states expressed reservations about British policy in this area; France and Germany also temporarily suspended several military contracts with the Argentine military.
The British Task Force began offensive action against Argentina on 23 April 1982 and recaptured South Georgia following a short naval engagement. The operation to recover the Falkland Islands began 1 May and after fierce naval and air engagements an amphibious landing was made at San Carlos Bay on 21 May. On 14 June the Argentine forces
forces surrendered and control of the islands returned to the UK. Following the Argentine surrender, two Royal Navy ships sailed to the South Sandwich Islands and expelled the Argentine military from Thule Island, leaving no Argentine presence in the Falkland Islands Dependencies.
In 1985, the Falkland Islands Dependency was split into the Falkland Islands proper and a new separate territory of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Under the 1985 constitution the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) became a parliamentary representative democratic dependency, with the governor as head of government and representative of the Queen. Members of the FIG are democratically elected, the Governor is effectively a figurehead. Theoretically the Governor has the power under the 1985 constitution to exercise executive authority, in practice he is obliged to consult the Executive Council in the exercise of his functions.
Argentina renewed claims in June 2006 citing concern over fishing
and petroleum rights, amid concern when Britain changed from annually granting fishing concessions, to granting a 25 year concession. On 22 April 2009 Argentina made a formal claim to the UN to an area of the continental shelf encompassing the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and parts of Antarctica, citing 11 years worth of maritime survey data. The UK quickly protested these claims.
In 1964 the Argentine government raised the matter at the United Nations in a sub-committee of the Special Committee on the situation with regard to the implementation of the UN Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. In reply the British Representative on the Committee declared that the British Government held that the question of sovereignty over the islands was “not negotiable”. Following a report by the Special Committee, UN Resolution 2065 was passed on 16 December 1965, at the General Assembly. In its preamble it referred to the UN’s
“cherished aim to bring colonialism to an end everywhere”, and later added that all settlements between nations had to be peaceful and, in this case, “in the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands”
The current United Kingdom position remains the same and regards the right of the islanders to self-determination as “paramount”.
That the British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.
That the islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of “2 months of illegal occupation” by Argentina.
That Argentina’s attempts to colonise the islands in 1820–33 were “sporadic and ineffectual”.
That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.
That the principle of uti possidetis juris “is not accepted as a general principle of international law”.
The Falkland Islands Constitution, which came into force on 1 January 2009, claims a right to self-determination,
All peoples have the right to self-determination and by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development and may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit and international law; The realisation of the right of self-determination must be promoted and respected in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
The Falkland Islands Government has requested that the UN Decolonization Committee send a fact finding mission to the islands, to date that request has not been answered (the committee has never visited the islands).
Falkland.info and Mercopress wouldn’t ever publish anything near to neutral or pro-Argentina Stu. Those two publications are the kelpers mouthpiece. You have already demonstrated how biased you are on this issue. You deny, you lie, you dodge questions, your “abhorrence” for empire and colonialism is only skin deep. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were a collector of imperial and royal memorabilia. In reality you adore the empire and the power that comes with it.
You wouldn’t ever read what people are saying and writing on the other side, because you see them as enemies or inferior subjects. Your patronising attitude to Guyana and your double-faced rhetoric about Argentina shows your real personality. Did you know that about half of the Malvinas population is composed of military personnel? Did you know the kelpers cannot vote on their leader and have an appointed governor instead? When you mention the words “self-determination” some people who really know what that means must be laughing at you.
Which questions have I avoided?
You lie, deceive, ridicule (although you look ridiculous yourself!) and dodge questions. You also live in the past and are not prepared to countenance anyone who falls outside you polar views of the world.
You put people in little boxes because your mind can not cope if they do not fit the categories you select for them (whether the choices you make as to how to label people are factual or not is irrelevant to you – in fact you probably prefer to lie, given how often you do it).
Fortunately, the world is a little more complex than the boxes and polarisations you like to view it in.
None of the descriptions you make of me are true and your arrogance is the most putrid thing about you.
A colonialist, imperialist and patronising person accusing others of putrid arrogance … that is definitely rich …
Listen to CallMeDave promoting the right to “self-determi-Nation” Stu. Watch the whole doc:
The Falkland Islands are nothing to do with Argentina’s domestic policies.
Absolutely, Argentina’s domestic policies in many areas have been good.
The Falklands are a matter of the Islanders having the right to decide how they wish to be determined.
I like Argentina and enjoyed Buenos Aires when I stayed there on a holiday. I value their LGBT support as a nation.
I do not agree with their seeking to impose their sovereignity on Islanders who do not agree with it.
They are seeking to impose their sovereignty in the same way the British are trying to impose theirs over the people living in Bradford or East London.
Bradford is in Britain.
East London is in Britain.
The Falklands are not in Argentina.
Try asking the UN!
Who decides if Bradford, Birmingham and East London are in Britain and not in Pakistan? Weren’t you just a few hours ago declaring the inhabitants have the right to decide how they wish to be determined, you silly? If you really want to mention the UN, you must take notice of the fact that it has a list of 16 territories that must be decolonised around the World. The Malvinas is one of them. The UN never applies the real principle of self-determination to the kelpers because they do not fit the description. The rhetoric of “self-determination” for the islanders is only a smokescreen to mislead the gullible.
Are you trying to suggest that there are no British people who live in Bradford, Birmingham or East London?
The majority of people in all locations you name are White British people according to the 2001 census.
Of those who are not white British many are third and fourth generation British families and consider themselves British.
Your arrogant, patronising comments are totally disingenuous, wrong and are false and illegitimate comparisons.
Patronsing, Beberts – who would ever have thought (darling)
Stu darling, for someone of your intelligence, it should not be very difficult to imagine that ethnic populations can shift from majority to minority and vice versa. The question you are trying to dodge is neutral on ethnicity: Would you accept the inhabitants of Bradford, Birmingham and East London to declare those places Pakistani Overseas territories if that’s how they wish to be determined? Since you mentioned the White British population, here is another question: Do you think you can apply your personal interpretation of the real and noble principle and concept of self-determination only to them?
I wonder if the Argentine authorities would regard a same-sex couple from the Falklands travelling to Argentina to marry as a domestic or foreign couple ?
Interesting. Apparantly, because of Argentina’s claim to the Falklands they recognise the Islanders as Argentinian citizens so under that definition they could get married in Buenos Aires. No doubt if anybody from the UK migrates to the Falkland Islands they could become eligible as well.
Yes, People borned in the Malvinas (Faklands) have two ways to choos. They can get married as Brits or the can easily became argentineans first. By the argentine law falklanders are argentinians, they just have to process the birth certificate and get the documents.
If I could guarantee that the British government would recognise me marrying my boyfriend in Buenos Aires as a marriage and IF all of those families and friends who I would like to celebrate my marriage with me were both well enough (unfortunately not) and able to finance a trip to Buenos Aires then I would seriously consider marrying there, if they do allow foreign couples to marry there.
Its an exciting time that globally the right to marry for same sex couples is accelerating and expanding both in terms of who can marry and where they can marry. The expansion is going to continue to grow. Argentina have been at the fore in this, they have a lot to teach us.
If more MPs like that idiot Ben Bradshaw start to mouth off in an extremely irresponsible manner, then my confidence in equal marriage in the UK succeeding will diminish even more. His comments were the last straw as far as I’m concerned. I detest the man and wouldn’t trust him any futher than I could throw him. A traitor to FULL equality.
For myself, I’ve never really understood the urge to marry anywhere other than the country and/or town one actually lives in. But even if it is a fairly cynical ploy to get the pink tourist pound, it’s better than the reverse.
Its great to see Argentina being a strong supporter of LGBT rights. The scene in Buenos Aires is fantastic. Its a fabulous city with great architecture, culture and an eclectic and entrancing vibe.
Some on here choose to concentrate on their obsessions with Britains “colonial” past which have zero relevance to same sex couples marrying in BA.
However, to repudiate the lies about the Falkland Islands that some obsessives on here seem keen to perpetuate:
The population, estimated at 3,140, primarily consists of Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian. Immigration from the United Kingdom, Saint Helena, and Chile has reversed a former population decline.
Controversy exists as to who first discovered the Falkland Islands, with competing Portuguese, Spanish, and British claims in the 16th century, While Amerindians from Patagonia could have visited the Falklands, the islands were uninhabited when discovered
by Europeans. The first reliable sighting is usually attributed to the Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600, who named the archipelago the Sebald Islands, a name they bore on Dutch maps into the 19th century.
In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766. In 1764 French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville had founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767 and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.
Sovereignty over the islands became an issue in the second half of the 20th century, when Argentina saw the
creation of the UN as an opportunity to pursue its claim. Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the inhabitants preferred that the islands remain British territory.
The Falklands are historically much more British than they ever have been Argentinian.
In 1947, the United Kingdom offered to submit the case over the Falkland Islands Dependencies to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but Argentina refused the offer. A unilateral application by the United Kingdom in 1955 to the Court in respect of Argentine encroachment ended in deadlock when Argentina announced that it would not respect the decision of the court.