🇦🇷 FALKLAND ISLANDS TODAY: How do the islanders live at present?

[@DEFmediaOK]

Más videos de MALVINAS 👉kzbin.info/aero/PLGT-q02KeSVTRb_71GtQCSJr4-mDwBOHP

[@chiki121194]

Las malvinas siempre argentinas 🇦🇷🤝🏼🇵🇪

[@customblinds1773]

Mas inglesa que Argentina

[@hoaruk5561]

imagina ser una isla y tener mejor calidad de vida que argentina. aguante Falklands!

[@shynnsup8383]

A donde tienen mejor calidad de vida?! 😂😂 "En el siglo XX, el archipiélago experimentó un significativo declive poblacional, con muchos jóvenes isleños emigrando en búsqueda de educación, un estilo de vida moderno y mejores oportunidades laborales, especialmente hacia la ciudad británica de Southampton, que llegó a ser conocida en las islas como "Stanley North". En años recientes, la disminución demográfica de las islas se ha reducido gracias a inmigrantes del Reino Unido, Santa Elena y Chile." Igual poco sentido lo que decis, muchos lugares son islas y tienen excelente calidad de vida respecto de otros paises, de hecho justamente por ser islas.

[@zigongosaurus5274]

​@@shynnsup8383 Argentina HDI: 0.842 Falklands HDI: 0.874 Argentina GDP per Capita: 13,650 USD Falklands GDP per capita: 96,962 USD Argentina inflation: 150% Falklands inflation: 1.4% "Where do they have better quality of life" I wonder...

[@shynnsup8383]

​@@zigongosaurus5274 You must be quite narrow-minded to attempt to boil down 'quality of life' to just three numerical indices, all while disregarding fundamental factors such as climate, accessibility, social life, happiness, work opportunities, travel possibilities, and so on. It's impossible to argue that a small archipelago spanning 12,000 km2 could offer a higher quality of life than even the most affluent regions of an entire country covering 2.78 million km2.

[@usuariodelgoogle]

​@@shynnsup8383mira el pichón como maneja el inglés, bien argie sos

[@shynnsup8383]

@@usuariodelgoogle A tu vieja tambien la manejo y no se queja

[@javiercosta3307]

DEF... por qué no aclaran que el Referéndum no tiene validez internacional ya que los isleños según la ley internacional no pueden acceder a la autodeterminación, es más que importante esa aclaración

[@zigongosaurus5274]

They are entitled to self determination. If the islanders cant have that right, then why should the Spanish and Italian settlers occupying Argentina have that right?

[@javiercosta3307]

@@zigongosaurus5274 Los isleños no tienen el derecho a la autodeterminación por ser una población implantada por la potencia colonizadora, ellos no son una población originaria del lugar, y esto no lo digo yo como mi opinión personal (como el planteo hecho por tu parte que es tu opinión) sino que esto es de acuerdo a la ley internacional al principio de "autodeterminación de los pueblos", por esto según la resolución de la Naciones Unidas 2065 establece que en las negociaciones para encontrar una solución a la disputa deben ser tenidos en cuenta los intereses de los habitantes de las islas, y no sus deseos, excluyendo la aplicación de la libre determinación para este caso en particular

[@zigongosaurus5274]

​@@javiercosta3307Argentines are also a population implanted by a colonial power and aren't native to the place at all.

[@zigongosaurus5274]

​@javiercosta3307 Also the first humans to step foot on the islands were British therefore the Falklanders are, in fact, the natives of the islands. Argentines however are not native to Argentina.

[@javiercosta3307]

@@zigongosaurus5274 No tienen sentido alguno tus argumentos, ya que los mismos son tus apreciaciones personales... Las Malvinas forman parte de los 17 territorios no autónomos por ser descolonizados según el Comité de Descolonización de las Naciones Unidas (De esos 17 territorios 10 corresponden a colonias británicas en pleno siglo XXI), continuando con la ley internacional Las Naciones Unidas tampoco reconoce el referéndum realizado por los isleños, ni los Estados Unidos reconoce el mismo (siendo este vuestro principal aliado), la ley es clara y de ahí la Resolución 1514 (Descolonización) y la Resolución 2065 respecto de Malvinas... Las opiniones son libres pero los hechos son sagrados

[@andybarrett1977]

PARA QUE QUIEREN MAS TERRITORIO EN ARGENTINA SINO PUEDEN NI CON UN 1% DE SU PAIS....DEJEN AL UNICO TERRITORIO QUE ALGÚN DIA FUE ARGENTINO SER 1° MUNDO POR UNA VEZ. ME ENCANTA EL TIQUE INGLES QUE TIENE TODO...INCLUIDO LA LIMPIEZA.

[@LondonMoscowwashington]

Te imaginas si argentina recuperara las malvinas? En 2 años se vuelve una villa

[@CyberCat_D95]

😔

[@Elmesiasdelgol2022]

O como Ushuaia, que no hay villas.

[@horaciopilipchuk1421]

Por qué ?

[@LondonMoscowwashington]

@@horaciopilipchuk1421 por que la gente no reboca su pared por comprarse un iphone 10 en cambio en europa tienen otra cultura

[@luciano2003.]

No importa, hay que recuperarlas. Después hablamos de unidad nacional y patriotismo...

[@Falren1]

Perdieron por la vía de las armas y la vía de los votos, tengan dignidad y asuman de una vez por todas que nadie los quiere ahí.

[@shynnsup8383]

Ahora voy a ir a tu casa a ver si perdes por las vias de las armas tambien. Down.

[@luciano2003.]

No por eso vamos a renunciar para siempre, eso seguro.

[@marcejf3476]

@@Falren1 ninguna de las dos determina la soberanía. Tenga algo de dignidad y vuelva a educarse

[@NicolasAgustinRodriguez-yv9yl]

​@@marcejf3476aunque te duela en el alma, las vamos a seguir reclamando 😂😂😂

[@esais64]

@@NicolasAgustinRodriguez-yv9yl y les seguiran rompiendo la cola cada que intenten ir por ellas

[@Sidrak7777]

El dia que las malvinas sean argentina, la Patagonia Argentina se vuelvera a chile Asi sueñen chilenos y argentinos Las islas falklands por siemrpe ❤🇬🇧

[@NicolasAgustinRodriguez-yv9yl]

Shilena perrita inglesa 😂😂😂

[@ernestoroach1049]

No se pongan muy comodos porque en cualquier momento volvemos por nuestras islas. Malvinas Argentinas!!

[@Elmesiasdelgol2022]

Pero obvioo 🇦🇷

[@limbercatari2307]

😂

[@Elmesiasdelgol2022]

@@limbercatari2307 ¿de qué te reís?

[@mintblancmanche5508]

@@Elmesiasdelgol2022 🤣

[@zigongosaurus5274]

Returning in rubber dingys holding big sticks you found lying in the forest 😂😂

[@Paul1963music]

malvinas que nombre choto, va, recontra reechoto

[@giraldosebastian1843]

Porqué dijo islas Malvinas Argentina si no se llaman así y no son de Argentina?

[@JonatanJimenez21E]

Se llaman asi antes de la invasión inglesa de 1833. Después de la invasión cambiaron el nombre los ingleses y expulsaron al gobernador local Argentino junto con la población local incorporando poblacion implantada, xeso para la ONU es ilegal todo referendum de la gente de ahí

[@johnliveonsky]

@zigongosaurus5274 Both points 6 and 7 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples state: 6.Any attempt to partially or totally disrupt the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 7.All States must faithfully and strictly observe the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and this Declaration, based on equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity. If there were no limitations on self-determination, separatist movements worldwide would create their own countries within existing countries, which is unrealistic. You can't simply gather your friends and decide to secede from the country. Lastly, Argentina is not defying the UN, as the UN does not consider the matter resolved. In fact, Britain is defying the UN by refusing to negotiate, despite requests from the UN.

[@zigongosaurus5274]

Argentina is the one disrupting the territory integrity and sovereign rights of the Falkland Islanders, which constitute a people according to the UN despite how much Argentina claims they don't. Negotiations are pointless because the inhabitants do not wish to be part of Argentina. Argentina has no way of gaining the islands diplomatically (the islanders want nothing to do with them), economically (they have been broke for the last century) or militarily (already shown not to he an option and another war would end even worse for Argentina).

[@shynnsup8383]

@@zigongosaurus5274 No response to any of my arguments? Impressive. It’s obvious you don't know how to counter them, so you just ignore them and come up with something new, introducing different points instead. Your debating skills are truly lacking, and it's clear you don't have much knowledge on this particular subject. *_Which constitute a people according to the UN despite how much Argentina claims they don't._* No source provided. UN has never acknowledged so. It simply states that "All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." But it does not define what 'peoples' encompasses and it also clarifies that "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". You don't seem to understand that the The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was created to call for the immediate and unconditional end of colonialism... Argentina did not colonize the islanders. The islanders are not looking for independence from Argentina. Your complete ignorance on the matter does not let you see that you are trying to use (and failing terribly) in your favor a declaration that was specifically adopted to end colonialism. Argentina is not a colonial power. Britain is. The concept of self-determination and 'distinct peoples' becomes relevant and valid when those people are striving to gain independence from their colonial rulers. How then does an English population, who got there through English ships, have the right to self-determination from Argentina who has never colonized them?!? For this very reason, as I have told you before, the UN has determined that a population transplanted by the colonial power, such as the population of the Malvinas Islands, is not a people with the right to self-determination since they are not distinct from the people of the metropolis. *_Negotiations are pointless because the inhabitants do not wish to be part of Argentina_* Inhabitants do not get to decide what territory belongs to which country solely because they inhabit said territory. They also hold no right to secede from an established state. No other arguments presented.

[@JesusEmanuelAguilar-ff3nz]

Islas Falklands siempre serán inglesas lloren 🇦🇷😢

[@luciano2003.]

Te cae un terremoto antes de hacer ese comentario 🇨🇱

[@marcejf3476]

@@JesusEmanuelAguilar-ff3nz desde donde hablas en español tan cobarde y espíritu de colonia?

[@claudiocaceres5081]

​@@luciano2003.Capaz que te le hunde otro submarino argento

[@luciano2003.]

@@claudiocaceres5081 A ustedes un hercules c130

[@crewcry8789]

​@@luciano2003.Las senisas de los volcanes afectan más a argentina q a chile

[@julie36iddon73]

la pobracion de malvinas hoy es mas britanica que argentina? hablan mas ingles que español?

[@zigongosaurus5274]

It's predominantly British and barely anyone speaks Spanish

[@shynnsup8383]

@@zigongosaurus5274 Wait they are British? 🤣 What happened to them being a 'distinct people' with the right to self-determination? You cannot be a 'people' if you already have a nationality 🤣🤣. When are they going to 'self determinate' and become the country 'Falklands'?? You cannot be both a 'distinct people' while a British citizen. You cannot both have the right to 'self determination' and decide to not self determinate.

[@thir671]

HACE 200 AÑOS

[@yunior2004]

200 años de ocupación ilegal.

[@thir671]

@@yunior2004 Es territorio inglés hace 200 años ya no pierda el tiempo diciendo ocupación ilegal ya que no tienen nada que los ligue a esas islas

[@moshesierra6849]

Falkland Islands Es territorio británico No Argentino

[@BerndPaulick]

Islas de la Falkland 🎉

[@shynnsup8383]

Las islas se llaman MALVINAS.

[@antonroug2022]

Jajajajajaja y se habla inglés jajajajajaja 🤣

[@Chapopiss]

Falkland y malvinas es lo mismo genio xd

[@NicolasAgustinRodriguez-yv9yl]

​@@antonroug2022y se llaman MALVINAS, shileno sucio 😂😂😂

[@criss-tan6682]

Argentina , peru , bolivia perdiendo territorio😂😂😂😂 no tienen valor

[@darovoltaje3835]

Sos un puerto argentino con bandera de otra nación 🎶

[@zigongosaurus5274]

The islands were never Argentine. Cope.

[@shynnsup8383]

@@zigongosaurus5274 You should learn some history before risking embarrassment kiddo. The Falkland Islands were discovered in 1520 by members of Magellan's expedition in the service of the King of Spain. Despite being referred to by various names on European maps, they always remained within territories under effective Spanish control. The Peace of Utrecht, signed in 1713, ensured the integrity of Spain's possessions in South America and confirmed its exclusive navigation rights in the South Atlantic. England accepted these clauses as a signatory of the Utrecht agreements and subsequent treaties of the 18th century that reaffirmed them. In 1749, Spain learned of a British project to establish a settlement in the islands and firmly protested to the United Kingdom, whose government abandoned the plan. In 1764, it was France that showed interest in the islands by creating a settlement called "Port Louis". Spain strongly opposed this and obtained France's recognition of Spanish rights to the islands, the evacuation of the archipelago, and its formal handover to Spanish authorities. All the former colonies, from Canada to Argentina, in Africa, in India and Pakistan inherit the sphere of administrative and sovereign responsibility of the previous power colonial. Starting with the May Revolution of 1810, the islands were considered by the first Argentine governments as an integral part of the territory inherited from Spain. The Malvinas Islands were inherited by Argentina in the same way as other territories now part of Argentina that were once held by Spain, such as Buenos Aires, Córdoba, or Mendoza. So from Spain to Argentina. Simple. Britain has nothing to do with the matter. Cope with the facts.

[@zigongosaurus5274]

​@@shynnsup8383Magellan was over 300 miles away from the islands and physically couldn't have seen them unless the Earth was flat. That's like if I was in London, looked out by window, and saw Germany. No part of the islands were under Spanish control whatsoever until 1767. The Treaty of Utrecht only confirmed the integrity of Spanish territories in the Americas that had been held BEFORE the Spanish War of Succession began. The Falklands were not one of such territories and in fact had shown up on official maps as British since as early as 1702. France relinquished its claim to the islands to Spain in 1767. Britain, on the other hand, never did. Ever. Cession is a recognised act of obtaining sovereignty and is a bilateral agreement between volunteering states. When Canada was formed in 1867, the Canadian and British governments came to an agreement on what territories would make up the new state. Unlike this, Spain never ceded its claim to the islands to Argentina. Spain didnt recognise Argentina until 1863, which happens to be the same year Spains claim to the Falklands officially ended. In any case, Argentina clearly didn't think the islands were theirs at the time, evidenced by the fact that they did not care when they found out about David Jewett's raising of the flag, or that they omitted the islands when presenting their territorial claims to Britain in 1824. Britain is the original sovereignty claimant, since 1594, with the islands current name being given in 1690, and has exercised effective occupation of the islands continuously since 1833 with the exception of a two month illegal occupation by Argentina in 1982. Argentina made no claim until 1829, lost control twice by 1833, gave up their claim for nearly a century between 1850 and 1946, invaded in 1982, and lost. The fact that Argentina refuses to take the case to the International Court of Justice proves that the Arfentine claim is bogus.

[@shynnsup8383]

@@zigongosaurus5274 There are so many things wrong with what you just said. 1. Fuegians (indigenous inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina) first visited the island centuries before any European. 2. The islands have been included on numerous Spanish maps and pilot books since 1502, almost 100 years before John Davis sightings of 1592. *_"Magellan was over 300 miles away from the islands and physically couldn't have seen them"_* Besides the explorer, Ferdinand Magellan, ‘Magellan’ was an expedition, with multiple ships and captains. In July 1520, the ship San Antonio of the Spanish expedition led by Magellan, under the command of the Portuguese pilot Álvaro da Mesquita, Magellan's cousin, departed from Puerto San Julián and headed towards what would become the Falkland Islands. They arrived there on July 28, carrying the Sevillian cartographer Andrés de San Martín, who had information about the islands' location reportedly given by Vespucci. During the month of August, they conducted what is known as the first mapmaking expedition of the Falkland Islands. Magellan’s crew was the first crew to set foot on the Malvinas, as proven by the records of Alonso de Santa Cruz published in his work. Where the author describes in detail the stopover of Magellan’s ships at Puerto San Julián, and the survey of what at present we know as the Malvinas. *_"No part of the islands were under Spanish control whatsoever until 1767."_* Wrong. I just told you in my previous comment… that Spain protested and Britain acknowledged and desisted. There are actually three treaties: Treaty of Madrid of 1670, The 1713 Treaties of Madrid and Utrecht and Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial or Nootka Sound of 1790. A clear example of the application of the treaties in force between the two powers directly concerns the issue of the Falklands/Malvinas: British Admiral Anson’s attempt to conduct an expedition to the Falkland/Malvinas islands in 1749. Significantly, the British government notified the aim of the expedition to the Spanish government, explaining that they had no intention of establishing any kind of settlement on the islands. This attitude illustrates two key points: first, that London did not consider itself to be sovereign over the islands in 1749; and second, that on the contrary, the British recognized Spanish sovereignty over the region. Already in 1749 The Falkland/Malvinas islands were Spanish, and Great Britain neither objected to this fact, nor claimed sovereignty over them. *_"France relinquished its claim to the islands to Spain in 1767. Britain, on the other hand, never did. Ever."_* So the French out of the kindness of their hearts decided to gift the islands to Spain? For no reason? Clearly the islands had been in Spanish ownership all along! Britain had no claim for the islands. *_"Britain is the original sovereignty claimant, since 1594"_* Based on what? Everything I just stated proves otherwise. During the period under discussion, Spain had a continuous presence in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands from April 1st, 1767, when Louis-Antoine de Bougainville transferred the French settlement founded in 1764 to the Spanish authorities, until February 13th, 1811, when Spanish troops were withdrawn from Port Soledad. There is no doubt about the fact that at the moment of Argentine independence, Spain had sovereignty over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and it was the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata that administered them. *_"Spain didnt recognise Argentina until 1863, which happens to be the same year Spains claim to the Falklands officially ended."_* It is trite law that the territory of a newly independent State is established at the moment of independence (1816). This is reflected in the uti possidetis juris principle, which applies in particular to cases of decolonization. Uti possidetis iuris means that the territory belonging to the old colonial administration is transferred to the newly independent State. No express cession of sovereignty is required by the colonial power. The new State inherits the same territory by virtue of its existence as a State. The fact that Spain had not formally recognised Argentina, and only signed a Treaty of Recognition, Peace and Friendship on September 21st, 1863, is absolutely irrelevant for the sovereignty dispute. Moreover, by virtue of this treaty, Spain recognized the Argentine Republic or Confederation as a free, sovereign and independent Nation, made up of all the provinces appearing in its Federal constitution in force, besides the territories that legally belong or will belong in future to that Nation.163 Article 4 further recognizes the 25th of May, 1810 as the date of Argentine succession to Spain’s rights and obligations. We can even turn to British sources on the topic. Professor M. Akehurst assertively states that “Argentina succeeded to Spain’s title. It is a rule of international law that a newly independent State which was formerly a colony succeeds to all the territory within the former colonial boundaries. Gaston de Bernhardt in his Foreign Office Memorandum dated December 7th, 1910, stated that “Of the extent of the Spanish Settlement at Soledad (...) It was under the superintendence of an officer entitled "Commandant of the Malvinas" who was dependent on the Viceroy of 1a Plata. (...)The party appearing to represent Spain in her title to those islands is the Government of Buenos Ayres. On the overthrow of the Spanish supremacy in the Vice-Royalty of La Plata, those territories, with the exception of Paraguay, were converted into a Republic under the name of the "United Provinces of Rio de la Plata" and Buenos Ayres, the capital of the Vice- Royalty, became the seat of Government of the Republic”. *_"The fact that Argentina refuses to take the case to the International Court of Justice"_* Argentina does not refuse anything. Britain has never asked for it. Both parties must agree to submit the dispute to the Court and Britain will never agree to do so because for them the matter is ‘settled’. *_"…two month illegal occupation by Argentina in 1982"_* The only illegal occupation was Britain’s in 1833. Some years before, in 1825, Britain effectively recognized Argentine independence without reservation to the issue of the Islands, which were then under the command of an Argentine governor established on the Islands. This implied respect for sovereignty by Argentina, which includes respect for territorial integrity. *_"Argentina made no claim until 1829"_* Claim to who? After independence they were automatically Argentina. In fact numerous acts of sovereignty were carried out exclusively by Argentina throughout the 1820´s and early 1830. As emerges from the International Court of Justice´s 1992 judgment in the case of the Gulf of Fonseca in Central America, under no circumstances can Britain´s 1833 occupation of a previously occupied territory grant a title of sovereignty of any nature. In summary: 1. The islands were not discovered by British. (first natives, then Amerigo Vespucci, aka Spain) 2. The islands were not landed by the British. (first natives, then Spanish) 3. The islands were not first settled by the British. (Port Louis first settlement, French) 4. The islands were not first inhabited by the British. 5. The islands did not first come under British sovereignty. What is your claim again? The building of a secret clandestine port which was later abandoned? LMAO.

[@NicolasAgustinRodriguez-yv9yl]

​@@zigongosaurus5274shileno asqueroso haciendose paras por inglés 😂😂😂

[@marcejf3476]

Salieron a celebrar la victoria de Milei por las calles?

[@vicenteorozcosantacreu]

No creo. Su posición estaba tranquila con gobiernos mamarracho como el que se acaba de ir. Cristina no consiguió nada, ni vuelos para las familias de los caídos y turistas argentinos, ni que dejen de pescar mucho menos sentarse a negociar y conseguir ALGO. Eso les mantenía el statu quo muy tranquilo. Pero si Argentina se endereza, se termina la joda para los kelpers también.

[@shynnsup8383]

@@vicenteorozcosantacreu Ya los vamos a echar a esos piratas roba tierra como hicimos con los chilenos traidores.

[@luciano2003.]

​@vicenteorozcosantacreu Yo creo que hay que mejorar las relaciones con ellos y mandar argentinos a que vivan.

[@marcejf3476]

@@luciano2003. ni ellos ni el gobierno pirata te lo permiten. Ellos ni cirtan ni pinchan en la determinación de soberanía, y pueden hacer lo que quieran. La discusión es con el Rey imperialista y el gobierno asesino de Londres. Cosa que este gobierno lejos de discutir soberanía les da la razón y los admira.

[@luciano2003.]

@@marcejf3476 Hay que tener sentido común, estrategía y autocrítica para recuperarlas.

[@josegutierrez5285]

Que Malvinas? se llaman Falklands ;)