| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow 15:40 - Oct 4 with 9064 views | Groo |
Must be a mate of Trampie's being a Welsh nationalist.
He publishes a totally inaccurate piece and can't take it when people try to put him right and points out a simple bit of hypocrisy on his part.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great to have people with Welsh ancestry in Argentina but these are not Welsh, they are Argentinian, so to describe Welshman against Welshman in the Falklands War is a bit of an insult to the actual Welshmen.
The piece alludes to Argentina having rights over the Falklands by stating inaccurate, misleading and incomplete history, totally missing the British side.
Of course he hates Britain and the English. He can't see that the Europeans in South and North America (Welsh included) have taken the land of the original inhabitants, exactly as he states the English has done in Wales, but its OK there as its not Wales.
http://jacothenorth.net/blog/time-to-show-appreciation-of-international-relation |  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |  |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 15:55 - Oct 9 with 1433 views | Groo |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 11:02 - Oct 9 by trampie |
Some say Argentina have the strongest claim due to a line through Spain.
I have seen it said that Welsh died on both sides. |
Descendants of Welsh in Patagonia are not Welsh, my daughters, born in Canada have a right to cliam a British passport, their children, unless born in Britain will not. My daughters are Canadian, not British and not Welsh.
Argentinians born to Welsh colonisers from the mid 19th Century are definitley not Welsh, as great as it is to see the descendants of Welsh in a large number, they are not Welsh.
How much sympathy do you have with the descendants of Patagonian native's, displaced for the European invaders.
Unsure what line you are talking about, I can only assume you are talking about the Treaty of Tordesillas which was a treaty between Portugal and Spain in 1494, where they agreed their sphere of influence. That treaty was in place between them to avoid them fighting each other over during the age of discovery, as all treaties, it only effects those who signed it.
This was a modification of a Papal Bull of 1481, where the pope awarded the whole world to Spain and Portugal, the treaty moved the line west, no doubt Portugal had already found the tip of what is now Brazil and wanted a foothold in the new continent.
No other European Country ever accepted the papal bull, as the pope could not give away that which he did not own and the Treaty of Tordesillas only affected Spain and Portugal. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:13 - Oct 9 with 1422 views | Groo |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 12:40 - Oct 9 by trampie |
uti possidetis juris
France founded the first settlement, Spain bought it from the French, Argentina then gained independence from Spain gaining all the territory from the colonial power [uti possidetis juris]. |
uti possidetis juris was created as a means to settle border disputes between ex Spanish colonies in South America, it originated from the Lima Conference in 1848 and to be valid must be accepted by all parties, Britain has never accepted uti possidetis juris, nor has Brazil who took a lot of land off the old Spanish colonies after the revolutions.
It has been used during some disputes in Africa since the second world war, but as stated above, it must be accepted by both parties before hand.
France indeed did found the first settlement. The British had been planning a naval base there for over 20 years but the French pipped the British at the last minute, arriving 1 year before the British and for a short time both never knew the other's existance there.
No-one knows who first discovered the Islands, they first appeared on maps around 1520 but no one claimed discovery, making it possible it could have been the Portuguese who would not have made a claim due to their treaty.
The first recorded discovery was 1592 by the English, followed by another English uin 1594 who claimed the Islands in the name of Queen Elizabeth I. In thoses days you did not need to follow up with a settlement, that came later.
In 1690 an English ship arrived and became the first to walk on the Islands. In the 1740's the Islands were studied by the British to find the best place for a port and they arrived to create that port at Port Egmont in 1766, not realising the French, with settlers pushed out of Canada had arrived a year earlier.
The Spanish forced the French to give up their claim due to family pacts, the same family ruled both France and Spain, the Spanish paid the French settlement leader for the outlay he had until that point and made their claim, first claim, in 1767. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:22 - Oct 9 with 1417 views | Groo |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 13:51 - Oct 9 by blueytheblue |
Wrong.
Different islands, see. Spanish invaded and took the English settlement only to get the s*** kicked out of them. Something the Argies fail to grasp.
Regardless of your tenuous grasp of the history, the Falklands have self-determinism. Surely that should be championed by a proud (g)nat such as yourself? |
Actually there was no fighting, the British started preparing for war (an interesting point being that a young kid was taken onto one of the ships built in preparation for this war who may not have had the opportunity otherwise, his name was Nelson).
The Spanish didn't think they could win themselves as Britain by this time was the strongest nation, they tried to get the French to commit to fight with them, the French were in no mood to go to war over a group of Islands they gave up their claim for.
All three countries were in a financial mess at that time too, just 10 years after the end of the 7 year war which nearly bankrupted all of them.
It ended up with Spain rebuilding the British garrison and letting the British back, neither side gave up their claim.
I'd like to point out this is all history, I love reading about history, but history is just history. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:41 - Oct 9 with 1408 views | Groo |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:22 - Oct 9 by Groo |
Actually there was no fighting, the British started preparing for war (an interesting point being that a young kid was taken onto one of the ships built in preparation for this war who may not have had the opportunity otherwise, his name was Nelson).
The Spanish didn't think they could win themselves as Britain by this time was the strongest nation, they tried to get the French to commit to fight with them, the French were in no mood to go to war over a group of Islands they gave up their claim for.
All three countries were in a financial mess at that time too, just 10 years after the end of the 7 year war which nearly bankrupted all of them.
It ended up with Spain rebuilding the British garrison and letting the British back, neither side gave up their claim.
I'd like to point out this is all history, I love reading about history, but history is just history. |
1. Argentina is not Spain.
2. Britain claimed the Islands from 1594 and settled it in 1766, the garrison left in 1774 due to the inability to maintain the garrison , especially when trouble was brewing in the 13 colonies to the North, they left the accepted marks of sovereinty at that time.
3. They refused permission for France to build a port there in 1802.
4. The Spanish maintained their garrison until 1811, administered from Montevideo (Uruguay). It was never part of the Vice Royalty it was dealt with a seperate entity.
5. When independance was declared in 1816, the United Provinces included what is today Argentina (minus Patagonia), Uruguay, Patagonia and Bolivia, its limits were over 1000 miles North of the Falklands. They were not United and fought each other constantly and broke up into seperate Countries.
6. In 1824 Britain became the first to sign a treaty of commerce with them, before signing the treaty they gave a full description to Britain of the territory they claimed, the Falklands was not included.
7. In 1826 Britain gave permission to a local businessman, Louis Vernet, to put a settlement there (he also had permission from the UP).
8. In 1829 the UP made their first official claim on the Islands by appointing Vernet governer, Britain protested this as Britain still held sovereignty.
9. In 1831 Vernet captured 3 American ships, one escaped and made their way to Rio from where an American ship the Lexiton was dispatched to capture the 'pirates'. On arrival they destroyed the settlement, spiked their guns, took back the American ships and forcefully removed about 100 settlers. The Americans also complained to Britain for allowing pirates to flourish on the Islands, this made Britain worried that American may take the Islands.
10. In 1832 the UP announced it was sending a garrison to the islands, Britain issued another protest to warn them off. It arrived in October 1832, the men mutinied in November and killed the newly appointed governer, the revolt was put down with the aid of Britiah and French sailors. In January 1833, less than 3 months later, the British turned up and told the garrison to leave, they did.
11. In 1850 a treaty of perfect freindship was signed between Britain and the UP, which settled the matter once and for all.
12. In 1863 Spain recognised British sovereignty just before they recognised Argentina.
13. In the 1940's, the fascist Peron, a supporter of Germany started the Malvina's myth and prepared to declare was on the British, he decided to wait until Britain was on the edge of defeat but instead declared war on Germany weeks before they were defeated. He changed their education systems to indoctrinate his people on the Falklands, the result is what you see today. [Post edited 9 Oct 2016 16:43]
| |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:46 - Oct 9 with 1403 views | Groo |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 14:17 - Oct 9 by trampie |
See the 'guest writer' view on that particular vote.
I was aware at the time where lots of the Worlds sympathies seemed to lay, Belgium apparently would not sell us a certain product, America was indifferent and Israel sold the Argies weapons during the war. [Post edited 9 Oct 2016 14:47]
|
The people living on the Falklands, being in the main descendants of British colonists (although there are many countries represented there) have as much right to determine their own future as do the people of Argentina, being in the main descendants of Spanish colonists.
The official language of Argentina is Spanish, is this the language the natives spoke? | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:49 - Oct 9 with 1401 views | perchrockjack |
Id say you ve destroyed trampie on this one,Groo.
I'm still racked with guilt over us at the Plains of Abraham in 1760.
I did say to one Quebecois that it wasnt my fault and that we ve allowed them to remain a part of the Dominion of Canada, which didn't go down to well. |  |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:56 - Oct 9 with 1395 views | Groo |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:49 - Oct 9 by perchrockjack |
Id say you ve destroyed trampie on this one,Groo.
I'm still racked with guilt over us at the Plains of Abraham in 1760.
I did say to one Quebecois that it wasnt my fault and that we ve allowed them to remain a part of the Dominion of Canada, which didn't go down to well. |
When I worked in Quebec one guy was insisting that we never took the City, the fact was after the deicive battle which Britain won, there was no need to go into the City.
Winning that war was the catalist to the American revolution, as there were no dangers left and the West, which the French had claimed, suddenly opened up. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 17:02 - Oct 9 with 1389 views | perchrockjack |
Interesting stuff.
We quite liked Quebec City but met some language fascists especially at Baie St Paul.
Montreal we thought a craphole ,apart from vieux ville
Toronto, vast and interesting especially the islands. People there were lovely ,warm and f riendly
Fact leaves were so late disappointed.
Went right into Eastern Townships to Sherbrooke,Magog and Granby but even there fall is very late.
good to discuss
Found it horrendously expensive though | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 18:17 - Oct 9 with 1359 views | trampie |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:46 - Oct 9 by Groo |
The people living on the Falklands, being in the main descendants of British colonists (although there are many countries represented there) have as much right to determine their own future as do the people of Argentina, being in the main descendants of Spanish colonists.
The official language of Argentina is Spanish, is this the language the natives spoke? |
Have you read Julius Goebel's book on the Falklands ? |  |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 18:26 - Oct 9 with 1352 views | perchrockjack |
The fact people can even consider giving Argentina the Falklands shows whst warped jerks we have.
Understandable corbyn feels this way but why should people s island be given away against their wishes. | |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 18:42 - Oct 9 with 1346 views | Groo |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 18:17 - Oct 9 by trampie |
Have you read Julius Goebel's book on the Falklands ? |
No, not read it, I've heard of it though.
It's mentioned a lot here
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/falklands-history2.pdf
This work is a basically a history of the region year by year and includes anything that may have had an effect on the Islands and region.
From what I have read, the Goebel's book includes a lot of the history but misses out or mis represents some details which skewers the argument to Argentina's favour.
This work was the basis of the 1960's UN representation which got the UN to invite the UK and Argentina to talk (which they did from the up until 1982). A lot of the arguments have been pulled to pieces since.
The whole history of Europe (not just the UK) with colonising other parts of the world is a bad black period, the world changed forever during that period but it is history and the world lays as it does now.
Some people are so ashamed of our past that they will do anything, no matter how they destroy lives today, to atome for crimes, which quite simply, they did not commit. We are no guilty of the crimes of our forefathers and nor are the descendants of the colonists.
The peoples left in the regions we affected should decide their own future and not have one forced of them.
In the case of the Falklands, Argentina is a culturally different Country to the Falklands, the people of the Falklands do not want anything to do with them, especially since they have been victims of invasion and many acts to destroy their livleyhood y their neighbours.
Argentina has no real cliam, they have had a peaceful method of finding a solution by arbitration since the early 1900's and the ICJ since after the war, they have used neither, because they know they would lose.
The current claim originates since 1940, between 1850 and 1940 they did not claim because of a treaty they signed. It is a settled matter but they will not let it rest, its a great distraction when things are not good at home. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 18:59 - Oct 9 with 1329 views | trampie |
The fact that lots of people that have studied historical precedent, legal, diplomatic and international law favour or recognise Argentina's claim is lost on you Groo. | |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 19:08 - Oct 9 with 1324 views | Groo |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 18:59 - Oct 9 by trampie |
The fact that lots of people that have studied historical precedent, legal, diplomatic and international law favour or recognise Argentina's claim is lost on you Groo. |
No it's not lost, name them all then Trampie, there are not actually too many.
The fact that there is a court, where, if it as clear cut as you seem to be making out they should be using appears to be lost on you.
A peaceful soulution is wanted by all. The UN asked for them to talk, they talked, the Islanders have a major say as far as the UK is concerned and they do not want it.
They talked and still disagreed, so Argentina invaded (still avoiding a court), the UN issued the only compulsory demand they have made, demanding Argentina leave the Islands and they ignored it (like their predecessors ignored 2 two protests before 1833) and a short war followed.
When in such an impass, the only solution is a legal solution. Argentina needs to take it to court and test these historical precedents, legal, diplomatic and international laws that favour or recognise Argentina's claim. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 19:29 - Oct 9 with 1313 views | Groo |
Oh and that Royston Jones is still banning anyone trying to put a reasoned argument and shows he's being more than just a bit hypocritical | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 19:42 - Oct 9 with 1306 views | trampie |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 19:08 - Oct 9 by Groo |
No it's not lost, name them all then Trampie, there are not actually too many.
The fact that there is a court, where, if it as clear cut as you seem to be making out they should be using appears to be lost on you.
A peaceful soulution is wanted by all. The UN asked for them to talk, they talked, the Islanders have a major say as far as the UK is concerned and they do not want it.
They talked and still disagreed, so Argentina invaded (still avoiding a court), the UN issued the only compulsory demand they have made, demanding Argentina leave the Islands and they ignored it (like their predecessors ignored 2 two protests before 1833) and a short war followed.
When in such an impass, the only solution is a legal solution. Argentina needs to take it to court and test these historical precedents, legal, diplomatic and international laws that favour or recognise Argentina's claim. |
I don't think it is clear cut, you do think its clear cut, I don't, I recognise the arguments of the claims of both sides, Argentina's claim to me is what I said earlier France-Spain-uti possidetis.
Britains claim is what ?, right of conquest ?, weight of numbers due to colonisation ?, squatters rights ?
Britain was a superpower with an Empire and even today is one of the Worlds most powerful countries, Argentina is a youngish fledgling country which is Spanish speaking, what chance of a fair hearing against a powerful Anglo Saxon nation who has links with other Anglo Saxon countries, all are powerful.
Britain is a permanent member of the U.N security council, the only other ones are USA, Russia, China and France. Britain is one of the few countries to have nuclear weapons, Britain is one of the G8 countries of economic power houses. Britain is the lead country in the Commonwealth of nations.
Argentina standings in the World is nowhere near Britains standing, what kind of hearing could Argentina expect against that background ? [Post edited 9 Oct 2016 19:57]
| |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 19:54 - Oct 9 with 1297 views | Groo |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 19:42 - Oct 9 by trampie |
I don't think it is clear cut, you do think its clear cut, I don't, I recognise the arguments of the claims of both sides, Argentina's claim to me is what I said earlier France-Spain-uti possidetis.
Britains claim is what ?, right of conquest ?, weight of numbers due to colonisation ?, squatters rights ?
Britain was a superpower with an Empire and even today is one of the Worlds most powerful countries, Argentina is a youngish fledgling country which is Spanish speaking, what chance of a fair hearing against a powerful Anglo Saxon nation who has links with other Anglo Saxon countries, all are powerful.
Britain is a permanent member of the U.N security council, the only other ones are USA, Russia, China and France. Britain is one of the few countries to have nuclear weapons, Britain is one of the G8 countries of economic power houses. Britain is the lead country in the Commonwealth of nations.
Argentina standings in the World is nowhere near Britains standing, what kind of hearing could Argentina expect against that background ? [Post edited 9 Oct 2016 19:57]
|
British claims (and I'm not saying this is all)
1. First to discover and claim (the settlement to follow did not apply at that time)
2. Made a confirmation of the claim with settlement (they disagreed with the French rights due to original claim but never had a chance to fight that case)
3. When the garrison left they left the recognised signs of sovereignty of the day, never gave up the claim.
4. Protested Argentina's pretence imediately.
5. Treaty of 1850.
Argentina's you stated
1. France/Spain. Argentina is neither France nor Spain and neither of those countries had an undisputed claim, France gave theirs up and Spain could have complained about Britain in 1833 and they didn't and recognised British soveregnty before they recognised Argentina.
2. uti possidetis as I explained above, created in 1848 and only affects those who recognise it, Britain amongst others, do not.
Are you claiming that the court is biased against smaller Countries, are you aware that Britain has lost a number of cases against smaller Countries already.
the court is unbiased, as it should be, otherwise no-one would use it. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 19:57 - Oct 9 with 1295 views | Groo |
You have to add to that, these days self determination is seen as the only way forward. The head of the UN even stated that there is no alternative to self determination in the cases of the remaining non self governing territories.
Tell me Trampie, do you believe that descendants of Spanish colonists have superior rights to the descendants of British colonists? | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 20:14 - Oct 9 with 1285 views | trampie |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 19:29 - Oct 9 by Groo |
Oh and that Royston Jones is still banning anyone trying to put a reasoned argument and shows he's being more than just a bit hypocritical |
He is a right wing Welshie, he advertises his site as such, this site advertises itself as a Swans fan site as far as I can work out, where Cardiff fans etc seem to be welcome, yet judging by my experience Welsh Swans fans get banned for expressing an opinion, bit of a difference I would suggest.
Just for background info, lots of Welsh Nats hate Plaid and wont vote Plaid they think they are too middle of the road, too nice, too close to the establishment [can you believe that], not strong enough on independence and not strong enough on the language. | |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 21:00 - Oct 9 with 1265 views | union_jack |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 19:54 - Oct 9 by Groo |
British claims (and I'm not saying this is all)
1. First to discover and claim (the settlement to follow did not apply at that time)
2. Made a confirmation of the claim with settlement (they disagreed with the French rights due to original claim but never had a chance to fight that case)
3. When the garrison left they left the recognised signs of sovereignty of the day, never gave up the claim.
4. Protested Argentina's pretence imediately.
5. Treaty of 1850.
Argentina's you stated
1. France/Spain. Argentina is neither France nor Spain and neither of those countries had an undisputed claim, France gave theirs up and Spain could have complained about Britain in 1833 and they didn't and recognised British soveregnty before they recognised Argentina.
2. uti possidetis as I explained above, created in 1848 and only affects those who recognise it, Britain amongst others, do not.
Are you claiming that the court is biased against smaller Countries, are you aware that Britain has lost a number of cases against smaller Countries already.
the court is unbiased, as it should be, otherwise no-one would use it. |
How's that head if yours. It must be really sore after banging it against a brick wall all this time! |  |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 21:01 - Oct 9 with 1263 views | Darran |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 21:00 - Oct 9 by union_jack |
How's that head if yours. It must be really sore after banging it against a brick wall all this time! |
He's a Baglan boy the bricks are now dust. |  |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 21:06 - Oct 9 with 1255 views | perchrockjack |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 21:01 - Oct 9 by Darran |
He's a Baglan boy the bricks are now dust. |
Groo has been wasting his time if trying to educate trampie.
If thst was a debate then groo would be seen as victor .
Tramp has nowt in his locker but inter necine hatred,prejudice and the very worse kind of village mentality that embarrasses Wales and which has held back our fine principality.
Tramp is a part of a massive minority in Wales. | |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 21:21 - Oct 9 with 1243 views | trampie |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 16:09 - Oct 4 by fishman |
While ,in my opinion Jac does overdo the Welsh rhetoric,if you scroll back through his blogs you will see that he and many others have documented untold amounts of "jobs for the boys" /corruption that has ,for various reasons never been brought out in the open .
I am totally non political [they all stink] but what he has shown is the way the so called Welsh government has screwed the so called public purse .
So ,maybe the latest blog ,which i believe is by a guest writer ? is a little one eyed ,please spend some time looking through his archive ,some of what he has dug up will make your blood boil, |
On certain topics he is a master of detective journalism, he is not a journalist as far as I know but is still better than 99.9% of the professionals at it. | |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 21:34 - Oct 9 with 1232 views | Darran |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 21:06 - Oct 9 by perchrockjack |
Groo has been wasting his time if trying to educate trampie.
If thst was a debate then groo would be seen as victor .
Tramp has nowt in his locker but inter necine hatred,prejudice and the very worse kind of village mentality that embarrasses Wales and which has held back our fine principality.
Tramp is a part of a massive minority in Wales. |
I agree Richard,in my personal opinion Trampie talks complete bollox but that's no reason for Dr Winston to keep banning him. | |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 21:38 - Oct 9 with 1225 views | trampie |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 17:17 - Oct 4 by fishman |
Cant disagree with that ,for me the "working of the 3rd sector" is what really gets me going ,again when you have the time ,try and have a look deeper into what his blogs highlight ,it really is an eye opener
Also realise its not just Wales thats getting screwed . |
People have not got their eyes open to half the things that go on. | |
| |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 23:56 - Oct 9 with 1176 views | Lohengrin |
| Jac o' the North, an open minded fellow on 18:59 - Oct 9 by trampie |
The fact that lots of people that have studied historical precedent, legal, diplomatic and international law favour or recognise Argentina's claim is lost on you Groo. |
FFS! Is the fact that the Kelpers are our people lost on you, Tramp? |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
