If you Brexit you bought it

Timeline

First, let's establish what actually happened:

The Falkland Islands were uninhabited when discovered by European sailors.

The first undisputed landing on the island was by a British sailor in 1690. He may have been the first to ever set foot on the island.

The islands remained uninhabited until the French and British established settlements in 1764 and 1765 respectively. These were likely to first ever settlements on the islands, building a whole new civilisation where there was nothing.

The French surrendered their settlement to Spain in 1766.

The English and Spanish co-existed until the British garrison left in 1774, leaving a plaque asserting their continuing sovereignty over the islands. The Spanish garrison also left in 1811.

The islands then had no permanent inhabitants, but were regularly used by (mostly British and American) sealers.

Argentina declared independence from Spain in 1816.

In 1820, Argentina appointed David Jewett, an American-Brazilian privateer as a naval colonel and charged him to "take possession of the islands in the name of the country to which they belong by natural law".

In 1823, Argentina and Britain both gave consent for Luis Vernet, German merchant to start a colony on the islands. He brought settlors, some of them British, and settled on the island in 1828. He agreed to provide regular reports to the British consul and expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement.

Vernet attempted to regulate seal hunting, and worked with British ships to capture and prosecute American sealing ships. The American navy did not take kindly to this and sent the USS Lexington to arrest and remove Vernet, declaring the islands free of all government.

Argentina did not have a permanent representative on the island and this time tried to establish a penal colony under Major Esteban Mestivier in 1831. However, Mestivier's soldiers immediately mutinied and killed him, and the mutiny had to be put down by French and British sailors.

The USS Lexington intervention spurred the British to reassert their claim for sovereignty over the the islands. They arrived in 1832 and repaired the previous British settlement and note of possession. They sent a written request for the remaining Argentine forces to cede their claim leave the island. The Argentine forces, which were 80% British mercenaries, complied without resistance. The British did not expel the existing settlement and actually persuaded the colony to stay.

Since this date, and especially since formal British state authority was installed on the islands in the form of Lieutenant Henry Smith in 1833, the islands have been occupied exclusively by the British government. We are coming up on 200 years.

First come, first served

In summary, the British were the first to set foot on the island 336 years ago. The first British settlement was established 262 years ago, and the British claim is the only one consistently held in the period since.

For context, Argentina only declared independence from Spain 210 years ago. At that time, Spain had no presence on the islands. One of the main Argentine claims is that they 'inherited' the islands from Spain as a 'successor state', but they were not Spain's to pass down. Even if they were, Argentina is far from the only ex-Spanish state in South America. There is no argument as to why the islands should belong to Argentina rather than Uruguay.

If we're looking at who came first, the first Argentine claim of the islands came in 1820, fifty-five years after the first British claim. This claim was never acknowledged by the British, who consistently upheld their existing claim. It also only lasted for twelve years, as the Argentine representative surrendered to the British without resistance the moment they returned and reiterated their claim in 1832.

If we're arguing that the Argentine claim over the islands supersedes the earlier British claim due to there being no permanent British population in 1820, even though the island was used by British sailors, this would itself by superseded by the British successfully re-asserting their claim in 1832, and there being no permanent Argentinian population then or ever since. Whichever rules you apply, there is no way in which the Argentine claim prevails.

Conquest

Outrage over the 'piracy' of 1832 seems to be Argentina's entire claim to victimhood, but there was no invasion. The British just wrote a polite note asking for their sovereignty to be acknowledged, and the Argentines accepted and withdrew. There was no bloodshed, and the existing colony accepted British rule and prospered after 1832. Many of the existing colonists were already British. In fact, many of the Argentine soldiers were British.

If you call that reminder piracy, you have to do the same to a newly independent Argentina hiring a literal privateer to 'take possession' of the islands in 1820. Either it's wrong to seize somebody else's territory, in which case 1820 doesn't count and the islands remained British, or it's acceptable, in which case the 1832 return cancelled it out. The islands are rightfully British either way.

But even if you don't acknowledge the original British settlement, and think the islands were Argentine before 1832, and therefore that the British took them then... that was 200 years ago. The world has changed a lot in two centuries, and most border disputes from that long ago are not still being litigated now.

The US signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830 and relocated 60,000 Native Americans between then and 1838. They only annexed Texas in 1845 and Hawaii in 1893. The continued occupation of stolen land is justified today with the comment that this was too long ago, a different time, there's no use rehashing colonialism today. People have now been living on that land for generations, and it would require another unfair expulsion from their homes to put things right.

Argentina themselves only colonised Patagonia much later in 1870s and 1880s, and they did so with much more violence than the 'piracy' of the Falklands; systematically slaughtering the indigenous population, deporting them from their lands, enslaving them, and importing white European settlors in their place. We would usually call that genocide and ethnic cleansing, but Argentina do not seem to find that history worth relitigating and are more than happy to assert their ownership of Patagonia.

By the way, the position was also settled for some time after the 'piracy' of 1832, when Argentina peacefully surrendered their claim. In 1850, Argentina also signed the Arana-Southern Treaty which ended all possible claims on the Falkland Islands. In the 1860, Argentina leaders indicated that there was no dispute between Argentina and the UK. Between 1850 and 1884, Argentina maps did not show the islands as Argentine. This is a debate that has been manufactured again from 1884 onwards.

Consent

For every other place in the world where a community have been settled for 200 years, we ignore what happened 200 years ago, and do not dream of going back to find out who invaded who and suggest that colonists all pack up and leave. In this case, the Falklands are more justifiably British than Argentine in any case, but usually we don't even have that conversations, and Argentina are very happy not to have that conversation for the rest of the land they have colonised since.

In these cases, we apply the universal principal of self-determination. The population of a territory have the democratic right to choose how they wish to be governed. The answer here is clear without a shadow of a doubt. In 1986, the Falkland Islands Association carried out an unofficial survey of registered votes on the islands and found that 96.45% wished to remain British. In 1994, another poll found that 87% of them would be against any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty in any circumstances.

That settled the matter for almost 30 years, when a dispute over oil exploration led to the Argentine government banning Falklands ships from docking in Argentine ports and a renewed diplomatic campaign to pressure 'renewed negotiations' over their claim. It's worth pointing out at this stage that the concept of 'negotiations' makes no sense. The UK's position has always been that it will respect the will of the islanders. No amount of pressure at state level is going to change that.

In response to those initial votes, in 2011 the Argentine defence minister claimed the islanders were kept as "hostages" on the islands and later suggested that the British military "is the only element that upholds the usurpation of that part of our national territory". This led the governor of the islanders themselves to propose a formal referendum, "so we can solve the issue once and for all".

Another member of their government announced the referendum as follows:

We have thought carefully about how to convey a strong message to the outside world that expresses the views of the Falklands people in a clear, democratic and incontestable way. So we have decided, with the full support of the British Government, to hold a referendum on the Falkland Islands to eliminate any possible doubt about our wishes.

The referendum was observed by representatives from the United States, Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile and New Zealand, who confirmed that it was "free and fair reflecting the democratic will of the voters of the Falkland Islands". The result was even more overwhelming than the earlier surveys: with 92% turnout, 99.8% voted to remain part of the UK. Only three people voted against, and they may have wanted complete independence rather than Argentine rule.

It's unclear what the alternative to respecting that democracy is. If the population wants to remain British, what is Argentina proposing when it asks Britain to 'give back' the islands? Does it want to impose rule over a population that doesn't recognise them by force, as it tried in 1982? Or does it plan to deport them, as it did to the indigenous in Patagonia in 1880s, and give their homes and livelihoods to Argentine settlors who have no connection to the island? Anyone who supports the Argentine claim should make clear which of these solutions they support.

Implants

After the referendum, Argentina switched tack from calling the islands 'hostages' to calling them an implanted population whose views were invalid. However, that just raises more questions. If they favour the latter option above, how would a replacement Argentine population not be equally implanted? In fact, given that the British settlement has been present continually since Vernet in 1820s, a new Argentine settlement would be much more implanted.

Following that thread further, how is the Argentine population in Patagonia not equally implanted, if not more so, given that it came later, and displaced or killed the native population to do so, which the British never did in the Falklands? In fact, how does that not apply to the entire Argentine population in Argentina? It doesn't seem that this is an argument that Argentina can apply in any way.

Neighbourly behaviour

The other claim that the Falkland Islands should be theirs by 'natural law' seems almost entirely driven by geography. It's an almost identical situation to Trump's comments on Greenland: the island should belong to whoever is nearest. The irony is lost on the many Irish people supporting Argentina in this as a reflexive anti-Britishness.

However, as Argentina did not colonise Patagonia until much later, after the British settlement on the islands were entirely secured, it is not correct to say that they were particularly close. If anything, the islands would have bordered the native tribes, some of which Argentina massacred into extinction, or Chile, who claimed Patagonia before Argentina's conquest. Argentines seem happy to boast about stealing Patagonia from Chile, whilst continuing to cry about a peaceful surrender to Britain half a century earlier.

In fact, it has been pointed out that, as the Falkland Islands had been claimed for Britain before any of Argentina had been claimed for Argentina, and certainly before Patagonia had been part of Argentina or any predecessor state, following this 'natural law' or 'geographical argument' to its natural conclusion would mean there is just as much logic in claiming Patagonia as part of Britain, as the nearest neighbouring country, as claiming the Falkland Islands as part of what later became Argentina. That should demonstrate just how weak that logic is.

People also like to point out that the Falklands are far away from Britain, as if this means that they should be awarded to a closer country instead. The response is that, as the Falkland Islands are British, they are no distance from Britain at all. Argentina is also a similar distance from Spain, and by this logic the European settlors there should also leave and go back to their country of origin. If it feels odd that English speakers down in the South Atlantic, ask yourself why it feels natural for Spanish speakers to be there.

Cause and effect

The demands for negotiations for the UK government to 'give back' the islands, against the democratic wishes of virtually the entire population, make it sound that the UK government is holding onto the islands and refusing to let them go, rather than just openly respecting their UN right to self-determination. In truth, if the islanders did want to be independent, the UK government would be more than happy to respect that.

The proof of this is that the UK government actually considered giving the islands their independence shortly before the 1982 war. The British government were looking at a transfer of sovereignty, but were heavily opposed by the Falkland Islands lobby in parliament. Any measure that the Foreign Office suggested on the sovereignty issue was loudly condemned by the islanders, who reiterated their determination to remain British. This is what led the UK government to affirm their position that the islander's right to self-determination was paramount, as above.

Any take on this dispute which calls upon the UK government to 'give back' the islands falls flat not only because of the history, but because the UK government cannot relinquish sovereignty under the principles of democracy. The government is accountable to its people. It does not have the power to sell them out to foreign state. This framing that makes it sound like the UK government are holding onto the islands out of greed or pride or whatever is an Argentine fiction.

In 1975, the UK government sent Lord Shackleton to complete an economic survey of the islands. The Argentine government reacted with fury and refused him access to Argentina. He had to travel by ship, which was fired upon by an Argentine destroyer. The survey had various recommendations on how the islands could be developed to contribute to the UK economy, but the British government did not act on any of these as they did not want to sour relations with Argentina. They have been more respectful than they needed to be, all to try to avoid an unnecessary conflict.

The UK government also gave the islanders a different class of citizenship in 1981, again happy to distance themselves, and only gave them the full citizenship they enjoy today after the war. This is the case for a lot of things. For example, Argentina complain about the military installation on the island, but this was only added after the war, as a direct consequence. It feels a lot like Russia complaining about bordering countries joining NATO. Argentina's war of aggression and constant threats are what have made the peaceful islanders arm themselves, as well as pushing them closer to Britain.

As well as having full British citizenship restored in 1983, the islanders also saw their quality of life improved through investments made by the UK after the war and by economic liberalisation that had previously been stalled for fear of angering Argentina. Argentina made this happen as a direct result of their war, with Britain having previously tip-toed around them and not wanted to rock the boat.

War is not the answer

But even if you ignore all of the above, any diplomatic claim that Argentina might have had to the islands was lost when they chose to do what they did in 1982.

It's worth giving a bit of more recent history here. From 1976 to 1983, Argentina was under the control of a military dictatorship, and in the midst of a devastating economic crisis. The junta staged a coup against the government and killed thousands of Argentine citizens for their political opposition. The Falklands War was started by General Galtieri, who was himself in power for only eighteen months.

He was subject to growing unpopularity at the time, with inflation in Argentina climbing over 600% whilst GDP and real wages fell. The trade unions were gaining more support for a general strike every day, and popular opposition to the junta was growing rapidly. Galtieri aimed to counter public concern over economic and human rights issues with a victory over the Falklands, which he hoped would appeal to popular nationalistic sentiment. It was just a publicity stunt.

If Argentina ever had a diplomatic argument before then, they lost it when they chose to use violence in 1982. They also lost any chance of ever winning over the islanders. The military dictatorship in Argentina invaded their democratic peaceful neighbours, picking on them because they thought it would be an easy conquest, not counting on Britain coming to their aid, and hundreds of people died as a result.

As a direct result of Argentina's defeat at the Falklands, they abandoned a similar attempt to conquer islands held by Chile, avoiding a war there. The military junta's image was shattered, and Argentina returned to democracy a year later, holding a free general election in 1983. The bad guys lost. The junta had themselves killed many Argentine dissenters, and started the war which sent many more young Argentines to die. But modern Argentines seem to have taken the opposite lesson.

Today

Argentina are again in an economic crisis, with inflation out of control, and have a populist right-wing leader in Milei who is using the Falklands to stoke up nationalist support and cover failings elsewhere. His Vice President has referred to the English as pirates for that peaceful transition of land previously claimed 200 years ago. Their football team sing songs about claiming the islands before games and drag out a banner to the same effect afterwards.

South Georgia was entirely uninhabited when it was first discovered and visited by an English sailor in 1675.

It was first set foot on by the British in 1775 and claimed for Britain then.

This claim was not disputed by anyone for 153 years. Individuals of many nations visited the islands and respected the British claim.

Then, suddenly, Argentina decided in 1928 that South Georgia should also belong to them.

There is absolutely no argument there, which shows how empty and manufactured the claim for the Falklands is. South Georgia is much further from the Argentinian coast. It was never under Spanish control, so there is nothing to do with inheriting as a successor state. It was never under Argentinian control, so there is nothing to do with claims of conquest or piracy. They are just colonialists looking to grow an empire.

I'll talk a little bit about what they did in South Georgia in 1982, because that gives the flavour of the start of the war. In March, a group of Argentinians (most of them Marines out of uniform) posed as scrap-metal merchants and occupied an abandoned whaling station on the island. A party set to investigate found that they had established a camp, defaced signs, broken into buildings and removed emergency rations, and shot reindeer in contravention of local conservancy measures. In April, Argentine troops attacked and occupied the nearby settlement, until it was liberated by the British. How is that for piracy?

Fascinating that white Argentinians have the white American disease of believing winning 'independence' means you were on the other side of the indigenous/coloniser divide.

The Falklands have never been a part of Argentina. They were uninhabited when discovered by British sailors. There has been a British population there for hundreds of years. In fact, the inhabitants of the Falklands have lived there for longer than Argentina has been a country. There is no basis on which the Falklands should be part of Argentina, other than that they want it for themselves.

I stumbled across a group Argentina fans mocking Chileans for having stolen Patagonia in the Conquest of the Desert, and at the same time crying at the injustice of not being allowed to do the same to the Falklands, accusing Chile of 'betrayal' for not helping them.

They want to have it both ways! If their invasion succeeds, they will mock you for your weakness and rub it in your faces. If their invasion fails, they will cry forever about how mean you were.

Their national football team are also obsessed with it. In 1986, after Maradona cheated to knock England out of the tournament, he mentioned the 'Malvinas' and blamed Britain for the war. That was at least close to the time. But today's team are also still singing and dancing in the dressing room that they are playing 'for the Malvinas'.

The Argentinian government have even used the match against England as a prompt to start demanding fresh negotiations, with their foreign minister claiming British inhabitants of the islands are a "violation of Argentina's territorial integrity" and that "time does not transform an illegitimate occupation into sovereignty. Nor will it divide the territorial unity of the Argentine Republic."

By the way, the population of the Falkland Islands have a right to self-determination. To resolve any question over their future, they had a referendum on this in 2013, and 99.8% voted to remain a UK overseas territory. A previous vote had been 96.45% for the same result, and another had 87% rejecting "any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty in any circumstances."

The islanders themselves organised the 2013 referendum in the face of the Argentinian defence minister claiming they were 'hostages' on the islands, wanting to "convey a strong message to the outside world that expresses the views of the Falklands people in a clear, democratic and incontestable way" and to "eliminate any possible doubt about our wishes".

Unfortunately, Argentina have continued not to respect this, now claiming that they are an 'implanted' population and therefore 'do not exist'. This is despite there not having been any real Argentine population of the island, meaning that any ultimate take-over would be even more artificial and implanted.

Fascinating that white Argentinians have the white American disease of believing winning 'independence' means you were on the other side of the indigenous/coloniser divide.

The Falklands have never been a part of Argentina. They were uninhabited when discovered by British sailors. There has been a British population there for hundreds of years. In fact, the inhabitants of the Falklands have lived there for longer than Argentina has been a country. There is no basis on which the Falklands should be part of Argentina, other than that they want it for themselves.

I stumbled across a group Argentina fans mocking Chileans for having stolen Patagonia in the Conquest of the Desert, and at the same time crying at the injustice of not being allowed to do the same to the Falklands, accusing Chile of 'betrayal' for not helping them.

They want to have it both ways! If their invasion succeeds, they will mock you for your weakness and rub it in your faces. If their invasion fails, they will cry forever about how mean you were.

Their national football team are also obsessed with it. In 1986, after Maradona cheated to knock England out of the tournament, he mentioned the 'Malvinas' and blamed Britain for the war. That was at least close to the time. But today's team are also still singing and dancing in the dressing room that they are playing 'for the Malvinas'.

The Argentinian government have even used the match against England as a prompt to start demanding fresh negotiations, with their foreign minister claiming British inhabitants of the islands are a "violation of Argentina's territorial integrity" and that "time does not transform an illegitimate occupation into sovereignty. Nor will it divide the territorial unity of the Argentine Republic."

By the way, the population of the Falkland Islands have a right to self-determination. To resolve any question over their future, they had a referendum on this in 2013, and 99.8% voted to remain a UK overseas territory. A previous vote had been 96.45% for the same result, and another had 87% rejecting "any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty in any circumstances."

The islanders themselves organised the 2013 referendum in the face of the Argentinian defence minister claiming they were 'hostages' on the islands, wanting to "convey a strong message to the outside world that expresses the views of the Falklands people in a clear, democratic and incontestable way" and to "eliminate any possible doubt about our wishes".

Unfortunately, Argentina have continued not to respect this, now claiming that they are an 'implanted' population and therefore 'do not exist'. This is despite there not having been any real Argentine population of the island, meaning that any ultimate take-over would be even more artificial and implanted.

Fascinating that white Argentinians have the white American disease of believing winning 'independence' means you were on the other side of the indigenous/coloniser divide.

The Falklands have never been a part of Argentina. They were uninhabited when discovered by British sailors. There has been a British population there for hundreds of years. In fact, the inhabitants of the Falklands have lived there for longer than Argentina has been a country. There is no basis on which the Falklands should be part of Argentina, other than that they want it for themselves.

I stumbled across a group Argentina fans mocking Chileans for having stolen Patagonia in the Conquest of the Desert, and at the same time crying at the injustice of not being allowed to do the same to the Falklands, accusing Chile of 'betrayal' for not helping them.

They want to have it both ways! If their invasion succeeds, they will mock you for your weakness and rub it in your faces. If their invasion fails, they will cry forever about how mean you were.

Fascinating that white Argentinians have the white American disease of believing winning 'independence' means you were on the other side of the indigenous/coloniser divide.

The Falklands have never been a part of Argentina. They were uninhabited when discovered by British sailors. There has been a British population there for hundreds of years. In fact, the inhabitants of the Falklands have lived there for longer than Argentina has been a country. There is no basis on which the Falklands should be part of Argentina, other than that they want it for themselves.

I stumbled across a group Argentina fans mocking Chileans for having stolen Patagonia in the Conquest of the Desert, and at the same time crying at the injustice of not being allowed to do the same to the Falklands, accusing Chile of 'betrayal' for not helping them.

They want to have it both ways! If their invasion succeeds, they will mock you for your weakness and rub it in your faces. If their invasion fails, they will cry forever about how mean you were.

Fascinating that white Argentinians have the white American disease of believing winning 'independence' means you were on the other side of the indigenous/coloniser divide.

The Falklands have never been a part of Argentina. They were uninhabited when discovered by British sailors. There has been a British population there for hundreds of years. In fact, the inhabitants of the Falklands have lived there for longer than Argentina has been a country. There is no basis on which the Falklands should be part of Argentina, other than that they want it for themselves.

Fascinating that white Argentinians have the white American disease of believing winning 'independence' means you were on the other side of the indigenous/coloniser divide.

The Falklands have never been a part of Argentina. They were uninhabited when discovered by British sailors. There has been a British population there for hundreds of years. In fact, the inhabitants of the Falklands have lived there for longer than Argentina has been a country. There is no basis on which the Falklands should be part of Argentina, other than that they want it for themselves.

BERLIN (AP) — France saw around 1,000 additional deaths last week at the height of its record-smashing heat wave, the country's public health agency said Sunday, as the head of the World Health Organization warned that Europe is now the fastest-warming continent and needs to do more to protect its citizens.

Temperature records were toppled in several countries on the weekend, wildfires were sparked in Germany and Berlin police used water cannons to cool down the crowds.

Meanwhile, the heat wave slowly moved toward eastern parts of the continent.

WATCH: Millions in Europe face extreme temperatures from record-breaking heat wave

Germany marked a new record for the third day in a row with 41.7 degrees Celsius (107 degrees Fahrenheit) in Neißemünde, near the border with Poland. The Czech Republic also experienced its hottest day ever with 41.1 C (106.4 F).

A new study from the World Weather Attribution, a Europe-based collaboration of scientists, reported Friday that the record-breaking heat and humidity in Europe this past week would not have been possible without climate change.

There is no way that collective action takes place without individuals making changes in their own lives. Yes, the rich are more responsible than the poor and yes, what we need is systematic change. However, there absolutely are things we can and should be doing to reduce our own impact and put pressure on polluting industries through direct action and boycott.

These include stopping or reducing flying, eliminating or drastically reducing our consumption of meat and dairy, buying second hand where possible, repairing, recycling and supporting environmental action and rewilding efforts. None of this in isolation will mend the world but its a hell of a lot better than passing the buck while refusing to make any changes in our own lives.

I know that the idea that climate change is caused by someone else; somewhere else, and that it’s up to them to change instead of us is seductive rhetoric, but it’s also extremely dangerous. It encourages the kind of apathy that plays directly into the hands of corporations who want us to feel powerless and to continue to consume as we do now.

“In the original press release accompanying the report, CDP said: “100 active fossil fuel producers including ExxonMobil, Shell, BHP Billiton and Gazprom are linked to 71% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions since 1988.”

“This means that the total estimated cumulative greenhouse gas emissions released by human activity (excluding carbon dioxide from land use, land use change and forestry, and agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% of those emissions originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions from producing fossil fuels (like oil, coal and gas), and the subsequent use of the fossil fuels they sell to other companies. Therefore, it might not come as such a surprise that these 100 entities are linked to 71% of human activity-related greenhouse gas emissions, since all 100 are fossil fuel producers.”

Binky sounds like a slur and doesn't tell me what it is at all.

But this is another examples of something I've noted elsewhere, where US terms are often more functional descriptions clearly constructed from other words whereas UK terms can just be bundles of letters with a less obvious etymology, or perhaps the US terms just sound more technical and robotic to a UK ear.

@nacricissa

I knew the UK's southernmost point was parallel to like the northernmost third of France, so I thought "there's no way the UK is larger than 1/3 of France plus all of Belgium and the Netherlands. Scotland must end just slightly south of the northernmost tip of the Netherlands."

But apparently the UK is larger than 1/3 France + Belgium + the Netherlands + Denmark + 1/4 Sweden ????

I actually see it more in reverse: we look at France to the south, separated by sea, and assume we are therefore floating to the north of mainland Europe. But there is an awful lot of overlap, and English people are often stunned to learn that Hamburg, Germany is more northern than Liverpool, England.

Then the continent thing works both ways. I think most English people would assume New York is roughly on a line with London, so it's always a shock to learn just how far south the US is, or vice versa.

Congratulations to the people of Hungary!

President Donald Trump suggested his administration will turn its sights to Cuba after U.S. military operations in Iran are done.

It “will be just a question of time before you and a lot of unbelievable people are going to be going back to Cuba, hopefully not to stay,” Trump told a crowd at the White House.

Feb: Iran

March: Cuba?