The impression I get from this excellent documentry tour is one of a well ordered and civilised society. The houses look good and cared for, the people obviously take a pride in their Island home. It is a very desirable style of life the Islanders have built up.
@@gustavolastra101 Lmao, we already killed 649 of you to prove that's not the case, how many more do we need to kill? The only thing Argentina has ever achieved is being the only country on earth to be downgraded from economically developed, to developing 😂
son hermosas las islas .soy argentino amante de la paz ..mi sueño es conocer ..gente hermosas ahi en las islas ... argentina e inglaterra sean mas que mejores amigos siempre
+wilkan hola saludos desde posadas misiones argentina...me enamoran las islas folklands son britanicas..soy argentino ..me enamore de una chica britanica en las islas
you have trees here and there among the houses so you could have forests which would cut down the wind ,also its a lot of work but you could look at walled gardens for growing fruit , get a copy of the Victorian kitchen garden book or watch the tv series . a walled garden and shelter belts of trees
Nobody wanted to see the memorial monument? I would have. Five minutes is not enough time to read all the plaques. These are the names of people who died that others would be free. They deserve the utmost respect.
To you that taught you that name, for Esteban Gomez in 1520 and since 500 years they are called Malvinas, my friend, your illegal occupants, it is Argentine territory, same as Northern Ireland, but it is not your fault. Justice will be done. A Hiberno-Argentine descendant, peace and freedom to our islands, we will respect all your ways of live¡iong when we are back, because we ar e decomcratic an respecful of everybody, you're Argentine brothers and compatriots, want it or not.... it will only take some time. Cheers.
sheep or oil its got couple hundred thousand sheep and a pretty supply of oil found not too long ago fyi im not from the island im just saying what ive heard about in the UK
I really like this structure of democracy. It perfectly fits the situation. LOL well that's cause I don't like central government structures. Democracy as we see it practised today actually sucks. Just look around you.
@w jaja luego hablas de no promover el odio. Jaja 🤣 Se te nota muy tolerante . No te tiene porque gustar ser Argentino. Tranquilo que no pasa nada en el universo sino te gusta.
@w Por supuesto que no se recargar nada de eso .Ni quiero saberlo .Pero me pregunto que tiene que ver eso con la paz que dices promover en otro texto. No voy hablar de hechos tristes de nuestra historia a los que tengo mucho respeto . Mezclas todo y promueven el resentimiento. Hermosas las Malvinas !
@w Tienes razón ..no te conozco. No me puede doler nada de alguien que no conozco. Todo más que bien . Lo que me pareces un poco contradictorio hablando de no odiar y expresandote con términos despectivos ....no pareces muy pacifico y pasas vergüenza al leerte.
@w ok. No pasa nada que no te agrade . No cambia en nada.. No se de qué país eres pero hablando y escribiendo así no lo dejas muy bien parado . Insisto deberías estudiar un poco de historia y mejorar la forma en que comunicas tus ideas. No tiene porque gustarte mí país. No estás obligado pero ahorrarte los papelones con tamañas afirmaciones y contradicciones. Defiende tu postura y hazlo con altura . De lo contrario solo pones en ridículo lo que pretendes defender. Más hablas y en tu intento de ofender solo muestras tus miserias. No ofendes a quien está seguro de lo que piensa ,sólo muestras tus limitaciones. Creo que no soy yo quien no te deja vivir en paz. Esa paz que dices querer no la logras por tu intolerancia que te arrastra en una verborragia que muy lejos de dañar solo perjudica tu imagen. No representas a nadie. No seas iluso. Tranquilo . Soy solo una persona que opina.Y si lo que digo es incorrecto o soy tan insignificante y te va "mejor" jaja entonces no es para que pierdas los estribos¿No te parece? Deja de mezclar y enredarte . No parece que practicar el amor y respeto del que te llenas la boca hablando. Por mí parte ya te dicho todo y siempre con altura. Tu sigues sólo esta pelea que tu solo te has armado en tu cabeza. Mucha suerte!
@w Entiendo que no acuerdes pero Mr W sin nombre ¿Que autoridad tienes para arrogante el derecho de decir quién puede escribir o no? Creo que te crees más importante de lo que eres .jaja Ahora mismo te hago caso Jaja. Hablas de odio y mandas a callar a la gente. Tu su que eres gracioso.
footscorn yes just not a visa if you travel by the RAF if you travel by yourself other means then you need passport and visa, but your looking at 2.5 grand just in flights there and back
According to the United Nations, nowadays, the islands remain one of ten territories under british colonialism, and they are in the UN process of decolonization. The UK is the administering power of that non self-governing territory. Please, colaborate with the UN and Argentina to eliminate once and for all, colonization in all its forms. thank you.
liberatoar Transference of sovereignty to Argentina isn’t decolonisation. The United Nations doesn’t see it that way and neither do the islanders. The problem for you is you interpret the peat rocks and soil as Argentinian territory under British occupation. Yet even that is disputed by history and law. Which is why Argentina is too afraid to arbitrate in the UNICJ. The reality is that recolonising isn’t about “liberating” a piece of land. That’s what you Argentinians chose to be your cause. The United Kingdom sent in troops to liberate men women and children. THAT is the whole objective of decolonisation. The liberation of people’s. If you don’t believe me then I would suggest you read the wording of each and every meeting of the UNDC. The United Nations would be happy if the islands became a republic or a commonwealth nation. Which is why Argentina is trying to make the islanders as irrelevant as you possibly can. Good luck with that. Every United Nations resolution makes reference to them and their rights. All Argentina has to offer these people (who have lived in their homeland longer than most Argentinian families have been in Argentina), is either forced expulsions which is commonly known as ethnic cleansing or forced Argentinian sovereignty against their will which is commonly known as neo-colonialism. If you want to know if that is acceptable to non Argentinians, I suggest you read the wording of UNSC resolution 502 of 1982 demanding withdrawal of Argentina from the islands. Then think about it again.
likeitout, i've never said anything about any transfer of sovereignty. It is evident you have no idea of UN resolutions, about history and law, colonialism and the United Nations International Court of Justice. I will try to respond as fully as i can in the sort of sillisness you said: By history and law, Both nations dispute their reasons, Thats why there is a sovereignty dispute. You imply that your interpretation is not disputed by history and law but here we are, you claim and the woman in the video claims they are self governed and self determined while the United Nations says they are not. They are a non self-governed territory, which are administered by the colonial power (the UK). www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/Falkland-Islands(Malvinas)2017.pdf www.undocs.org/A/AC.109/2017/6 Argentina do not take the case to the ICJ becouse the UK already stablished that it would not even recognise the ICJ in cases like the Malvinas Islands. But the bigger problem is that the UK refuse to accept there is a problem. So when the UK accept there is a sovereignty dispute and negotiate with Argentina the end of that dispute, then the ICJ would be an acceptable and negotiated valid option. Of course that is my opinion only on the matter, Argentina its asking a sovereignty negotiation as the UN is asking a sovereignty negotiation to end the dispute and decolonise the islands once and for all. How can a worldwide recognised colony being recolonised escapes me. Besides what you've being told, about freedom!!! or democracy!!!. The UK sent its troops to recapture the colony. Before the war, all life in the islands, jobs, foods, land, depended on the feudal FIC. To this day, all life in the islands, the economy, jobs, foods and land still depends on the now called FIH. And if we are not talking about food, jobs, land and life, we are talking of judges, lawers and laws that are imported directly from Britain ot its BOTs. The same with medics, teachers, educational curricula, military, governmental, etc. Except the word camp the british use there to refers to the farms, What do you see of indigenouse there?. What different do you find in there to a little town in London?. The whole objective of decolonization is the freedom of people. But if that people have part of its territory occupied and colonised by a foreign power, you find the situation as it is today. Argentines are not being colonized by the UK. But part of Argentina is. I suggest YOU read the wording of each and every meeting of the UNDC and the General Assembly regarding decolonization, and more important, see how the UK voted historically in those resolutions and how the rest of the world voted in those resolutions. It is easy, on one side you will generally see two nations that voted against and the rest of the world voted in favor. Need more clues?. " The United Nations would be happy if the islands became a republic or a commonwealth nation" What?????. What did you smoke?. You have not read not a single of any resolutions of any UN body. Now you are imaging what Argentina would do right?. Of course, but let me educate you that before 1833, there were argentine families living there, and that even were born there, which its descendants are counted by hundreds now, which you may well figure it out that its originins trace back older than the whole population living now in the islands. How strange is that they do not live in the islands but in the continent?.
liberatoar I’ll deal with one issue at a time. “when the U.K. Accept there is a sovereignty dispute and negotiate with Argentina the end of that dispute, then the ICJ would be an acceptable and valid option”. That’s just silly. What do you think is one of the main functions of the UNICJ? As Argentina discovered over her failure in the Beagle channel dispute. Failure after a UNICJ judgement on sovereignty. As far as the United Kingdom and the islanders are concerned, the issue over the Falklands is settled. The sovereignty situation is as it should be. The problem and the frustration belongs solely to Argentina and there has been no current or historic resolution by the United Nations demanding that the U.K. transfer sovereignty to Argentina. Only an invitation to settle a dispute by peaceful means. Peaceful means. The good offices of the United Nations. Hmmmmm. Now wouldn’t that be the UNICJ? Regardless of where the U.K. stands on that forum, NOTHING is preventing Argentina from presenting her case before The Hague and Argentina’s only risk is the FACT that Argentina will lose her case. Argentinas argument aside, self determination trumps all. Hence why Argentina just will not go there. So Argentina chose to ignore peaceful means and now wishes to revise resolution 2065. A non binding resolution I may add. I highlight the fact 2065 makes specific reference that all outcomes must adhere to all articles under 1514 and does not highlight any exceptions to any of these articles. Which include I may add the right to self determination. That right applies to ALL PEOPLES. The argument that this doesn’t apply to the islanders then why was it referenced? They are a people. Of you believe they are transplanted then so to are you. Wasn’t Galtierri only first generation? What a joke. If you think that 1514 is irrelevant than go back in time to 1965 and appeal to the GA to exclude that part in its finding. Argentina hasn’t managed to convince the UNDC to successfully refer the “dispute” which in reality, is Argentina’s complaint, (not the UK’s) to the GA for ratification, since 1965. “Argentinians are not being colonised but a part of Argentina is”. Oh really????? The issue for Argentina is one of sovereignty. That is a fact. Argue colonialism all you want, you’ve failed. I say again until I’m blue in the face. Decolonisation applies to people, not rocks, sovereignty applies to soil, not people. Argentina has NEVER been able to successfully win her case against the U.K. for “invasion and illegal occupation” on “undisputed” Argentinian sovereign soil and has never convinced the United Nations to officially accept Argentinian “sovereignty” as a fact and not just the opinion of you or some of your supporters. Why do you think that is? Have you actually examined ALL of the historic evidence? Argentina’s claim is full of myths hence why Stanley’s name change to “Puerto Rivero” by the fascist style dictatorship was VERY quickly changed to “Puerto Argentino” in order to save embarrassment. Huh. (Some proof there of your intention to “respect the islanders and their way of life” says I, with sarcasm, considering their capital has never had any historical Argentinian input yet you still refer to it with that disgusting name). So instead, you appeal to the now defunct, powerless and discredited, decolonisation committee who are not qualified to pass judgement on sovereignty issues. They can only refer cases to the general assembly for resolution and only if the GA choose to adopt the issue for the agenda. . They have not. The last time any resolution was passed was 1965. And even on your link that you’ve posted, all you’ve shown is the minutes of the matter being politely discussed with all parties heard and then politely ignored without any renewal or new resolution or recommendation to the GA or any judgements in favour of Argentinian sovereignty. So instead, the UNDC gives the normal appeal to resolve the “dispute” peacefully and not resort to illegal methods (as Argentina chose to do on this day in 1982). So what is being disputed boys and girls? All together now so we can be heard! Sovereignty. Who disputes this? Argentina. What do they do about it that can actually be taken seriously and can make a difference? Hmmmm. Very little. Let’s establish facts. You talk as if there’s no argument about Argentina’s legitimate sovereign rights. The Falklands are not the Golan Heights or Tibet. Argentina is the plaintiff who has to convince the world NOT ONLY that she disputes British rights but that Argentina’s rights are an unarguable fact that is beyond dispute. The British and the FIG are happy with the current de facto sovereignty situation. Therefore it is beholden upon Argentina and not the U.K., to progress any changes to that situation. Or to win a judgement opposing the current situation. There is nothing compelling the U.K. to sit and negotiate sovereignty which in Argentina’s eyes, can only be resolved by transference to Argentina. Don’t say that’s not the case. It’s in your constitution. Also, the U.K. and FIG are not in any breach of any relevant UN resolutions. A statement made by the United Nations general secretary in an interview with Clarin should have been a heavy hint to that fact. So. What are you going to do about it? Return to the UNDC next year? To be sent away empty handed? Again? For them to agree that the place is a colony but fail to get them to agree that it is NOT a piece of Argentina being colonised? Again? Isn’t it obvious now that these so called “actions” by failed Argentinian presidents seeking diversions, are more for the benefit of Argentina’s domestic audience than for any actual progression towards Argentinian rule over the islanders and their homeland? A place that they’ve occupied as their homeland for longer than the average Argentinian families have occupied the land of the tehuelca or the Mapuche? Even longer than the Chagossians (who most British support) have been in the Chagos islands? Yes you’re right. The UNDC does agree that the islands fall into the category of a colony. Congratulations BUT, they will NEVER agree to transference of sovereignty to Argentina. Think of the consequences around the globe? Smyrna. Istanbul. Even the whole of Australia if Indonesia want to make a claim on the basis their fisherman had established colonies there before the first penal settlements. Also. Can we drop the “expulsion of the population” lie? We both know that this one doesn’t work anymore. Only the garrison and their very few dependants were taken off the isles after their mutiny and only after a few weeks of their occupation. The colonists were asked to stay. Only a tiny handful left with the garrison. The remaining settlers, Vernet’s original (he who recognised British sovereignty by seeking out British permission to establish a colony) agreed to stay and they agreed to stay under British sovereignty. They was their choice and they made that choice. They who were international in their makeup including Uruguayans and British. They who were terrorised and murdered by Rivero and his compatriots over Vernet’s promissory notes. Did you know he killed a nephew of one of Argentina’s founding fathers? A signatory of Argentina’s independence. So where’s this list of their descendants? Malvina Vernet? Also. Can we drop the other myth that Argentina has historical and legal title over South Georgia and the south sandwich islands? Just because they are administered by the FIG doesn’t legitimise your rights there. They don’t exist. Especially when you “cherry pick” the treaty of Tordesillias to try to legitimise your historic rights to the Falklands. If we take you and this seriously, the other dependent islands of South Georgia belong to Portugal. Ah. And so does Japan, boys and girls. This is pathetic. Hence the reasons why the occasions the U.K. invited Argentina to arbitrate at the UNICJ, Argentina refused. falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/cia-rdp08c01297r00080009001-argentinian-rejection-of-arbitration-falkland-islands-dependencies6-0.pdf Also, can we drop the lie that the islanders are totally reliant on the U.K. for everything? The U.K. represents the kelpers only on issues of defence (thanks to its belligerent aggressive neighbour) and foreign policy. They are very self reliant on EVERYTHING else including their economy which has no input from the British tax payer. Fishing and tourism give the islanders the highest standard of living in the Southern American Hemisphere with a very stable vibrant economy. If they choose to pass articles based on U.K. law and choose to remain linked to British sovereignty by utilising the English/Welsh court system is a matter for THEM and NOT one of imposition by the U.K. or the governor. Also. Who was Antonina Roxa? Any impartial other national reading this should google the so called “forced expulsions of the Argentinian population” and compare it to real ethnic cleansing. Then decide if Argentina blatantly lied when it made its virtually unopposed presentation to the UNGA in 1965. I can guarantee this. The situation will not change in Argentina’s favour for a long time and certainly not in your lifetime. We both know this. Your culture prevents you seeing the reality.
Likeitout, ok one issue at a time but you forgot about “history and law...” About the ICJ, like I said, It never happened yet. I gave you my opinion, and your opinion is that Argentina would lose (and that self determination trumps all). And until that happens we will never know. What we know is that those “british overseas territories” that Britain claims are not colonies, leaves more doubts to the world than the argentine claim: -Hong Kong was returned to China without being paramount their “self determination” rights giving the territorial integrity and the devolution agreement more importance than their wishes. -Turks and Caicos, an ex Britain judge accused the government of Turks and Caicos of corruption without proof nor legitimacy and the uk inmediatly eliminated the government, suppressed their “constitution” and implemented the old type of colonization human has known. -Chagossian islands of Diego Garcia, the UK implemented a BIOT expelling its inhabitants and cutting the territorial integrity of Mauritious, having recently by order of the GA being dictaminated by the ICJ an advisory opinion to return the islands back to Mauritious. About res 2065. Under article 1514 (which is not irrelevant at all) in that point you mention, it talks about people and not population. The islanders are part of the british people, they are not a different people than the british. And you forgot to mention the point 6 of that article that I quote: “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” And let me remind you the UK abstained in the voting of res 2065 and res 1514 that recognized that the case of the Malvinas is framed in a colonial situation, which should be solved taking into consideration those expressed in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), where the goal of eliminating all forms of colonialism was established. And it invited the two parts involved, Argentina and the UK. Hypothetically If the people who reside in the islands form another people with self determination rights it would be a third partie in the dispute. Which are not and never were. Argentina has no one to convince. Argentina says there is a british colony in the islands and that the islands belongs to them. What the United Nations is saying is that the islands are a colony that needs to be decolonized, and that, in order to do that, the way to put an end the colonial situation is through sovereignty negotiations with Argentina because the UN recognize that there is a sovereignty dispute too. In any case, it is the UK who has to convince the world the islands are not a colony and that they are self governed and self determined. Yeap, you took the card your government indoctrinates you, that for domestic purposes the sovereignty claim appears in the hand of Argentina. But if you have read at least only one book about the history of the dispute you will realise the argentine claims exist since 1833, when the islands were invaded by a foreign power with two military ships from a nation that claims they were peacefully retaking the islands they had to leave 60 years before. “The UK represent the kelpers only on issues of defence (thanks to its belligerent aggressive neighbour) and foreign policy”. Yeap but who teaches them History and Geography? Britain imported teachers with Britain imported curricula. Who gives them medicine? Britain imported medics with Britain imported medicine. Who decide if you go to jail?. A britain imported lawer defend you against a britain imported judge, which uses Britain imported laws, wrotten in britain made written constitution. We could be all day, and you could argue that the islanders can change the senior magistrate for one from Canada, but in fact that will not happen. And don’t give me the false argument they are so few crap. www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sync/selection-exercises-2016/life-in-the-falklands-guide.pdf en.mercopress.com/2011/10/17/newcastle-barrister-takes-senior-magistrate-job-in-falklands-islands www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/1522830/Wanted-tireless-commuter-to-dispense-justice-in-the-Falklands.html www.med-co.com/nine-weeks-in-the-falklands-gp-steve-bick
liberatoar I suggest that you carry out your research a little more carefully before you answer. The case of Hong Kong was not a case of the British relinquishing British sovereignty. There never had been British sovereignty of the territory. Hong Kong had always been Chinese sovereign territory and was leased to the United Kingdom under a 99 year term which when it ran out, obliged the U.K. to release its tenancy. Negotiations were either for extending that lease, renewal or as was the outcome in the end, recognising overall Beijing jurisdiction but creating a special autonomous “zone” with its own government, legislation and police. As it still is today. The exact same situation was agreed after Portugal’s lease of Macao had also run out. How the blazes you equate that to the Falklands situation is beyond me. They are not the same. Only in the warped imaginations of the malvinistas. The other thing that you have totally cocked up is that the argument regarding article 6 of 1514. This is a particularly weak argument as the Falkland Islands were not accepted as part of Argentinean territory in 1833, either by Britain or other countries including the United States, so paragraph 6 of 1514 does not apply. The claim that Britain ejected a civilian population from the Islands is another lie. The British did eject a small Argentine garrison (26 soldiers, with their 11 women and 8 children) that had been on the Falklands just less than three months, and Britain had protested diplomatically against the appointment of their commander, and by implication, the garrison that went with him, less than a week after they had sailed from Buenos Aires. In fact, Britain wanted the tiny civilian population to remain, and the majority of settlers decided to do so. Only four settlers chose to leave with the garrison Brazilian gaucho Joaquin Acuña and his woman Juana and the Uruguayan gaucho Mateo González and his woman Marica. Also, UN Resolution 1514 although legally relevant is not legally binding and didn’t come into force in 1960 and is therefore subject to the general principle that UN resolutions are not be applied retroactively so any events occurring in the 19th century are not covered by this resolution. In respect of non retroactively, the UNICJ has made a number of judgements on this issue. Or else half of Turkey would be claimed by Greece. A section of Germany by Denmark. The Channel Islands by France. The list is absolutely endless. Why do you say that the right to self determination doesn’t apply to a people who have been there longer than the majority of Argentinians have been in Argentina when the UNGA have already said the articles in 1514 already DO apply to them??? Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? There is only one way to find out isn’t there? Argentina is achieving nothing as we type. And tomorrow, the islanders will still be free from Argentina’s colonial yoke. You have no option than the UNICJ where your government lawyers know that years of Peronist falsehoods in a revised dispute from the nineteenth century, deliberately resurrected to try and unite a disparate splintered nation, will be unravelled and exposed for what it is. As for sovereignty and colonialism? It was at Castro’s suggestion to the junta that their argument be portrayed as a colonial issue. Yet after all this time, you still have not got a judgement in Argentina’s favour demanding that “The United Kingdom relinquish Argentinian sovereign territory illegally colonised by Britain”. Yet recently, the UNICJ have made that exact judgement against the U.K. over the situation with the Chagos islands and have judged the territory to be in favour of repatriation to Mauritius. Now. Are we beginning to get the hint here? Can you not see the pattern outside your indoctrination? You’ve not managed to secure anything near the same result. By the way. There isn’t any “Falklands islands lessons” in any schools outside Argentina. Yet who is being indoctrinated? You have a murderer on your 50 pesos note that you’ve portrayed as a national hero and yet YOU talk of indoctrination? www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/campo/dudoso-homenaje-a-la-tradicion-en-un-billete-de-50-pesos-nid1991697?fbclid=IwAR1sVgk3XZwiItSYGG_3juJj0yRT4EbIuXTIe7Yng-LiTFPdkRUYpBjEY5s If the U.K. and the islanders are happy with their situation as it stands then the U.K. and the islanders do not have to do a thing. They don’t have to convince anyone of anything. I’ll use a metaphor. I have a car. I’m happy with my car. I’m driving said car. You want that car. You say that the car belongs to you. Therefore if I’m in possession of said car, it’s not for me to convince the world that I possess the car or that it belongs to me. The onus is on YOU to convince the world that the car I have in my driveway isn’t mine but it actually belongs to you. So far? You’ve failed. I’ll continue with another metaphor to sober you up to your situation. United Nations resolution 502 of 1982 should bring you to question your inalienable sovereign status that you think “is without question” if the only time that the islands were in your possession in the last 186 years was the time when the world told you to get out and give it back to the U.K. You still want the car. So you take it by force. And the courts order you to give it back. You refuse and say it’s your car. So I use force to take it back and no one batts an eyelid or launches sanctions against me or tells me to give it back to you. You still didn’t mention Antonina Roxa.
