Time to Show Appreciation of International Relationships

BY A GUEST WRITER

There are a few countries around the world with which Wales has long-standing and profound cultural, political and social ties.  The other Celtic countries, of course.  The United States, where, famously, 16 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were of Welsh descent — with particularly strong Welsh connections with Pennsylvania (aka “New Wales”) and Ohio.  However, one of the most celebrated and enduring international relationships is with Argentina.

Welsh Settlement in Argentina

When Michael D. Jones sought to establish a settlement for Welsh people free from the cultural repression and bigotry of the British state, it was the Argentine government that he approached for permission to locate Y Wladfa in Patagonia as a new country, a “little Wales beyond Wales”, where Welsh would be the language of religion, government, trade and education.  And so it was that 153 Welsh settlers arrived in Patagonia aboard the Mimosa, a converted tea-clipper, in a bay which they named “Porth Madryn”.

The context to this remarkable venture was the hostility of the British state to the language and culture of the Welsh people which had reached new heights in the mid-Victorian era.  The official denigration and suppression of the Welsh language was legitimized and fuelled by the reports issued by the three English commissioners appointed by the Westminster parliament to head an “Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales”.  Their Reports infamously declaimed:-

“The Welsh language is a vast drawback to Wales, and a manifold barrier to the moral progress and commercial prosperity of the people.  It is not easy to over-estimate its evil effects …” (Read more.)

eisteddfod_y_wladfa_1942
Eisteddfod y Wladfa 1942 (click to enlarge)

In Argentina, however, the Welsh settlers were welcomed, and the Welsh-Argentine community continues to this day centred on the towns of Gaiman, Trelew and Trevelin, where there are today at least 5000 Welsh speakers.

“Every Bloody Cause”

The long association between Wales and Argentina experienced tragedy in 1982 during the conflict in the South Atlantic.

Many Welsh-Argentines from Patagonia were conscripted into the Argentine forces occupying and defending the Falklands/Malvinas.  One such Welshman, Milton Rhys, was sent as a young conscript as part of the Argentinian garrison to be a radio operator on the Falklands-Malvinas.  Señor Rhys has given a poignant account of his experiences during the period of Argentine rule and the subsequent British invasion.  Milton Rhys is the great-grandson of William Casnodyn Rhys, a Baptist pastor and Welsh patriot who emigrated to Patagonia from Port Talbot in the 1870s.

milton-rhys-flying-the-flag-in-patagonia
Milton Rhys flying the flag in Patagonia

Of course, Welshmen fought on both sides of the conflict in the South Atlantic.  Thirty-two Welsh soldiers of the British army’s “Welsh Guards” regiment were killed or severely wounded at Bluff Cove, with many suffering terrible burns, after they were left on board the ill-fated Sir Galahad logistics vessel for many hours awaiting orders to disembark – in a display of gross incompetence by the British military high command.

In these experiences on both sides of that senseless conflict, Alun Rees’s lines come to mind . . .

“Now Taffy is a fighter
when he hears the bugle call.
Name any war since Agincourt:
Taffy’s seen them all.

He’s fought the wide world over,
he’s given blood and bone.
He’s fought for every bloody cause
except his bloody own.”

Competing Legal Claims to the Falklands-Malvinas

The conflict in the South Atlantic arose out of a long-standing dispute over sovereignty of the Falklands/Malvinas Islands between the British and Argentine states.  Here is a brief synopsis of the competing claims.

Argentine Claims

It is accepted by both Argentina and Britain that first country with a good legal claim to the Falklands/Malvinas was in fact France, which established the first colony there in 1764 and gave the islands their original name after the port of St. Malo – Les Îles Malouines (subsequently rendered into Spanish as the Islas Malvinas).

The French subsequently agreed to transfer her claims to the Falklands/Malvinas to the Spanish. The Argentine claim that they acquired those rights from Spain in 1810 according to a principle of international law known as uti possidetis juris (basically, principle of international law which provides that newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that their preceding dependent area had before their independence).

The Argentine claims were not effectively challenged by Britain until a British naval squadron arrived in 1833 and caused the submission of the resident Argentine garrison under threat of force.

On repeated occasions since the British invasion of the Falklands-Malvinas in 1833, the Argentine government has restated its claims.

In due course, the status of the Falklands/Malvinas was recognized as a territory to be decolonized under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 of 14 December 1960, titled “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.

Furthermore, earlier this year, the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), sided with Argentina accepting their maritime claims and fixing the limit of their territory at 200 to 350 miles from their coast – so awarding the seas surrounding the Falklands/Malvinas to Argentina.

south-american-archipelago

Although widely denigrated or misrepresented by the British government and much of the British media, the Argentine claims to the Falklands/Malvinas have considerable substance in law.

British Claims

In a nutshell, the validity of the British claims to the Falklands/Malvinas rests on two questions:-

  1. Was a plaque left by the British when they abandoned a brief settlement on the Islands in 1774 sufficient to entitle the British to re-assert a claim 60 years later (in 1833) and eject the existing Argentine settlement by threat of force?
  2. Had France’s claims, which pre-dated any of the British claims, which France had transferred to Spain, and which Argentina had assumed on its independence, been extinguished by 1833?

To any objective observer, the basis of the British legal claims to the Falklands/Malvinas is decidedly shaky.  When this was realised, the British government decided to switch the basis of their argument to one based on “self-determination”.

The self-determination argument has more than a touch of the Ealing Comedy “Passport to Pimlico” about it.  How can a community of less than 3000 – smaller than Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen – and utterly reliant for all practical purposes on the umbilical cord with Britain, the colonial power, some 8700 miles away, assert a sovereign right of self-determination for its inhabitants?  The Islanders are, of course, a transplanted population of British character and nationality.  To attribute sovereign rights of self-determination to this tiny group of people is as ludicrous as astronauts claiming sovereignty over the moon.

Just as the British government and media persistently downplay and distort the basis of the Argentine claims to the Falklands/Malvinas, so too do they brush under the carpet the fundamental weaknesses in the basis of the claims of the British state to the islands.

Pragmatism and Self-Interest

Ultimately, the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty issue is not going to find its resolution in legal arguments over fine points of international law, since the arguments of both Argentina and Britain have been amply aired and found to be riddled with weaknesses.  The time has therefore surely come for both states to consider rationally and pragmatically what the right result should be.  For example:

  • Which country is best placed to administer these islands?  Britain at a distance of 8700 miles or Argentina some 300 miles away.
  • Could the British state put the vast sums spent defending and artificially sustaining the tiny settler population to better use?
  • At a time of increased international tensions and security threats, should the British state be distorting its strategic defence priorities to defend the Falklands/Malvinas colony?
  • Can the British state continue to rely in the 21st century, and post-Brexit, on political and military support from the US, EU and any countries in South America to maintain its occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas colony?
  • Following the Brexit vote, and the pressing priority for the British state to establish and upgrade trading relationships beyond the EU, should the British government be perpetuating trivial colonial conflicts at the expense of valuable trading relationships with the emerging economies of South America?

The Future Role of Welsh Politicians

Given our unique, long-standing and treasured relationships with the Argentine government and people, isn’t it time that we in Wales stood up to the British state and voiced our opposition to the intransigent and counter-productive stance of successive governments on this issue?

Four years ago, the Argentine government reached out to senior members of Plaid Cymru to enlist their support for moves to resolve this dispute.  These approaches were apparently rebuffed by Plaid at that time.

Isn’t it now time for a rethink on this – especially following the election of the pragmatic President Mauricio Macri in Argentina?

END

Jac says . . . Not long after the conflict in the South Atlantic I got to meet a few of the surviving guardsmen. One of them, from my part of Swansea, was here to marry a local girl. And of course his mates turned up for the wedding.

People still talk about the first time these survivors of the Sir Galahad heard the low-flying RAF jets come down our valley. Regulars in a Welsh village pub saw Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder at first hand.

sir-galahad-at-bluff-cove
The Sir Galahad was moored in Bluff Cove, with Welsh Guards aboard, inviting the attack from Argentine aircraft that inevitably came.

I’m not sure how many of them are still alive. The bridegroom from Manselton died in 1995, and this sad entry tells us that in 2010 his grave still had no headstone.

That’s the personal, the human, aspect of this tragedy. The wider picture can only be appreciated if we by-pass the British media, for the truth is that England stands almost completely isolated, virtually no one supports her claim to the Malvinas.

The claim is founded upon imperialist aggression and sustained by a combination of lies and yet more aggression, with contempt for international law and UN Resolutions thrown in. The excuse used is self-determination, ‘the people of the islands wish to remain British’.

You might as well ask the denizens of the Shankill Road if they support a united Ireland. Or go to a meeting of the Abbasock Holiday Home Owners Association with a petition demanding that Gwynedd doubles council tax on second homes.

Finally, let us not forget that throughout that conflict in defence of democracy and freedom – so memorably dismissed by the great Jorge Luis Borges as ‘two bald men fighting over a comb’ – Britain relied heavily on intelligence and other support from Chile. A country then controlled by Margaret Thatcher’s great friend General Pinochet, a man with firm views on democracy.

~ ♦ ~

207 thoughts on “Time to Show Appreciation of International Relationships

  1. Are you sure there are 5,000 welsh speakers in Patagonia, because I understood some time ago now that it was touch and go whether the language would survive, since it was rarely being passed on to the younger generation.

    Also I fail to see how this really has anything to do with how Wales or the UK should approach the Argentine government, except in so far as the welsh community might be held hostage.

      1. Someone needs to ask these things.

        You bring up the interesting case of the Patagonian Welsh, make unsupported statements intended to persuade us to view them as still being ´Welsh´ in some sense (true or false, I don´t really know?) And then use this as a stepping stone to comment on British policy regarding the Falklands which really has nothing to do with the usual content of this blog.

        Of course, it´s your space so you´re free to talk about whatever you like, but at least be honest about where you´re coming from. If you believe there´s some relevant connection between British overseas policy and Welsh politics, please explain that connection.

        If a relevant comparison were to be made it would be between the condition of the former Welsh in the Argentine Gwladfa and the Welsh left behind in Wales with regard to political and cultural autonomy etc. I.e. to what extent if any the Gwladfa was a success.

        1. dafis

          Such is the nature of countries that evolved out of the colonial rush of the 17th – 19th centuries. Argentina is a composite of assorted, mainly European, migrant groups with possibly some traces of original indigenous people many likely to have interbred with immigrants as a means of survival. Even post independence from the original colonial power countries such as ARG continued to absorb migrants at one hell of a rate. Germans found ARG ( and Chile ) a very agreeable environment for various reasons but so did the Jews ! and Middle Eastern nationalities such as Syrians and Lebanese settled there too.

          So there’s no harm in those with some traces of Welsh blood retaining a cultural tie with the land of their ancestors. Indeed they are not alone in that as can be seen in sport. Take a look at the Italian rugby team over the last 10-15 years and it’s awash with people like Parisse, Gonzalo Garcia, and loads of prop forwards born in ARG but electing to play for the land of their mam , dad or Grandparents.

          Argentina continues to struggle to reclaim its lofty position among wealthy nations of the early 20th century but one doesn’t hear much of any great internal schisms based on ethnicity. Wealth and poverty are their major problems, but they seem to have mastered the ability to co exist and rejoice in the diversity of their origins. Maybe it’s time the English did the same.

            1. Ianto Phillips

              Of course there was, as in any country. That is so obvious, it renders what you are saying nonsense. Just an opportunity to say.. God knows what. Something against the idea of them having connections with being Welsh, I suppose. Despite the fact you are talking to people who are far more likely to have experience knowing how people think about themselves in such circumstances.

            2. Anonymous

              In the case of the Welsh in Argentina, the Argentines reneged on the promise to recognise Welsh as a language and forced all legal transactions to be conducted in Spanish. Until recently there was also a law that Christian names had to be Spanish from an approved list. And there’s never been any protection of the Welsh language in Argentina.

              So yep there was.

  2. Ian Perryman

    I have little doubt that one day the Falklands/Malvinas will become part of Argentina.
    The cost of maintaining this far flung outpost will become prohibitive.

    Even if there are extensive oil, gas and coal deposits offshore, then they have become seriously devalued by US shale gas production, Russian gas extraction and the move towards green energy.

    Once the politicians in London realise this then their love of democracy will disappear faster than a ferret down a rabbit hole. The subsidies and trade will cease and the people will leave.

    The next referendum on the future of the islands may well be decided by two or three fishermen, half a dozen scientists and a small colony of penguins.

    It will, of course be another kick in the teeth for the UK Establishment with their fond dreams of past glories and the ‘Good Old Days’ of crocheted tea cosies, digestive biscuits from an Union Jack tin; and TB, Polio, Smallpox and Dysentery for the peasants.

    It could take some time, but it may be accelerated by Brexit. It would be the greatest irony if all those who pompously ranted about brave little Britain facing the world alone, suddenly discovered that they really were facing the world alone, and that it was a cold and cruel place.

    You have to remember that the UK’s greatest asset in the Falklands war was the USA, who are not in the least bit impressed with the idea that their lapdog in the EU has decided to leave.

    In recent years the US has also shown more interest in developing ties across the Pacific and with Europe. It is unlikely that it will put all that at risk to support an increasingly irrelevant little island’s claim to another irrelevant little island thousands of miles away.

    Outside of Europe and, with waning support from the US, the UK’s global influence could drop faster than molten lead through tissue paper.

    This in turn with have knock-on effects elsewhere. For example how many Commonwealth countries would wish to be associated with a sad little isolated island with a crumbling economy and little influence on the world stage?

    Closer to home we all know what’s happening in Scotland, but if anything, Northern Ireland is going to be much more problematic. And of course there’s Gibraltar – which voted almost unanimously to remain in the EU.

    It could be that all those delusional Brexiteers who dribbled deliriously about regaining sovereignty could find that their sovereign state is much reduced.

    All those nights in bed wearing their Biggles helmets, and having wet little dreams about being a Spitfire pilot, while Vera Lynn warbled away the the background, could turn out to be their worst nightmares.

    1. Hard economics and international pressure will inevitably result in England relinquishing her claim. That she still holds on to the islands is down to good luck.

      In 1982 most in Washington believed that Latin America was more important to US interests than the UK. But of course Maggie had beguiled Ronnie.

      Similarly in Chile. Most Chileans supported the Argentine position, but Pinochet was not one to worry about public opinion and so he supported Maggie in order to put one over on his Argentine counterparts.

      In the EU British aggression was widely condemned. I recall a vote being taken to support the UK’s invasion that became farcical when allowances had to be made for Spain and Italy to dissent, due to the millions of Argentines of Spanish or Italian origin.

      The position of the UN is clear, and the chances of any NATO ally sending troops or ships to re-take the islands following a second Argentine ‘invasion’ is zero.

      Britain today is truly isolated. Throw in the economic considerations you cite and it becomes clear that time is running out for the kelpers.

      1. JE Lloyd

        But the seas around the Falklands/Malvinas have now been recognized by the UN as belonging to Argentina, so the offshore oil and gas reserves are not Britain’s.

        1. Anonymous

          JE LLOYD…Total lie….No they have not, they only considered those areas that did not form part of the sovereignty dispute. Which, when mapped out form only a tiny part of what Argentina originally wanted the UN to consider. They only got an extension to 350km in the North and a very small area south of T del Fuego .
          Again, people, please research rather than voice your opinion as facts. Comments like yours just show your indoctrination and bias in this respect.

  3. dafis

    Had it not suited Thatcher’s purposes in 1982, I believe that the UK would have entered some kind of agreement with the ARG junta of the time to pass sovereignty over the islands to ARG. However, there were, and remain today, some long term commercial interests, something to do with how mineral exploitation rights in the Antarctic/ Southern Ocean are carved up. Those on their own could have been negotiated as shared rights.
    Notwithstanding all that the big fly in the ointment was the Tory government’s low standing at home. It was commonly agreed that the immediate post 1979 period was a mess as the first wave of “reforms” crashed over the UK wiping out jobs and generally pissing people off. So in the best traditions of British government they went looking for a unifying cause and found it in the South Atlantic. The rest as they say is history as Maggie waltzed to comforting victory in the 1983 election and no one had the nuts to challenge her team’s fraudulent behaviours the previous year.

    1. No question that the Argentine junta kept Maggie in power and helped create her reputation. Galtieri and his boys should have been knighted.

      1. dafis

        nice to find apologists for dear old Maggie still in circulation. She got stuck into the Argies first and foremost because her standing in the U.K was drifting down and she could have lost an election to that duffer Foot ( heaven forbid ! ) Initially she thought that just flashing a few deft moves with her handbag would suffice but Galtieri was also on a testosterone overload so everything escalated and shock horror the dodgy old dago sent his troops onto the island. That prompted the British response which was costly, as it’s usually the case when you try to land a force against built in defences even though they might generally be of a poor calibre.

        However it is naive to attribute noble reasons to the whole episode. All parties including the US were highly devious and contrived to attach merit to their actions. The only real merit, as ever, attaches to the soldiers who had to do the thankless job, do the killing and maiming ( or get killed or maimed ) and live with lasting visible and hidden scars due to blunders by higher commanders, such as the Sir Galahad incident.

        1. I remember it well. Galtieri invaded. Nobody saw it coming (not even the CIA it seems) and Maggie did her job. Can’t ask more than that.

          1. dafis

            Nice simplistic take on events, and maybe 34 years does blur things to some extent.

            I hope you stay alive and well for some time, because there’s a whole pipeline of work coming your way from a number of establishment figures with seriously deviant behaviours in their histories. Right now they are doing a damn good job of stalling any serious exposure of their antics but in the event of the whole rotten facade falling down they are going to need apologists and you appear to have the capacity to “see things” in that uncomplicated way which those establishment figures find endearing. I look forward to reading your scripts but please don’t leave it 34 years.

            1. dafis

              Dismissing allegations, and serious ones at that, as paranoia is a classic behaviour of the cover-up artist. You could have been part of Harris, Clifford or Savile’s P.R squads or close to one or more of those other establishment deviants who couldn’t keep his hands off little boys, good chaps just don’t do that sort of thing, eh what ! Substitute for paranoia a well developed awareness and alertness and you get close to an accurate description. By the way that link is a nice piece of work, a well crafted work of deception and misrepresentation with key omissions to give the right bias.

            2. That ‘piece of work’ has just been awarded the Queen’s Certificate. If you can name any ‘omissions’ I would be pleased to address them 🙂

            3. Myfanwy

              You are funny, haven’t you noticed, Mrs Windsor’s ‘certificates’, are becoming increasingly meaningless, in the post British Empire, global context. Unfortunately and very evidently, the patronising, sense of superiority, of the ‘British’ establishment, still lingers on. They will still be clutching for the Union Jack, as the good ship Britannia, sinks beneath the waves.

          2. Y Barnwr

            “I remember it well. Galtieri invaded […] and Maggie did her job.”

            As I recall it, Thatcher removed the last Navy patrol boat from the region (in order to fund mass unemployment and tax cuts, of course) against the advice of her Foreign Secretary Peter Carrington, who at least had the dignity to resign in protest after the ‘invasion’. The wretched woman thereby sent a clear signal to Buenos Aires that she couldn’t give a flea’s fart about the so-called ‘self-determination’ of the colonists. “Did her job”, indeed!

  4. Anonymous Powys

    I think your re telling of the Falklands story is one sided. You dismiss the rights of the Falkland Islanders as being irrelevant to the future of their position. There is I agree competing claims to the islands but they have been part of the UK’s wider responsibility now for nearly 200 years. Across the world there are many areas that are claimed by competing interests Cyprus, Israel, Northern Ireland, Sudan, Catalonia, Gibraltar, Ceuta, Belgium the list is virtually endless. You clearly resent any one who is not Welsh living in Wales but would you care to define who in your opinion is allowed to call themselves Welsh, is there a racial purity to your definition. These islands which we all share have been occupied and re occupied by various peoples for 3000 years, how would you change that based on your dislike of the ‘English’ for the last 180 years. The British crown has as much Welsh blood as Saxon as Anglle, Gaul, French Scottish and even German and thats before we get into discussions about how much VIling blood runs in our collective veins. Just as the blood line for the Welsh princes who were by 1300 descended from Anglo/Norman/French stock through marriage and children. We all need to know the history that has created the ‘race’ that now inhabits the British Isles but also we must beware that unthinking prejudice is as pointless now as it has always been.

    Finally dismissing the rights of 3000 people who live on an Island 8000 miles away because it does not fit your narrative makes you guilty of the same supposed actions as you condemn the British of being guilty 184 years ago.

    1. I keep hearing this argument more and more. ‘We’re all the same so let’s speak English/call ourselves British/sing God Save the Queen/put the boot into Johnny Foreigner’. This is Victorian. And yet, these ‘artificial divisions’ must be important to you, otherwise why would you comment. But if they aren’t important, then let’s all be Welsh!

      1. Anonymous Powys

        What arguments do you keep hearing. The line lets call etc is circular. Your clearly prefer to blame the “English” for everything without defining what they have done or why they are to blame. So what is Welsh I have a good idea of what British is but you seek to confuse the arguments you put forward by singling out English. You avoid comment on the other historical disputes I refer to preferring to stick to some perceived slight on the ‘Welsh” but the “English’.

      2. The bottom line here is that the Islanders are recognised as a people with the right of self-determination. Nothing else is of any importance.

    2. Rhedyn

      One sided? This is the consensus outside Britlandshire, pal. England stands alone on this one.

      Anyway, this is a great piece. We Welsh should do all we can to support y Wladfa and Argentina’s struggle to regain their rightful territory.

      1. Anonymous Powys

        Don’t wish to be picky but Britlandshire and England, which is it to be. Why does the Argentine has a claim to the Falklands. ?? They voted to remain under UK rule 99.7% against .3%. Are they not entitled to decide for themselves who they belong with?

        1. di-enw

          Shortly before 1982 the UK government was in discussions with the Argentine government with a view to handing the Islands over to Argentinian rule by its then military dictatorship. The wishes of the islanders were dismissed by the UK government as the financial and logistical arguments in favour of the UK’s purse and Islanders “best interests” were paramount.
          (there was a BBC documentary on the situation, maybe it’s still around somewhere) Again the islanders themselves were nearly 100% against rule by Argentina. So much for any principle supposedly held by the UK that the islanders were entitled to decide for themselves who they belonged with.

          Galtieri saw this approach by the UK as an indication that the UK wasn’t interested in the Falklands and he saw an easy takeover as being the likely outcome which would increase his popularity in Argentina which at the time was plummeting. Everyone knows what happened next.

          There is an irony that the 99.7% of those islanders that prefer to be British subjects rather than Argentinian citizens owe that freedom of choice to Argentina’s actions rather than the UK’s treatment of them.

            1. di-enw

              The islanders in theory might have a veto (for the time being that is) but they are only self sufficient in mutton. If the UK were to stop it’s expensive supply of life’s necessities including medical and other skilled professionals then who would want to emigrate there. The population was and is unsustainable without a regular top up from the UK and the surety of UK provisions.
              Without the UK making life bearable the islanders existence there would be very harsh. The rights of the handful that remained would as it was in the early 1980s be a minor obstacle for any UK government to get over.

      2. Cameron

        You clearly haven’t paid much attention to this one. There is in fact a lot of international support for the UK (like it or not it’s not just England) on this, mainly from the Commonwealth. At any rate, rightful principle is not decided by that. Argentina actually has no claim to the Falklands at all. Please inform yourself better. You can start by reading the Falklands Timeline in WordPress by Roger Lorton.

        1. Support? Argentina hasn’t managed to get a new UN General assembly Resolution in 28 years. So much for argentina’s supposed support

    3. di-enw

      “We all need to know the history that has created the ‘race’ that now inhabits the British Isles but also we must beware that unthinking prejudice is as pointless now as it has always been.”

      Therefore it follows that a version of history that results in a single “race” inhabiting the British Isles is also an example of “unthinking prejudice”.
      However if those in power and those that make up a large majority maintain that it is the truth then although an unthinking prejudice it is far from being pointless.

  5. Keith Parry

    Wales should be an independent state and conduct her own foreign relations. We should control our borders and immigration policy. The Welsh Government should be represented at any talks about relationships with the European Union. The Welsh nation interest will not be represented by London at such talks.

    1. Anonymous Powys

      I live in Wales so why not have a vote on independence, its great to call for something when you suspect as do most people that Wales would not support it.

    2. Anonymous

      And how do u intend to fund the deficit by becoming independent ? Oh I forgot we have vast amounts of oil and wool we can sell .

  6. dafis

    Your Twitter column catches the eye once again. So to digress – Eluned Morgan’s essay on Health/Care has merit and it would certainly be productive to have a thorough national examination of resources and a review of their deployment to meet the needs of the assorted communities. Her piece for IWA shows that the subject is of some interest ( to her ) and it needs to be pushed right up the agenda.

    Then we come to your “objection ” – which under present circumstances is extremely valid. In these columns much has been said for years about the damaging effects of in-migration from other parts of the UK mainly England. Now my major concern has been the dilution and elimination of culture, language and the rest of the “identity mix” but volumes have also been written about a failing health service, social services and the crime/policing sector. In a nutshell the demographic mix of the in-migration of the last 30 or so years has not been adequately catered for in the startegic planning and budgetary provisions of public services in Wales.

    Too much has been discreetly ignored as it might offend “sensitivities” – it’s not very nice to ask their original authorities to transfer funds to cater for the ailing souls that happily ship themselves into Wales to see out the autumn and winter of their lives. Worse still, delinquents and other dysfunctional units are deliberately transferred with 3rd sector businesses making a small premium for receiving them ( allegedly ) but the burden of therapy/care falls upon local health institutions who have not received any budgetary adjustments for managing this extra work load.

    So I welcome Eluned’s attempt to breath new life into a stagnant debate, but having the courage to agitate this present mess also requires the nerve to tread into areas which hitherto the political leadership of Wales has been utterly reluctant to venture. I hope that she does represent a bit of new life in the old Labour dog because for most of the rest of its representatives there is not much hope for resuscitation. Plaid is equally weak when it comes to these matters although Neil McEvoy or Dai Lloyd, even Adam Price could stir some fires. As for the other Anglo parties well no point in going on about them……………

    1. Anonymous Powys

      Suez was a joint operation with France, the Cod wars started following action by Iceland who still today rightly so protect their waters from the EU trawlers. Most depletion of stocks is down to over fishing by French, Belgian and Spanish as well as UK trawlers. So I take it that the UK is not entitled to stop those ‘others’ fishing in UK waters but its OK for Iceland and it would seem Argentina. Your arguments are self seeking and contradictory, you can’t have ‘cake and eat it’ syndrome without being something of a hypocrite

      1. dafis

        You talking to me ? or confusing your reply clicks ? However, your reference to cake may be obliquely relevant as its consumption by ageing folk of all ethnic origins is a factor in overloading our health and care services, which is where I started above. Consumption of fish on the other hand is generally regarded as beneficial and should be encouraged to the extent that cake shops ought to be closed down and replaced by fishmongers.

        Your note is a bit ambiguous but I take it that you are in agreement on this point as you seem to be in favour of defending rights to fisheries.

        1. Anonymous Powys

          Yes I think confusing the comments on threads Whoops… I agree 100% on fisheries. I remember the problems that began to arise in early 1990’s with the decline of the inshore fishing industry out of Conwy Bangor and Holyhead. Huge subsidised trawlers (beam) that hovered up everything, in fact it was so bad that even the ubiquitous dog fish was not to be caught. The Heath Wilson governments of the mid to late 1970’s gave our fishing away. The entire UK industry not just Wales. We now have EU trawlers catching UK fish landing them here under quotas sold to them by the EU and were the landed fish value is exported to the continent and all we gain is the commission on selling the fish, it even counts as the UK quota of caught fish. I could rant on this for ever, the same idiot principles have been applied to agriculture.

  7. Excellent article even though it made my blood boil recounting the number of Welsh lives lost, once again, in defending the English crown. When will we finally come to our senses and abstain from these imperialist adventures ? Adventures which are more often than not based on tenuous claims Claims which usually have little legal basis under International law. Suez, the gunboat diplomacy of the Icelandic cod wars and the Malvinas are three prime examples of Britannia still attempting to ” rule the waves ” . All three instances involved strong economic elements which drove the UK government to undertake military action. As the writer points out self determination / sovereignty of the Malvinas are ludicrous claims and merely a smokescreen behind which to hide. While there may be some exploitable carbon/ mineral deposits in and around the Malvinas, fishing and more importantly fishing licences are the driving force behind the stubborn insistence of the UK government to cling onto the Malvinas.Some people are going to make a lot of money from the fishing industry in the South Atlantic, until their greed gets the better of them and fish stocks are destroyed much the same as happened in the North Sea and North Atlantic. No European Union in that part of the world to enforce sensible amd sustainable fishing methods.

    http://en.mercopress.com/2015/03/30/falklands-economy-main-contributor-is-fishing-industry-34-of-gdp-in-2012

    http://www.fiassociation.com/shopimages/pdfs/2015%2003%20State%20of%20the%20Falkland%20Islands%20Economy%20Report.pdf

    1. As an Overseas Territory of the UK within the EU the Falklands are fully compliant with the rules regarding sustainable fishing. They have to be to sell their goods within the EU

      1. Brychan

        As a ‘British Overseas Territory’ the Falkland Islands is eligible for EU grants.

        It has been awarded €5.9 million in Development Funding as part of a five year plan until 2020. This will come to an abrupt end by the end of 2017 assuming the UK government enact article 50 in January 2017. This award of funding amounts to over €2000 per capita. This amount also excludes the amount the Falklands gets directly in British Overseas Aid and of course the ‘income’ they receive from residual occupation by the Ministry of Defence. This is completely unsustainable.

        I suspect by 2020, the governor of the territory will need to either come to an ongoing subsidy settlement with the UK government or, more sensibly, to develop a sustainable trading relationship with Argentina. This will include wool, lamb, fishing and of course, any extraction of oil and gas resources.

  8. Perhaps someone can explain why Argentina’s claim to The Falklands is in any way legitimate, bearing in mind that the ancestors of the present day Falklanders occupied and lived on the islands many years before Argentina came to exist as a country.

    1. As the article states, Argentina came into existence in 1810, when there were no British colonists on the islands. Then in 1833, when there was a resident Argentine population, there was a British invasion.

      1. Cameron

        That is woefully inaccurate. 1810 was merely a protest in defence of the Spanish king. Independence was declared in 1816. By ‘declared’ I mean ‘declared’. There was no state called Argentina with effective and centralised control over territory until long after. The first constitution was in 1853 and recognition by Spain was in 1863. Until some time after 1853 there was a civil war and no unified state. British colonists were on the Islands from 1765 onwards. The British never abandoned the Islands-they just removed their garrison in 1774.

        1. By Christ, there’s some amazing English nationalism coming out here, from you and others, and so much obscure historical detail, that it makes me wonder if some of it isn’t coming from ‘official’ sources.

          It doesn’t matter who revolted against whom, who claimed what when, these islands lie on the continental shelf off the coast of Argentina ergo – and as the UN states – they belong to Argentina. The presence of an implanted population makes not a bit of difference. This is the argument China is using in Tibet for fuck’s sake!

          You Brits believe in so many different and conflicting things to suit your interests that it exposes you as self-serving hypocrites.

          The Channel Islands obviously belong to France . . . ‘Ah, but William the Conqueror, blah, blah, blah’. In 1918 the Irish voted for independence – so you played the Orange card to hang on to what you could of the island. There was a fear the Scots might vote for independence in 2014 so the British State – using the BBC and the rest of the media – conducted the most disgusting propaganda offensive seen in peace time.

          After the fright of the 1960s the UK state decided to remove any future threat from Wales by re-populating the country with loyal English settlers to shout down and intimidate the Welsh. And it’s working. Some of you contributing to this debate may be part of that policy.

          So don’t come here pretending to be the good guys with right and justice on your side. You people sicken me with your double standards.

          1. Historical facts are “obscure detail” to you? How about some legal facts then? Such as that the ICRC considers that islands have their own continental shelves and that geography was declared irrelevant in sovereignty cases in 1927. You bandy the word “obviously” about without any understanding of it. Based on contiguity it is ‘obvious’ that Wales belongs to England.

            Too much crap son – your bias is showing.

            By the way, you do know that there remain Islanders with a Welsh heritage to this day. No, probably not, I can see that factual research is not your thing.

            1. ‘Contiguity’ be fucked! So Germany and France belong to Luxembourg? So you believe the Six Counties belong to the Republic? Admit it, you’re making this up as you go along. You’re a fantasist.

            2. LOL. If you don’t believe in contiguity, then how can the Falklands belong to Argentina. Paris is closer to London, than the islands are to South America.

            3. Contiguity does not apply where there is a pre-existing or indigenous population. Seeing as the population of the Malvinas is a colonial plantation contiguity does apply.

            4. Not according to international law (Islas de Palmas case 1927). As for a few trespassers who had been warned twice (1829 & 1832), international law allowed the better claimant to eject them. Which we did – peacefully.

            5. Culle

              Jac, I see you have turned of the ‘reply’ to your last comment…….is that because you just made that bit up? International Law please, which supports your statement. Falklands had a pre-existing population before Argentina in its modern form existed.

            6. Culle

              Jac, please answer the question… international law that supports your statement that ‘contiguity does apply to the Falklands’.

            7. In the absence of an indigenous population or a strong claim by another country common sense dictates that islands and other territories belong to the nearest recognised state. Unless of course the ‘laws’ you and the other BritNats haunting this debate use were framed by and for the benefit of imperialists.

              Because at the end of the day that’s what it boils down to – imperialism. And with the empire gone, for people like you hanging on to the Malvinas/Falklands, Gibraltar (the British Virgin Islands and all the other corrupt tax havens) is the equivalent of a tattoo for a BNP or Britain First thug. A sad, disfiguring and expensive symbol of machismo and corrupted, fascistic patriotism.

            8. Anonymous

              So there is no International Law, just your opinion….

              ‘common sense dictates…’, unfortunately Jac, that answer ‘doth butter no parsnips’. You are citing your opinion as fact, when clearly you have nothing.

              So by your logic, Jamaica, Bermuda, Etc etc should all belong to who exactly….Sao Tome and Principe, who should they belong to. Sorry Jac your arguments have more holes than Swiss cheese

          2. Welshman_in_Canada

            “and as the UN states – they belong to Argentina”

            Could you link to where the UN states this, or did you just make that up?

            1. What I said was: “It doesn’t matter who revolted against whom, who claimed what when, these islands lie on the continental shelf off the coast of Argentina ergo – and as the UN states – they belong to Argentina.” I’m not sure whether you Brit imperialists are splitting hairs or clutching at straws, probably both, but if the islands lie on the continental shelf – as they do – then they belong to Argentina. Or is that reasoning too subtle for you?

            2. Welshman_in_Canada

              I’m a Welshman, not a Brit imperialist.

              The UN recently accepted Argentina’s request to extend their continental shelf rights, but emphasised they cannot make a decision on areas where conflicting claims are present. This is something that Argentina and their apologists ignores.

              If you read their judgement, you would see they extended two areas, not the whole for what they asked.

              Is that to subtle for you??

              I’m curious, why someone who makes a big noise about how bad the English are for colonizing Wales, do you bask in the colonization of another land where the indigenous population were exterminated to make room, by amongst others the Welsh.

              The colonization of foreign lands by Europeans in the 15th to 19th centuries was an appalling act of greed and murder, no disputing that fact, but those days are over and the people who are left are not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. The people left living in those areas have a right to chose their own destiny from this time forward.

              To hand over people to a foreign Country against their will because you are are ashamed of our dark and dirty past is a crime in itself. You want to hand over the islands to be re-colonized by a foreign power, nice.

              The people of the Falkland Islands do not see themselves related in any way to the South Americans, the Islands were unpopulated before the arrival of Europeans and are culturally different from SA.

              Since its conception Argentina has sought to expand its boundaries, the Falklands are merely a stepping stone to Antarctica.

              Answer why they don’t go to the ICJ, the only true method of a peaceful resolution, why did they refuse 3 invitations from the UK to go to the ICJ in relation to the dependencies?

              The answers simple, they have no valid claim.

            3. You may be Welsh, but you’re definitely a Brit imperialist.

              Where are the others gone, the ones taking your line, have they knocked off for the day?

              The one thing you people have in common is your selective interpretation of history. You wrote, “The colonization of foreign lands by Europeans in the 15th to 19th centuries was an appalling act of greed and murder, no disputing that fact, but those days are over and the people who are left are not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors.”

              Yet when it comes to the Argentines, you wrote, “I’m curious, why someone who makes a big noise about how bad the English are for colonizing Wales, do you bask in the colonization of another land where the indigenous population were exterminated to make room, by amongst others the Welsh.”

              So it would appear that today’s Brits are blameless, but not contemporary Argentines, and that presumably includes those Argentines of Welsh descent. You’re a hypocrite, like all the others who’ve been here today pissing me off.

              And by the way, the indigenous population of Argentina was not exterminated. Yet more propaganda.

              The Phil Henri referred to by Keith Parry was an old mate of mine back in Swansea, he married a girl named Jones and lived in Patagonia for some years. He used to tell me about the Indians working on his father-in-law’s ranch. So stop talking bollocks.

            4. Welshman_in_Canada

              I’m talking about your hypocrisy in this, the welsh in Patagonia is something to be celebrated it seems but the English in Wales (or anywhere else) are a damnation.

              No, I’m not a hypocrite, the people of Welsh descent living in Patagonia have every right to the land in Argentina, they are of course Argentinian (not Welsh).

              They have no right to the land in the Falklands, which belongs to the Falkland Islanders.

              Unless of course your saying the descendants of Spanish and Welsh colonists have more rights that the descendants of British colonists, for the fact that they are not British and therefore not English.

              No genocide eh, because there were survivors, is it me or you ignoring facts.

              http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=gsp

              Do you know a lot of Argentinians proudly state that they contain indigenous blood, how many truly do I don’t know and how many true indigenous people are left I also don’t know, I do know that the indigenous were hunted and murdered for their lands, many caught were sent to camps where the men were removed to serve on ships or sent to the front lines of the wars that the South Americans were fighting between themselves.

              The women and children were then sent to farms, where the females were either forced to marry or just plain raped.

              Its a dark history of dark times and before you say it, yes the British have their own catalog of crimes (which includes Welsh involvement) as do the Spanish, French, etc.

              It appears though that the crimes of the Spanish colonists can be forgiven or even overlooked as they were not British (English) crimes.

              As I said, the past is the past and you cannot expect the people today to be held responsible, you can though leave them to decide their own future which includes not being handed over to a foreign culturally different Country.

            5. I suggest you read the paper you linked to. Yes, it mentions massacres, but most of it is taken up with accounts of acculturation, children taken from their parents to be ‘educated’, the drift to the cities, etc. All things suffered by indigenous peoples living under Anglo-Saxon rule in North America and Australia. Canada’s record is particularly bad, small wonder you issue you ‘sins of the father . . . ‘ exculpation.

              Something else the obscure paper you linked to told us was that these acts tended to be outrages perpetrated by soldiers in the field, or unscrupulous land-grabbers, perhaps even state governments. Again, as was the case in North America. The difference may be that it was rarely Argentine federal government policy, and there was vigorous opposition.” (By the way, where do you people get these obscure publications? Who’s your ‘librarian’?)

              “This incident (a massacre of Indian men) was reported and debated in the press, especially in El Pueblo Libre (Cordoba) and La Nacion (Buenos Aires), whose editors qualified it as a ‘crime against humanity’.”

              In the National Assembly in 1884 Senator Aristobulo del Valle stated, ” . . . we have enslaved the men, prostituted the women, we have torn the children away from their mothers, we have sent old men to work as slaves anywhere. In a word, we have turned our backs and broken all the laws that govern the moral actions of men.” But no mention of genocide, even from a man opposed to what was happening.

              Despite that, you wrote, “I’m curious, why someone who makes a big noise about how bad the English are for colonizing Wales, do you bask in the colonization of another land where the indigenous population were exterminated to make room, by amongst others the Welsh.” Stating quite clearly that the Indians of Argentina were exterminated by Europeans, including the Welsh.”

              But the indigenous population of Argentina was not exterminated. I know this for a number of reasons, among them the fact that the Phil Henri referred to by Keith Parry was a good mate of mine from Swansea, he married a girl from Patagonia named Jones and lived there for a number of years. There were Indians living and working on his father-in-law’s ranch.

              Either you’re spewing forth any defamatory bollocks that comes into your head, or else you’re deliberately lying and trying to defame a whole nation, including the Welsh component of that nation. Either way, just fuck off, go back to waving your flag and picking on those French bastards. ‘Imagine choosing not to speak English, not wanting to join our superior society.’

              You are everything you accuse others of being. And worse. A typical British imperialist hypocrite.

            6. Brychan

              As a Welshman in Canada you may be aware that mangos and pineapples in your local supermarket come with a Union Jack sticker. These are not grown in Carmarthenshire or Surrey, but on the Turks and Caicos Islands, in the Caribbean. These islands, like the Falklands are ‘British Overseas Territory’. As you may be aware, since the 1970s, there have been proposals to annex these islands to Canada. Most recently, the MP for Edmonton (Canada) is tasked with the negotiations of Canada ‘adopting’ the islands. The democratically elected premier of the territory, Rufus Washington Ewing is in favour of the constitutional adoption. Sounds like a good move, and may well set a precedent for what future arrangements for other ‘overseas territories’.

            7. Welshman_in_Canada

              The C24 is a sub-committee of a sub-committee, it has no teeth and nothing coming from it is binding or even passed on to its superior committee.

            8. The C24 produces its own Falklands resolution every year calling for negotiations. Every year it submits a report to the Fourth Committee making recommendations for its resolutions to be adopted by the General Assembly. Every year – for 28 years – the C24 HAS NOT recommended its Falklands resolution for adoption. Hence there has been no UN GA Resolution since 1988.

              Looks like the same again this year – https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/c24-report-2016.pdf

            9. Welshman_in_Canada

              Well actually, the UN report said no such thing. Should try reading the document not reports based on Argentina’s own announcement.

            10. Myfanwy

              Here are the links to the UN Commission’s ruling on the limits of the continental shelf, which increase Argentina’s Maritime Territory by 35%. The editorial views in the previous link are from the Daily Record and are again, expressed in the Guardian below. The UN’s own, ‘summary of recommendations of the commission’ link below, which was updated in June 2016, ratifies Argentina’s, 2009 report, setting the limit of it’s territory at 200 to 350 miles from it’s coast.

              http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/2016_03_11_COM_SUMREC_ARG.pdf

              http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_arg_25_2009.htm

              http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm

              https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/un-ruling-falkland-islands-dismissed-by-uk-argentina

            11. Anonymous

              Hmmm Myfanwy…. I think you had better read the UN report as it clearly shows the Falklands are not in Argentine waters. But lets not the truth get in the way of a good story eh….

            12. How about a link and a direct quotation to back up your assertion. And why were you ‘Culle’ earlier in the day but now you’re Anonymous? Or are you the night shift on the same machine?

            13. You say you’ve already contributed to this debate yet you’re using a previously unused e-mail address! And seeing as you choose to use the ‘Anonymous’ handle you could be anyone, anywhere.

              I’ll tell you what I told Anonymous Powys a few hours ago, you’re no longer welcome. You and your kind have countless platforms on which to spout your comforting lies about Britain and the British empire being a force for global good, and anyone who challenges this is guilty of the crimes others ascribe to you.

              Because you have so many outlets for your bile you will no longer be using my blog as a platform. Pass it on to the rest of your network that picked up so quickly on the ‘Falklands’ tag.

            14. Welshman_in_Canada

              From the very first document Myfanwy linked to, page 6.

              “The present Recommendations cover two specific regions of the Argentine margin (see figure 3):

              (i) the northern region of the Argentine Atlantic margin sector, referred to in the Submission as the Rio de la Plata Craton passive volcanic continental margin region; and

              (ii) the westernmost sector of the combined continental margin to the south, covering the Tierra del Fuego margin region.”

              Figure 3 is on page 20.

              two sections only, they did not make any recommendation on any waters around the Falklands or any of its dependencies.

              I do find it odd though, that the descendants of Spanish colonists defended by some, simply because they are not descendants of British colonists.

  9. Dic

    We all know how much the BBC likes to celebrate anniversaries. It will be interesting to see in the next few weeks what treatment if any is given to the 60th anniversary of the Suez debacle as Westminster sets about “making Britain great again”. Will Dan Snow, their current favourite pin-up unionist, be wheeled in to explain that particular triumph?

  10. Y Barnwr

    I was in UCW Aberystwyth (as it then was) at the time of the Malvinas ‘conflict’ (it wasn’t a war, oh deary me, no), although I was away at the time of the war itself. What I do remember upon my return was that the football team of Y Geltaidd had managed to get a full set of Argentinian kit at a knock-down price from a local sports-wear shop, and proudly played in that in the ‘digs league’ for the whole of the following season, much to the discomfort and annoyance of the second-rate middle-class English students who played in the other teams. I wonder if the current generation of Welsh students in Panty would have the courage, the imagination, or simply the devilry to do that – and what the throroughly infiltrated and compromised BritNats who run what is now the University would do to stop them.

    1. Y Barnwr

      Actually, thinking back to it (it was a long time ago), I *was* in UCW at the time, and I remember that the overwhelming sympathy of the denizens of Panty was with the poor Argentinian PBI (though most emphtically not with the fascist clowns who sent them there), and hoping that the Brit ruling class would come unstuck. It didn’t happen, of course, and the sickening jingoism and rah-rah which followed gave the swivel-eyed ideologues of Brit colonial neo-liberalism an open road to wreak the havoc we have suffered since.

  11. Rhymney Lad

    Thanks for a fascinating piece, the emigration to Patagonia seems to be re-entering the welsh public conscious, but it could just be because of the 150 anniversary celebrations last year and it has many lessons in today’s strongly British nationalist political climate that can’t abide decent.

    You also make a strong point about the Welsh Government, if it was more than a UK Labour puppet and stood up for Welsh interests, including the injured and dead welsh soldiers and families, then challenging the Tory government’s narrative over the Falklands would be higher up its agenda.

    This piece also strongly reinforces the need for a Welsh media, the Brit centric view that the Falkland’s/Malvinas is above debate or challenge is ingrained I the welsh psyche, so learning about welsh history from more points of view should be welcomed with open arms.

  12. Penygadair

    Anybody know what the Barnett Formula is for the Falklands?

    Mega millions spent on defence of 1800 people.

    1. The islands are fully self-financing except for the issue of defence which remains the duty of the Administering Power under UN rules. In any case the military on the Falklands are responsible for all the British territories in the South Atlantic, sub Antarctic and Antarctic. Money well spent.

      1. di-enw

        No they are not fully self financing.
        Perhaps you’ll let me know how many doctors midwives and dentists the islands produce from the native population.

      2. Y Barnwr

        “The islands are fully self-financing except for the issue of defence”

        In which case, they’re *not* ‘self-financing’ then, are they? If they were ‘self-financing’, they’d be paying for their ‘own’ defence, and not causing hard-pressed tax-payers in Cymru to subsidise their colony.

  13. Welshman_in_Canada

    “As the article states, Argentina came into existence in 1810, when there were no British colonists on the islands. Then in 1833, when there was a resident Argentine population, there was a British invasion.”

    The article is wrong, you are wrong, on so many levels.

    Argentina came into existance in the 1860’s not 1810. In 1811 the Spanish left the islands, the Spanish colony revolted in 1812, at that time they were not revolting against Spain but actually came out in support of Ferdinand, the rightful King of Spain, ousted by Napolean who put his brother on the throne.

    They didn’t revolt against Spain until 1816, when they formed the United Provinces, then they endured years of civil war. When they looked to sign a treaty with Britain, who became the first to recognise them with a treaty of commerce in 1824, they gave a very detailed description of the boundaries of their Country, this included Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia but did not include the Falklands, they did mention about a future intention of taking Patagonia, which they did in the war of the desert when they committed genocide against the native population to free lands where amongst other, my fellow Welshmen colonised for them.

    Britain on the other hand maintained their claim on the Islands from first recorded discivery in 1592 and first recorded landings in 1690. There was almost a war in 1770 with Spain over them after which both Countries maintained their claim.

    The United Provinces made no overt claim to the Islands until 1829, this was protested by Britain and again Britain protested in 1832 when they announced they were sending a garrison which landed in October 1832 and by November had mutineered and murdered their leader, a revolt ended with the help of British and French sailiors. The garrison was told to leave in January 1833, which it did. The British persuaded as many of the settlers there to stay (they had been there with British permission since 1828).

    The United Provinces complained about this until the treaty of Freindship in 1850, after raising the subject anually since 1833, the matter was dropped, settled.

    Settled until the fascist Peron raised it as a rallying call in the 1940’s when he thought Britain was going to be defeated by the Nazi’s.

    Argentina has no claim, they never have, had they then they would have gone to the ICJ, which they refuse, because they have no valid clam.

    The Falklands belong to the Falkland Islanders, not the descendants of Spanish colonists.

    1. Declarations & attainment are very different.

      “… unilateral declaration of independence” (or UDI) is a term commonly used to refer to the unilateral act by
      which a group declares that it is seceding and forming a new state. … many attempts at unilateral secession
      fail, and even those that succeed take time. Thus a declaration of independence is a necessary, but not a
      sufficient, condition for unilateral secession…”

      State Practice and International Law in Relation to Unilateral Secession James Crawford 1997 in Self-Determination in International Law, Quebec and Lessons Learned: Legal Opinions Selected & Introduced 2012

  14. Culle

    As one of the 17 NSGT’s on the UN C24 list, there is no alternative to ‘Self Determination’. History is irrelevant and so is the ‘Vox populi’.

    The person who wrote this article has typically used rhetoric, misrepresentation and half truths in order to dress up a poor and weak argument. Opinions do not affect facts, but facts should affect opinions.

    1. JE Lloyd

      You are comfortable with a settler community of less than 3000 people having sovereign rights of self-determination? Why did the British state agree to impose sanctions on Russia over the Crimea Independence vote? Independence for Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen?

      1. Welshman_in_Canada

        I believe it was because there was no international monitors and very grave concerns on who was allowed to vote

      2. Anonymous

        Yes I am and apparently the UN has as well as it has stated on many occasions there is no alternative to Self Determination for the 17 NSGT’s,. If you have an issue write to the C24 Committee and tell them they have it wrong.

        I am sorry that you obviously feel that the Human rights of 3000 people are not important. And how are these 3000 ‘Settlers’ any different from the vast majority of South American ‘Settlers’.

        Is it because the are a BOT and do not speak Spanish or Portuguese.

      3. Britain imposed sanctions over Russia because of their takeover of Crimea based on a decidedly iffy referendum with no creditable observers. Try typing Tartars into google news and you’ll see how well that is going. The Falklands 2013 referendum on the other hand was properly validated by an international team organised by Canada.

        3000 or 3, self-determination is a recognised human rights. Are you against human rights?

        1. A majority within the Tatar minority might not want Crimea to be part of Russia, but a clear majority of the Crimean population does. Similarly with eastern Ukraine. The majority of people there are Russian and want to rejoin their homeland, this alarms the West because it will strengthen Russia, so we have nonsense about Russian invasions.

          And of course, the Western media turns a blind eye to the fascist and ultra nationalist Ukrainian militias behind the events in the Maidan and elsewhere. Militias armed by the West. But then, the West has a habit of funding and arming nasties – just think Al Qaeda.

          What we have seen with the comments to this post from the BritNat element is a lesson in double standards – ‘will of the people’ to be accepted if it benefits UK/USA/West, but rejected or ignored when it does not benefit UK/USA/West.

            1. I’m sure they’d welcome it, but a referendum would expose the truth. For years now the West and its media has maintained the fiction that the people living there are Ukrainians who prefer Russia to the EU. Wrong, they’re Russians not Ukrainians.

              A bit like the way the BBC and others used to report the Troubles – ‘Catholics’ and ‘Protestants’, to disguise the political, even ethnic, realities.

        2. Carreg

          Therefore, are you happy for the whole of Ireland to vote in a referendum on self determination?

    1. dafis

      I suspect they more likely to be a bunch of myopic Anglo Brit loyalists who just can’t bear anyone suggesting that the victors’ account of history may be just a little bit bent, or casually omits any account that damages their orthodoxy. They probably consume large doses of the output of some propaganda machine, which at least keeps them away from those other dodgy websites.

        1. dafis

          son, lad …… loads of patronising bullshit from a guy who thinks his age confers some kind of superiority. You could have done 70 years of “research” but approaching it with a partisan predisposition rather ruins the whole thing.
          Like you, I’m also retired, probably not far off your age, but still able to approach matters with an open mind. So, I tend to approach documented history with a measure of suspicion – victors writing it and all that – and certainly would avoid naive stances about one side being right and other wrong.
          The Argie episode was a disgraceful period with large doses of lying and pretence on all sides, including the U.S ( whose CIA you say were blissfully unaware, like hell ! ). UK would have done a deal on long term mineral exploitation but with a deranged leader in charge of ARG we ended up with the episode serving other ( domestic ) purposes for an embattled UK government.

    2. Anonymous Powys

      There seem to be three types of people on this thread but it is hard to follow. There is that run by Jac which seems to think the English are to blame for everything that is wrong but nothing that is right. There are those who support a middle line that sees fault on all sides. Then there are those who seem to go further than Jac and ( as a single example) would hand the Falklands to the Argentinians. Not because they have have any real claim, not because the British took it from them, which they did not; but just as their way of annoying those who think that the people who now live their now and have done for nearly 200 years are not entitled to decide their future. Its the same mind set they seem to apply to any country (use the term in its widest sense) that they do not agree with, that is just rank hypocrisy.

  15. Keith Parry

    I was a student in University College of Wales Swansea at the time of the Malvinus war.. I well remember a demonstration against the involvement of Welsh people in this English Empire adventure by Thatcher. Phil Henri was a mature student in Swansea at the time he had a wife from Patagonia and as a proud Welshman was bitterly opposed to this war of Welshmen against Welshman.Totally pointless waste of lives and cause of suffering from terrible injuries
    Today the ghost of Thatcher has come back to life in the shape of May, an English Nationalist Crackpot.

    1. Welshman_in_Canada

      I lived in Swansea at that time, it was such a huge demonstration that I can’t even recall there even being one. Where I lived and worked at that time, everyone was in support of freeing the Islanders and backed the effort of our servicemen.

      It was NOT a war of Welshmen against Welshmen, the only Welshmen involved were on the British side.

  16. Ianto Phillips

    Cor blimey, this article has touched a nerve with someone!
    Not only the normal suspects like Marconatrix hiding behind his weaselling little “I don’t know anything about this” excuses to make his normal snide little – let us be charitable and say comments based on a lack of knowledge and weird, nasty view of Wales- but there is a cohort of nationalists from Britlandshire/England (the same thing, of course) popping up to attack in unison like choreographed synchronised swimmers, spewing forth great obscuring clouds of obscure irrelevant historical facts like a shoal of poisonous squids under the control of the dark establishment,
    Are they all connected?
    Indeed, they could all be the same person!

    Well done, keep it up, you’re obviously doing something right!

    Anyway, I know Jac didn’t write the original article, but thanks to him for contributions on this thread, which have been interesting in themselves.

    1. “Irrelevant” historical facts? Like the fact that Britain claimed the Islands in 1765. Like the one about Spain not getting there till 1767? Like the one that Argentina didn’t even declare its independence till 1816. So tell me child – what are “relevant” historical facts for you?

          1. Ianto Phillips

            Your claim that Britain owns the island because they claimed it in 1765 is a demonstration of spouting irrelevant historical facts, backing up what
            I said. Why would I respond to anything except your amusingly arrogant turn of phrase?

            If that is an example of what you get after years of work, no wonder you have to turn to the establishment for praise about it through backing up their view!

  17. The Earthshaker

    What better way to end a dull Monday than reading a few welsh political blogs and seeing more than 50 comments on the one since yesterday, the majority of them of them whatabboutery in nature suggests a level of orchestration.

    Your guest writer’s touched a raw nerve, it’s almost as if the UK government’s is sensitive over its tenuous hold on the Falklands Islands in the face of a lack of support from the rest of the world.

    The article and comments are fascinating and it’s good to know the blog is reaching a wider audience, keep up the good work.

          1. Ianto Phillips

            Interesting history of the Welsh in Patagonia here for people talking about how imperialism included the Welsh settlement –
            http://web.isanet.org/Web/Conferences/FLACSO-ISA%20BuenosAires%202014/Archive/a95de33f-06fa-4de1-89c0-bdd6328e3bfc.pdf

            Nice quote “The Welsh were in an ambiguous position. They had not supported the Conquest of the Desert and indeed had unanimously agreed to defend the Tehuelche, on Cacique Sayhueke’s written request. The Welsh leader Lewis Jones tried to intercede on Tehuelche behalf, petitioning Buenos Aires, but the Welsh were ignored and were obliged to live with the consequences,”

          1. Using the term extermination was wrong, and so is attempted genocide.

            You came here to defend the British claim to the Malvinas/Falklands; having failed you now resort to insulting the whole Argentine nation – singling out the Welsh component – and concocting slanders about their ancestors having wiped out the indigenous population of mainland Argentina.

            1. Welshman_in_Canada

              My goodness, do you have to be spoonfed?

              How about a Guardian article

              https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/13/argentinian-founding-father-genocide-row

              It’s well documented that Roca attempted genocide to remove the native people to expand his Country which became Argentina. Patagonia was not part of any vice royalty of Spain.

              There is no insult to the Argentinian nation, it is history, it is the past.

              The whole point of bringing up your celebration of the Welsh in Patagonia and the genocide of the indians in Patagonia was to point out your hypocrisy reagrding your stance at home with the English. Not to tarnish todays population in Argentina.

            2. But tarnish today’s population is exactly what you did. As I’ve said more than once, you people just can’t resist going OTT.

    1. Earthshaker – “a level of orchestration” ? Seems the paranoia lies deep in this one.

      Tenuous? No doubt about it it. 251 years so far.

    1. Actually I am defending the Islanders right to decide their own futures. Some of those people can count their families back 9 generations on the islands. Few Argentines can do that.

      1. I agree, few Argentines can trace their ancestry back nine generations in Argentina, other than the indigenous people, of course, who, despite what some have tried to say, were not exterminated. But I seriously doubt if anyone living on the Malvinas/Falklands can trace their ancestry back nine generations either. Not with ‘evidence’ that would satisfy someone other than a Daily Mail reader.

        1. Well, despite your disbelief there are. I met an Islander in June who could trace his family back only 7 generations. Still, something to be proud about. I don’t read the ‘Mail’ – Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Al Jazeera and Reuters in that order.

    2. Welshman_in_Canada

      I don’t defend either, both were wrong.

      Today the people who live in those parts of the world must be free to live as they want.

    3. Ianto Phillips

      Interesting history of the Welsh in Patagonia here for people talking about how imperialism included the Welsh settlement –
      http://web.isanet.org/Web/Conferences/FLACSO-ISA%20BuenosAires%202014/Archive/a95de33f-06fa-4de1-89c0-bdd6328e3bfc.pdf

      Nice quote “The Welsh were in an ambiguous position. They had not supported the Conquest of the Desert and indeed had unanimously agreed to defend the Tehuelche, on Cacique Sayhueke’s written request. The Welsh leader Lewis Jones tried to intercede on Tehuelche behalf, petitioning Buenos Aires, but the Welsh were ignored and were obliged to live with the consequences,”

  18. Welshman_in_Canada

    I still don’t understand the ability to of someone to fight for freedom against oppression from an invader (Wales against England) and celebrate the same in another Country (Indigenous peoples of South America against Wales/Spain/Italy). British colonism was wrong, as was the Spanish colonism that resulted in the South American countries you see today, as was the many invasions and destruction by one Country against another throughout history, always to get the resources or wealth.

    This piece was inaccurate and so one sided, of course it would get a response, it appears that some people are happy to destroy the lives of others, if they are related in any way to a British past.

    I can understand a cause to share the wealth of the Country and fight poverty in all areas, but a “free Wales”, would that suddenly make everything OK?

    Wales has no natural resources, what we had has gone. If Wales was independent, then the complaints would change from London to Cardiff, already people in Swansea hate all the money being spent in Cardiff leaving the rest of the Country to rot. Wales would suffer greatly if independent, but aye, at least we’d be free.

    1. Bob Bendith

      “Wales has no natural resources, what we had has gone.” That’s strange, our water is still flowing to the English cities for free.

    2. JE Loyd

      Pub quiz time. What is the price per gallon that Welsh water is sold to the water companies supplying large parts of southern and central England? A. 20p. B. 18p. C. 15p. D. Nil.

    3. I remember a v good advert for the six nations where a dad & his son are discussing wales’ chances in the forthcoming championship. The dad tells the son not to expect much, after all we’re wales & the 80s/90s teams were still fresh in his memory. The kid says ‘I’m from the grand slam era, all I know is grand slams! This is very much the wales I’m aiming for in all walks of life, because why shouldn’t I? You’re the 80’s rugby team, I’m the 2005.
      As for natural resources, quoting something I read – we have gold falling from the sky, and its only going to become more valuable. Would westminster allow europe to bleed dry a valuable resource for 40yrs without any benefit to england? Would they hell. It’s nothing short of a national disgrace. In relation to our population, we have tremendous resources. If wales owned the skies, mountains & seas we would be transformed.
      We were recently denied devolving legal jurisdiction (a country that had one of the oldest written legal jurisdictions) & we’re now in a position where small magistrates are closing all over.
      This is what the law society said of the legal sector;
      ‘Based on these figures a 1% growth to the legal services market would add £379m in gross value (GVA) added to the UK economy and 8,000 extra jobs’
      Imagine a high court in wales & the benefits this would bring.
      Wales isn’t allowed to grow because of the ‘Cardiff airport can’t be too successful because of bristol’ psyche – & worst of all it has support of ‘welsh’ politicians.
      Wales needs a rude awakening.

  19. Ianto Phillips

    “Wales has no natural resources, what we had has gone.”
    Wales had a tremendous number of natural resources, which were wasted by the “British” empire. The great majority of independent countries do not have a wealth of natural resources. The squandering of our resources by the empire has simply put us in the same position as the great majority of other countries which have siezed their independence without the wealth of resources that Wales had before they were stolen and squandered.

  20. Anonymous

    Why should 3000 inhabitants on a small island have self determination but the Welsh should not? The Welsh are capable don’t you think?

    1. Anonymous Powys

      Why is it people who support an undefined Welsh nationalism or some sort of Independence resort to personal abuse. This sort of thing was used ny the cyber ntas in Scotland who lost a vote their for independence. Why not put it to the vote I have no problem with that a straight yes or no. Wales has some but few natural resources, the same arguments were used in Scotland about natural resources but at the end of the day they dont stack up. That is not Britland talking but just straight common sense from facts that are reported. What would you do with borders, English people living in Wales, Welsh people living in England. Your posturing is becoming somewhat repetitive and I still await, right from the start of this thread, one of you to define who is Welsh or what being allowed to be Welsh would mean. They tried this in Ireland 30 years ago trying to claim that anyone with a one great great grandmother who was Irish could claim Irish citizenship it ended up making being irish worthless. The convoluted nature of the rules in Ireland began to sound like those from Germany in the 1930’s.

      The same attempt was tried in Scotland 2 years ago but there to vote you had to be resident so no Scots in England could vote but people from Iraq and other places could even if they were refugees. Wales and England never mind Britain have been one entity for over 500 years unpicking the ‘joint’ will be hard and not very pleasant as it tends to promote differences. Most of the arguments surrounding Wales for the Welsh centre around the language and culture of small enclaves. This should be supported and encouraged, as shouldd learning the language. This however should not be used as some sort of quasi nationalistic stick to beat people with. Scots Nats and Welsh Nats have in many instances a very dark past (historically speaking) the same sort that has led to blood shed across Europe since the end of WWI (yes One) never mind WWII, please dont let it happen again.

      1. Nothing “undefined” about my nationalism. I want independence for Wales, and as a necessary precursor I wish to minimise the English presence in and English influence upon my homeland. (Where is your homeland, by the way?)

        Your second paragraph says more about you than you might have intended. And you go much too far in equating the Celtic nationalisms with fascism.

        That’s why I detest you people. Any liberation movement that challenges English domination must be traduced and denigrated, yet English imperialism, with its genocides, its concentration camps, its carpet bombing of defenceless cities, is all sunshine and laughter.

        You defenders of this system are hypocrites, so fuck off, you won’t use my blog as a platform for your double standards and your hypocrisy any more.

      2. di-enw

        “Scots Nats and Welsh Nats have in many instances a very dark past (historically speaking) the same sort that has led to blood shed across Europe since the end of WWI (yes One) never mind WWII, please dont let it happen again.”

        I can’t see how you could make that statement unless you were either very ignorant of Welsh, Scottish and British/Anglo centric British nationalisms (and other nationalisms in Europe) or you’re being dishonest.

  21. Is there any point disuccsing with W in Canada? Once he said that Wales has ‘no natuarl resources’ he revealed how ignorant he really is.

  22. JE Lloyd

    The animated posts of the English jingoist community — Junius, W/in Canada and Culle — show that they find “Our Empire Story” and the editorial columns of the Daily Mail as a substitute for real research into the history and issues of international law at stake here.

    As I starting point to illustrate how shaky the claims of the British state are, I recommend the Wikipedia entry as a quick introduction for those who are sufficiently open-minded as to look beyond the diet of propaganda fed to them by the Daily Mail and BBC. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Current_claims

  23. Ianto Phillips

    Ah, now attacking the idea of Welsh independence through trying to insult and demean Wales. If they carry on like this, They may well get a “Queen’s Certificate” for it! Good little lapdogs, yapping away there, throw them a bone and pat them on the head! ????

  24. Carreg

    I’ve not read through the comments, but has anyone mentioned that UK was intending to hand over the Malvinas in 1968?!
    Whatever anyone’s arguments for & against, what this shows is the devastation caused by imperial meddling.

  25. dafis

    “That ‘piece of work’ has just been awarded the Queen’s Certificate. If you can name any ‘omissions’ I would be pleased to address them ????”. Well there you are, beat that !

    Nice work acting as some kind of “official aggregator ” for the supremacist party line, maintaining the integrity of “official history”. As I said yesterday this kind of skill set will be in demand once again when the covers come off the sundry abuse scandals involving the “great and good”. He could be writing well into his dotage. I must confess I will probably read the cleansed accounts of how people’s intentions and acts were misunderstood and misinterpreted and have a little chuckle, almost as though I’d known the bloke.

  26. Reading all these comments on here tell me emphatically that all these Brit nats on here are coming from.a Brit state sponsored source. And I suspect is prob. no more than 1 or 2 people

    1. They won’t be troubling us again. I’m not sure if they all work for the Brit state, but it was definitely orchestrated. What they might do is get Google updates for subjects such as ‘Falklands’ and then they go into action.

  27. Big Gee

    I’ve been away for a few days, and I’ve come back to a feast of shit from the Imperialist colonisers of the dead but not quite buried British (English) Empire. How refreshing to see them writhe in their death throes, but still spitting vile and poisonous venom with their last breath. No sense of fairness, no empathy, no understanding of history, no compassion, no common sense, no sense of decency but they’re still able to prop up their ignorance and arrogance with fatuous excuses for their past actions and present attitudes. A classic example of trying to defend the indefensible.

    For God’s sake Jac pull the plug on the disgraceful twats – they really are not worth the time and effort that decent people on here have spent trying to straighten out their hopelessly kinked thought processes.

    I really don’t believe in coincidences. For a seemingly harmless contribution by a guest writer to attract nearly 200 comments in a matter of a couple of days is quite extraordinary. In my view this is obviously a targeted and concerted effort by a handful of contributors from a common source. I’ve not seen them on here before, and they seem to have appeared all together when the correct ‘touchy’ buttons on a specific subject have been pressed. Interesting isn’t it? So they’re hunting in packs now. Good! Jac o’ the North is obviously gaining traction and attention.

    So now that you know what dog shit you’ve picked up on your shoes Jac, it’s time to wipe them well and wait for the stench to disappear.

    Here’s the message for the three Britlander Cavaliers:

    1. I thought there’d be a reason for your silence.

      These buggers were definitely orchestrated, though whether they are all employees of the same outfit is another matter. It could be just a group jumping into action when they get a Google alert telling them someone has posted something about the Falklands.

      They are now blocked, otherwise we’d be up to 300 comments by now.

  28. dafis

    Gwilym bach, we’ve had the best day for years. There’s no need to restore any kind of foxhunting, hare coursing, badger shooting etc when there’s this lot so easy to flush out. Barkin’ mad most of them with that nice veneer of decency until the pressure gets to them and then it’s back to “well the official record says so , doesn’t it”. Indeed one guy says he wrote the official record and then claimed impartiality ! Pin his tail to the beam in the trophy room. The pleasure I got from being called boy, lad etc was immense. At my age anything that takes me back 60 years is worth putting up with the rest of the patronising abuse.

    Any way, Croeso’n ol, with a bit of luck we’ll get another lot out of their bunkers next week or whenever Jac has a tasty bit of twat-bait to plaster on the site.

    1. Big Gee

      Consider it a veiled compliment then dafis! Albeit from a strange source.

      One of them sounds like ex-military, they have a fondness for that condescending type of narrative, Hey ‘Boy’, ‘Pal’, ‘Lad’, ‘Sonny’ etc. It usually goes with lower rank positions, corporal, sergeant or similar. Not the sort of thing you come across so often in ‘civie street’.

      Perhaps it’s some form of post Islas Malvinas conflict relapse following a bit of Brexit realization ‘Post Traumatic Syndrome’ that they are afflicted with! Could even be a little pocket of dirty tricksters working out of Her (reptilian) Majesty’s centre of government at Whitehall! Who knows – a fair wind after them, scum-bags as they are.

      Chware teg, the old faithful on the Blog held the fort very well I thought – damn – pity I missed the thick of the skirmish, but I don’t think I missed very much, Jac’s army did a sterling job of seeing them off!

      1. Ianto Phillips

        Well, a Colin Wright was given the “Queen’s Certficate” in 2015.

        http://fiassociation.com/article.php/533

        The secretary of the FIA (Falkand Islands Association), and “The FIA’s main purpose is to support the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination and to help to counter Argentine propaganda in advancing its illegitimate sovereignty claim. ”

        If that was our friend, it seems that little sortie was sponsored by the establishment, at least.

        1. dafis

          now Ianto, that’s proper research, well dug ! So delighted that you are able to support my instinctive judgement in this case. A paid apologist with a nicely bundled bag of predisposition and prejudice. Deserved his fu****g certificate !

          1. dafis

            post script – that Colin Wright died last year aged 77. Seems to have been drawninitially to the Falklands pre 1982 by its natural history, flora & fauna, then got wrapped up in the post conflict account alongside many other interests. Definitely not the grim correspondent of the last couple of days.

            1. Ianto Phillips

              Yeah, sorry about that.
              In my defence I wasn’t sure.
              But I am sure now that Junius is Roger Lorton (he’s linked to in a PDF from the above, on Twitter as himself, seems to have written as Junius for Falkandsnews.wordpress.com. (Where he also pops up in comments as “Lordton”, using the distinctive image he used here.)

              Not implying he is trying to keep it secret, mind, or that this implies anything else.

            2. The one commenting as ‘Anonymous Powys’ is David Soutter of UKIP and formerly of Veritas, Robert Kilroy-Silk’s short-lived party. Uses Twitter handle @DavidMilwr. Here’s a tweet from today. Soutter Tweet

            3. And now I’ve had a message to my Facebook page. Facebook threat
              This could be interpreted as a threat, though given the time it was sent, 23:54, I guess alcohol prompted this little outburst. “Pyromaniac”? Was that a band?

            4. And this is timed at 01:18 when, presumably, more booze had got to work. I think we are confronted with a BritNat twat. Roger Lorton Facebook 2

            5. Ianto Phillips

              He does seem to spend an incredible amount of time on Twitter as an apologist for the British position over the Falklands- which is presumably why he was given a queen’s certificate and badge of honour (along with his sterling work as a historian!)
              http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=7321&source=3
              Apparently he now lives in Thailand. I don’t know if the establishment has given him anything else- perhaps the badge and certificate was enough for him! It’s something he does seem to be fond of, boasting about it on twitter between addressing a couple of people as “child”.
              I suppose it shows the way lines can blur between people employed by the establishment to do such things, and those sponsored and encouraged. He does this, it contributes to him getting another scout badge, something he obviously wants.

  29. gaynor

    I really wish that people woudl use their precious time, talnet, energy and creativity in a more positive way than the shit that has been spouted around this particular epistle never read so much bull shit from both sides in my life. If you want a better country and do something about it rather than write rubbish. Dont think any of you have ever been to the country you are all spouting off about anyway.

    1. Big Gee

      I tend to agree with you to a point Gaynor. However I don’t think the ‘bull-shit’ is spread evenly on both sides. Although I could be accused of being slightly biased!

      I think Mr. Soutter is doing himself no favours rolling about in the muddy gutter, given his supposedly dignified and ‘professional’ standing as a politician. Oh dear, dear, it seems the mask is slipping and we’re seeing the true face of the Kipper mob. Little wonder they can’t keep a leader for more than eighteen days!

      I think you’ll find that many of us actually have got experience of the country spoken about, and many of us – including myself – have friends in Patagonia, although I admit I have little experience of the Malvinas – not being a planted sheep shearer by profession!

  30. dafis

    been out for the day doing a few jobs ( i.e tasks, not jobs as in breakin’ an’ enterin’ ) and come back expecting another load of supremacist loonies camped out on Jac’s blog “lawn”. So I’m sort of disappointed that they have buggered off so quickly. Is it the time of the year, do they go into hibernation about now and the antics of the last few days were their last roll of the dice until wakey wakey in springtime ? Aren’t there some types of loonies that stay up all year and can be relied upon to froth at the mouth and trot out stock pro-regime bullshit to keep us entertained ?
    I am so seriously gutted I’m thinking of writing to the Guardian complaining about how the seasons are interfering with our fun, No point writing to the Telegraph as they don’t let people send in comments online any more.

    Check out the website of Cardiff Business Club – apparently an unnamed rep of GCHQ will address the members at an undisclosed venue early next year. To attend you got to figure it out yourself as to where this event will take place – but Jac’s half way there with his signature hat and upturned collar. Go for it !

    1. Those to whom you refer have been blocked. I can only take so much. One of them started sending messages to my Facebook page and Twitter account, which confirmed that I’d made the right decision.

      1. dafis

        and they didn’t have any reserves to call off the bench……. tempting to see that as a positive that the country isn’t quite as awash with such menace and drivel. I thought there was thousands of the little blighters around. Read somewhere that the indoor buggery season had started , somewhere around Cheltenham I think, and they probably intensely focussed on that.

        Maybe we’ll have to return to hare coursing after all for a spot of coarse fun.

  31. Big Gee

    Wow! I must have clairvoyant powers or something similar! No sooner did I mention “. . . the mask is slipping and we’re seeing the true face of the Kipper mob.

    THIS pops up in the news:

    UKIP leadership hopeful Steven Woolfe says he is recovering in hospital after a reported fight at a meeting of the party’s MEPs.

    The party released a statement from Mr Woolfe from his Strasbourg hospital bed saying he was sitting up having undergone a precautionary brain scan.

    UKIP sources said “punches were exchanged” during the row at a party meeting and Mr Woolfe banged his head.

    He was taken to hospital two hours later after collapsing, sources said.

    I wonder if Mr. Soutter has any comments he’d like to make about that? At least we’re civilised enough on here not to drop to the level of actual fisticuffs! Amazing!

    1. Anonymous Powys

      I think were politics descends into the realms of violence for any reason you have to question if the people involved should be involved at all. I have no problem with peaceful protest but when it becomes violent the message is lost regardless.

      1. Don’t get carried away and think I’ve changed my mind. It’s just that Big Gee posed a question to you and so it’s only fair . . .

      2. Big Gee

        How about verbal thuggery? Is that OK as long as you don’t punch anyone? Examples:

        Farrage: “I think if Neil Hamilton ever became leader of UKIP it would be a total disaster”.

        Hamilton: “Wolfe started it, but he got more than he bargained for”.

        I suppose you think that’s acceptable amongst ‘decent’ politicians who happen to inhabit the same party? Or would you advocate that they shouldn’t be involved at all?

        I think the petticoats are showing for all to see. I also think you need to examine more closely where your politicians have crept in from – as dafis suggests below.

        Perhaps we’ve already seen on this blog of late, how your lot views the world. Not nice Mr. Soutter. I can’t erase the image in my mind of rats fighting in a sack.

    2. dafis

      UKIP is just the tip of a nasty iceberg. There’s a lot of nastier shit peddling an assortment of extreme Anglo centred supremacist ideas right across the UK. Thankfully only a small minority here in Wales but showing signs of growth especially among those who think they have had a “bad deal”, rightly or wrongly.

      In Scotland and N.Ireland various groups exist around the usual mix of Orange/loyalist/protestant/ BritFirst and remains of BNP, even NF. These hover among criminal and “tough guy” communities and pop up when contentious “issues” arise locally, like too many mosques in a town that hasn’t been properly English since god knows when.
      Of course our noble correspondents see these as the stormtroopers of their ideal regime working their way through all sorts of non compliant “deviant” groups until there’s nothing left to pick on and then they will start killing each other.

      1. In talking of Scotland and Northern Ireland we mustn’t forget Rangers and their fans on both sides of the water. A very powerful Brit Unionist influence.

        1. Big Gee

          Long live Celtic FC say I . . . . .

          As an ‘on the side dish’ did anyone see our little friend from the Llangennech protest on Question Time tonight? OMG! Not sure if I’ll sleep tonight! Why is the world so full of people like that?

          1. dafis

            penny didn’t drop for me initially who the grotbag was. Felt that Leanne dealt with her without the usual “I know your pain” bollocks, and was even better in swatting the dwarf Cairns ( intellectually stunted ! ) when he started linking Plaid to Meibion and other “men of violence” . Poor Cairns all he has to do is visit this site to realise the huge gulf that exists between Plaid and so called extremists ! Twat !

            1. Who was that clown who said Plaid Cymru means Wales for the Welsh. If only! Obviously the type who’s used to shouting at Johnny Foreigner and now he’s come to Wales to put us in our place.

              All LW had to say was, ‘Plaid Cymru translates as “the Party of Wales” – and all who live here’. But instead of stopping him in his tracks, and making him look the twat he obviously is, she had to waffle until interrupted by Dimbleby . . . and then shouty Michaela Beddows appeared out of the mist.

              I didn’t watch QT of course, I never do, but someone sent me an e-mail with a pic of Beddows and a resume of what she had to say. So I just watched a bit of it on iPlayer.

            2. dafis

              I didn’t catch all of it because we were busy laughing at the shallow dross that was coming out of the entire panel so bits went missing !

              However the show is generally a sad parody of its former self ( or am I getting old ? ) A panel with an Anglo Labour rep when Wales is awash with dozens including Oily Slimy, plus a sad comedian with no evident link to the area ( Rod Gilbert or Elis James from West Wales should have been booked, or they could have wheeled in a failed LibDem who would have been just as funny as Parsons). At least Leanne, Cairns and even Hamilton could justify being there.

              Beddows claiming that Plaid in Carms county was wiping out English medium education was fuckin’ hysterical, but there again as evidenced by other progs such as “the kiss Alan Sugar’s arse” show and Evan Davis’ nightly interuptions of interviewees the BBC are now occupying the seriously dumbed down segment of broadcasting. And they still have the right to whack us for a licence fee.

  32. El Think

    Dear Sir/s

    Good evening from southwestern Chubut, Argentina…

    Firstly…, I want to congratulate you (and the writer) for this excellent article…

    Secondly…, I really enjoyed to read the reaction of what I call the *”Falkland Islands Association’ s Troll Brigade”* on your comment section…
    I have been posting on an English financed site about the Falkland/Malvinas Islands called “MercoPress” for years and I know them quite well…

    Specially Mr. Roger Lorton aka Junius…, a poster that has, through the years, evolved from being a somewhat haughty, opinionated but sincere Englishman to an insufferable double-standarded ditto…

    Good thing that you, northern hemisphere Taffies, were quich in identifying and blocking them Sassenach Trolls…

    Servus
    El Think, Patagonia, Argentina

OK, you've read what I think, now what do you have to say?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.