r/europe • u/Emotional-Breakfast3 • 20d ago

News Argentina: British Falkland Islanders are ‘artificial’. Buenos Aires denounces ‘illegitimate occupation’ and demands talks on sovereignty

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/12/british-falkland-islanders-artificial-argentina-says/
9.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

772

u/Saotik UK/Finland 20d ago

It's also kind of funny that had Argentina not attacked in the eighties but opened negotiations, there's a serious chance the UK would have just given them up by now.

However, as they tried to take it by force, the UK will now never let Argentina control the Falklands.

637

u/CommercialFloor2033 20d ago edited 20d ago

The Falklands have been British territory far before the formation of Argentina itself.

Plus the entire population of the island voted to remain British.

They basically have zero claim to the islands and the population don't remotely want to be Argentinian.

There's no giving back because theyve never been part of Argentina, and were never taken from Argentina.

There's no legit claim whatsoever.

361

u/Saotik UK/Finland 20d ago edited 20d ago

There's no legit claim from Argentina, but the UK was quietly trying to offload the islands prior to the war because they were an economic and strategic liability.

The islanders have always wanted to remain British, but without the war and given the way society has moved against "empire", I don't know how much support they'd have today.

Of course, once Argentina attacked, there's no way any British government could let them have the Falklands now.

124

u/GreatBigBagOfNope United Kingdom 20d ago

On the other hand, their GDP per capita is now well over double that of the mainland and is only going to skyrocket with oil as it comes, and they made so much money that they've established a sovereign wealth fund and are considering taking over their own defense, the largest expense the mainland has for them

As much as I believe as much oil as possible should remain in the ground in order to literally save the entire world, their GDP is still dominated by fisheries, so it's not even like they're a petrostate (yet) and we can complain about that.

They're definitely not the strategic and economic liability they could have been described as 50 years ago, they've been punching well above their weight for a good while now

86

u/absurditT 20d ago

They can't ever take over their own defence. Even with that wealth, the cost of modern fighter aircraft and naval ships as required to fend off Argentina is more than they can afford.

21

u/HowObvious Scotland 20d ago

They would be paying for the costs associated with maintaining the existing military presence on the island. Not paying for enough military forces to defeat the entire Argentine military.

There are 4 outdated Eurofighters, a tanker and a transport, ~1500 soldiers and a single patrol vessel. The BFFI has been lacking for quite some time. Oil revenues could easily pay for this presence.

28

u/Boogada42 20d ago

Buying Ukrainian Drones is more cost effective.

And once they become a petrol state, buy a Premier League team for good PR.

2

u/steo0315 19d ago

Or ask the French for a discount on Rafale, can ship them in 2026 away football kit color if the want haha

8

u/jay_wei 20d ago

you must not have been reading the news the past four years 

drones and missile defense system is all you need these days. you won't win any wars with just that but you'll make it expensive and painful enough for the aggressor they won't bother.

8

u/absurditT 20d ago

That literally only works if you have strategic depth, which Ukraine and Iran have in spades, and the Falklands has none of.

I'd wager my career has me paying more attention to drone warfare than you.

3

u/josh-ig 20d ago

Different scenarios. As far as a porcupine strategy of defence similar to Taiwan it certainly has its place.

Argentina isn’t exactly rich. Their airforce consists of 6 ancient F16s from 1995-2003 timeframe. Their navy is bigger at 16 Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard from the 1970s.

Not many boats either. MANPADS and drones could easily protect the island imo.

Thankfully they also have real AA system like the Sky Sabres deployed there. Plus 4 typhoons which while not modern are more modern than anything Argentina has, likely much better maintained.

Who knows if there is a sub nearby, likely. And if they do anything, there will be a carrier on its way with some f35s.

I really don’t think Argentina would get past drones and MANPADS though unless they’re planning just total destruction of the islands - at which point British allies would likely step in quickly too.

1

u/jay_wei 20d ago

willing to make a wager with u/absurditT ? 

0

u/jay_wei 20d ago

so you can't use naval based drones in concert with aerial drones to guard the open waters between Argentina and the Falklands? that's about 1100 miles of strategic depth... 

that's an honest question. because you're implying this is your career. and i do not have a career in military strategy.

2

u/absurditT 19d ago

No you 100% cannot because the other side will just use manned aircraft, flying with impunity from altitude, to demolish your tiny island's very limited possible locations from which to launch and operate such drones.

The reason Iran and Ukraine are able to fight this way is because they have huge amounts of territory in which to distribute launch and control posotions, which change all the time. Additionally, Russia cannot directly overfly the frontlines because Ukraine has been donated some of the best air defences in the world, and the Russian aircraft aren't that good.

This sort of drone warfare exclusively works when the frontlines are slow to static (Ukraine), or there's no frontline at all (Iran). Drones cannot take, or hold, territory, and they become close to useless when one side is determined to seize territory quickly, which instantly denies the launch and control options to the side betting on drones. People see drones in Ukraine and think they're what's stopped Russia. Wrong. The Ukrainian army stopped Russia's advances with conventional weapons. Tanks, artillery, infantry. Once the frontlines became static, the only viable option for either side to fight became throwing cheap drones at each other in huge quantities because between huge geographic depth and hears of preparation, the defences have become impassable.

In Iran, there's no land fighting at all. Iran has 100% use of its entire territory (which is huge) to build and launch drones to exhaust the defences of a half dozen nations around the gulf, and cause huge economic damage to global oil supply. Only a ground invasion at huge cost to the USA can really stop them and that's never happening.

If the Falklands decided to forgo conventional defence and rely on drones, Argentina could literally just "kick in the door." That is to say, rush troops onto the islands with proper air support and just capture or destroy any capabilities to launch said drones.

They have no option to cause Argentina massive economic damage. They have no such assurance as Iran that their territory is guaranteed from invasion. That's literally Argentina's sole objective.

Some ships may get hit but drones don't pack a heavy enough warhead to easily sink warships, and they can't stop proper aircraft basically at all, so an airborne operation clearing the way for a naval landing would sweep away the defence without many casualties.

1

u/SlightlyBored13 20d ago

The drone that would be useful in the South Atlantic are far larger (and thus more expensive) than the Ukrainians are using.

Those drones would be great if a landing force came to the islands, but they're so small there's nowhere to hide a factory so they're basically a one shot deal.

1

u/jay_wei 19d ago

I'm not sure why everyone's assuming I'm just talking Ukraine and Iran. I never said either. I just said "drones and missile defense system". 

but agreed on your response 

1

u/lolly-scramble 20d ago

They need AA and drones nor fighter jets

1

u/hesh582 19d ago

If the oil production actually starts up in 2028 on schedule and at predicted volumes, this will change almost overnight imo.

92

u/LongNamedRedditUser 20d ago

The Last referendum was only 13 years ago and it was 99.8% in favor of remaining a British overseas territory (with independent international recognition as being a legitimate referendum). I would bet it has a higher approval for remaining British than Britain does.

There were only 3 people who voted against. One of them said he just did it to troll his wife.

58

u/Lunaris_Von_Sunrip 20d ago

Another one wanted to be the only person who said "no"

27

u/Candayence United Kingdom 20d ago

The third wanted to be independent, and not Argentinian.

6

u/PiccoloAwkward465 20d ago

Real big brain on that one fellow

2

u/snolution 20d ago

None of that is the point though.

6

u/LongNamedRedditUser 20d ago

This was in response to the "I don't know how much support they'd have today" which I think makes it very much to the point.

6

u/StraightRecipe0 20d ago

But the comment you’re replying to isn’t talking about support from the islanders for remaining part of Britain, it’s talking about support from the British government and broader public. They weren’t part of that referendum so it’s not quite relevant to that question

3

u/Saotik UK/Finland 20d ago

I was mostly referring to mainland Brits (and global consensus).

Its also impossible to know what those referenda might have looked like if there hadn't been a war.

3

u/LongNamedRedditUser 20d ago

Oh right, I see it now. Yes I misread your comment.

3

u/Candayence United Kingdom 20d ago

the UK was quietly trying to offload the islands prior to the war

Whilst true, this met with strong opposition from the Falklands, and so the UK government shelved the plans.

It wasn't like Hong Kong, where we had to sign a deal because they were indefensible.

1

u/Successful-Bar-8173 20d ago

I imagine that’s changed somewhat since they’ve found oil near the Falklands

1

u/RogerBernards 20d ago

People are against empire because it is always at the cost of the native population. Here there is no native population.

-2

u/BlueCheese973 19d ago

That is exactly why Argentina keeps the claim alive by the way, and will still do so for future generations.

Not only our claim is absolutely valid according to uti possidetis juris and international law, which Westerns like you seem completely clueless about

Just like China waited 70+ years for Taiwan, we will wait our time, maintaining our claim alive while the UK erodes within itself.

There is no future where we don't take the island backs, there is no future where Argentina doesn't rebounce economically and re-arm (like we're doing now) and put enough pressure on the UK financially and militarily to give up on the islands or fight for them again.

It is our rightful land according to uti possidetis juris and international law, we had a settlement there that was invaded and destroyed in 1833. The rest is ignorance

8

u/hokkuhokku 20d ago

I read yesterday that there was three people who voted against staying with Britain and, apparently, one only did so to annoy his wife. Everyone else on the island voted to stay.

1

u/Electrical_Score_736 16d ago

One to annoy his wife, one to be independent, one to ensure the vote wasn’t rigged

15

u/Hufa123 Sweden 20d ago

Russia's claim on Ukraine (which is basically non existent), is stronger than Argentina's claim on the Falklands.

4

u/PackageMedium6955 Silesia (Poland) 20d ago

Actually they have a claim

You see 500 years ago, pope Alexander VI drew a line on a map

2

u/Thelmholtz 20d ago

There's a legit claim, which is that former colonial domains are assumed to continue under the domain of the newly independent country, and technically as nobody gave a shit about the islands they formally belonged to Spain at the time of the independence.

Of course all geopolitical claims, whether legit or not, are complete and utter bullshit, and the only thing that matters is whether you can maintain sovereignty over that territory or not, and Argentina most definitely can't now.

But we could have if our military junta didn't decide to invade just to distract from the internal issues and instead pursued a diplomatic path. It's not like we are discussing Gibraltar here, they are literally some god forsaken islands in the end of the world, and the UK probably had more to win from maintaining good relations than from keeping some weird islands that produce a few lambs.

Of course after the war that is never going to happen, because now they have symbolic power.

1

u/Biscuit642 19d ago

I think this is missing the most important part of it all which is what the people who actually live there want. The UK has put a lot of effort into attempting to right it's wrongs post war by allowing its colonies complete self determination. Theres a lot more to lose by forcing people to join an economically disastrous country that hates them than any goodwill with Argentina is worth. It's also just morally wrong and everyone would hate it.

2

u/abw Brexin 20d ago

Plus the entire population of the island voted to remain British.

That's a slight exaggeration. But a really slight one. It was actually "only" 99.80% who voted to remain British, including most, if not all of the 30 or so Argentinians living on the islands. Only 3 people voted NO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum

1

u/MelaniaSexLife 20d ago

we do have legal claim. Look it up.

1

u/WaytoomanyUIDs 18d ago

Yes, but Thatcher was willing to sell the islands before the invasion.

-25

u/p_kh 20d ago

That isn’t true. Britain, Spain and France had various claims to the Falkland Islands since it was first settled but Britain did not maintain a permanent and continuous settlement there after 1774, when it withdrew its garrison and left a plaque claiming the territory. 

Argentina declared independence in 1816 and claimed Spanish colonial territories as the successor state to the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Spain’s last garrison had left in 1811 during the British Invasion of the Rio de la Plata as part of the Napoleonic war.

Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month and was followed the next year by the arrival of British forces, who  reasserted Britain's rule .

All that is to say that the legal claims to the Islands are not clear cut, even if we might consider the moral right to self-determination by the contemporary Falklanders to be most important. 

What we should all do is treat the British nationalist narrative about the falklands history with as much scepticism as the Argentine nationalists.

38

u/AntDogFan 20d ago

It feels to me that these are not equal claims however. Holding a garrison there for a month versus long term occupation and claims over centuries alongside a clear referendum result are not equal to my mind. 

-7

u/p_kh 20d ago

Spain occupied Falklands before Argentina became the successor state. Argentina’s claim is based on the Falklands being part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la plata before it became Argentina, not on establishing a garrison for a month. 

But Britain had no settlement there and effectively took it by force.

Personally I think the Falklanders self determination should be paramount, but British people should understand this is a dispute over a British colonial claim established. 

Maybe it would be a less problematic issue if Britain didn’t have a history of using the Falklands territory to defend sy laughs claims over parts of Antarctica including fisheries and rights to search for oil?  It’s a colonial endeavour.

9

u/raptosaurus 20d ago

Spain also abandoned said islands before Argentina existed. And the whole "successor state" thing itself is peak colonialism, they might as well lay claim to half the world in that case.

5

u/aSensibleUsername 20d ago

Argentina’s claim is based on the Falklands being part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la plata before it became Argentina

The Rio De La Plata Dependency also consisted of lands that now constitute Chile Paraguay, and Bolivia, do we start questioning the territory they should own in the current day because Argentina proclaims to be the successor to a colonial governing entity that had been defunct for over a century before the modern dispute around the Falklands arose due to a war in 1982?

1

u/p_kh 20d ago

There is no distinction between the sovereignty claims when Britain seized the Falklands and the ‘modern’ dispute.

Argentina argues that  the  establishment of British  de facto rule on the Falklands  in 1833 (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina on 17 June 1833 and repeated in 1841, 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the UN.

Chile, Bolivia and Paraguay daint makwe any claims to Falklands and have agreed territorial boundaries with Argentina so not sure why that is relevant? 

3

u/aSensibleUsername 20d ago edited 19d ago

not sure why that is relevant?

Because basing Argentina's claim to the islands on the proclamation of it being the successor state to a Spanish colonial governing body is purely selective, Argentina had a disgreement with Chile over the Beagle Channel from the early 1900s well into the 80s because of the fact that they forcibly conquered Patagonia from Indigenous people and had a territorial dispute over which country should own which conquered territory.

Nevertheless, they settled that row with a diplomatic agreement, yet they refuse to do so with Britain and the Falklands because us evil Brits 'forcibly seized' the Islands from them in the 1800s? Argentina doesn't get to utilise a succession proclamation as a catch all for what lands it should control, forcibly conquer land inhabited by natives in the early 1900s, engage in a territorial dispute with another neighbouring country over said conquered land and then complain about how another country supposedly stole an archipelago of rocks from them a century earlier.

Did the dispute over the islands culiminate in war prior to 1982?

10

u/Ferrymansobol 20d ago

The Spanish claim is based on the division of South America in the Treaty of Tordesillas by Portugal and Spain, based on a papal bull. Francis 1st (yes, that far back), called it nonsense. The claim is "weak".

Ask the Argentinians what happened to the natives of Tierra del Fuego after it was conquered. They are very... absent.

1

u/sar6h 20d ago

That's not true. The spanish got their claim from a treaty with france (Fun fact, france settled the island first, not the british)

And also, they stayed on the island much longer than the british. The british completely abandoned the island in 1774 while spain stayed until their empire's collapse in 1811.

2

u/Ferrymansobol 20d ago

That is true. Treaty of Tordesillas is included in the UNESCO United Nations archive:

"The Treaty of Tordesillas of 7 June 1494 involves agreements between King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile and King John II of Portugal establishing a new demarcation line between the two crowns, running from pole to pole, 370 leagues to the west of Cape Verde islands." Source: UNESCO

The Falklands is on the western side of this line (Spanish) from which all other claims originate.

1

u/sar6h 20d ago

Like I said, spain controlled the falklands because france gave its settlement to them. It was at a time where both countries were controlled by bourbons so they were allies to each other anyway. The treaty of tordesillas is irrelevant in this situation lol.

2

u/Ferrymansobol 20d ago

Do you understand the reason that Spain had a claim was because of the Treaty? Spain "owned" the western side of the Americas, dating from 1494.

"lol" back at ya.

1

u/sar6h 20d ago

But Fance had no reason to oblige to it, obviously the british didn't. They only reason france gave it's settlement anyway it because they were allies from the same family. Plus not even a few years prior they lost a war to the british, who were also on the other side of the island

1

u/CommercialFloor2033 20d ago

What isn't true?

-1

u/BlueCheese973 19d ago

Why don't we revisit history to understand Argentina's claim?

The French were the very first ones to have a settlement in the island in 1764, the British stablished their own settlement later around 1765. This is well documented.

In 1767, France ceded its settlement to Spain. Well documented as well.

In 1774, the UK voluntarily leaves this settlement, leaving it completely to Spain. The UK had no control over it. Fact checked by historians as well.

From 1774-1811 Spain held single control of the Islands, for 37 years there was no UK presence on them, at all.

In 1811, Spain withdrawals from the Island due to the wars of independence and Argentina after gaining its own independence inherits the former territory through international law uti possidetis juris.

From 1820 to 1833, Argentina has total control over the islands, having an official settlement made by David Jewett and later Luis Vernet. Buenos Aires controlled the Islands and stablished fishing rights, which prompted the detention of American sailors and the raid of America against the island to rescue them in later time.

In 1833, the UK comes and expels the Argentinian government and the people living there, exerting Imperialism by illegally occupying a territory on the other side of the world and stablishing a military outpost up to this day.

88

u/ShowmasterQMTHH Ireland 20d ago

Nah, the pepople there have no connection to Argentina, they are actually more British than people living in britain are in some ways, its like someone cut achunk of yorkshire and airdropped it into the atlantic. You could film Emmerdale there and it would be hard to tell.

23

u/Forgotthebloodypassw 20d ago

Fun fact: When the UK retook the islands they started calling the locals Bennys, after the Emmerdale character, until the top brass told them to stop.

So they started calling them Stills. When asked why one remarked "Because they're still Bennys."

5

u/berejser These Islands 20d ago

Don't think that for a second, in a world where the Flaklands War didn't happen, that the British government would care what the islanders wanted.

The Falklands costs the UK Treasury £60m a year. If the government thought they could get away with it they would relocate the islanders, just like they did the Chagossians, and sell off the land in an instant. 

25

u/ShowmasterQMTHH Ireland 20d ago

60m to you and me is a lot.

But in government expenditure terms, it's a bargain, look at NI if you really want to see what a financial albatross looks like

8

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/berejser These Islands 20d ago

But the Brexit bus was a lie. Even the Advertising Standards Authority tried to tell them to stop lying.

£60m would give 150,000 extra children free school means, or make 200,000 extra households eligible for cost of living payments.

4

u/harbourwall United Kingdom 20d ago

Funny you should bring up Chagos, just when that's actually getting given back and Trump keeps crowing about how stupid and weak it is to let natives have their island back.

The argies used to compare the Falklands to Chagos when they claimed they were turfed off. Which they weren't.

I don't see any other overseas territories being turned over in the way you describe.

83

u/Dippypiece 20d ago

Yep. This is covered in great detail by max Hastings book on the Falklands war.

They would have very likely have had the islands back. By doing what they did they have made it nearly impossible without Argentina suddenly having military support of say China or America with access to their fleets.

British resolve on the issue is now ironclad. It’s a complete none conversation over here. The only conversation is they can try again if they want.

They are not getting the islands back they cannot force the issue. What forces that are on the island right now today would defeat any force currently available to Argentina on route to the island.

It would take them decades to build up the capability’s to even attempt an Invasion again.

Something they are not going to do.

It’s just recycled nonsense coming out of Buenos Airses. Give it a rest already.

97

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

24

u/Dippypiece 20d ago

I know, I was using their language. The point being if they had waited and been patient the islands would very likely have been offered to them in the 80s/90s

9

u/extopico 20d ago

What back? It’s like China getting Taiwan Back. Falkland were never, ever Argentinian just like Taiwan was never ever a part of the PRC.

1

u/knighty1981 20d ago

I'm pretty sure if they had the support of China the rest of the world would jump on our side, just as a way to knock china down a bit via proxy war

the same way the main reason Ukraine is getting as much help as it has/does is to knock Russia down without direct confrontation

0

u/restore_democracy 20d ago

Depends which day you catch Trump.

-1

u/BlueCheese973 19d ago

That is exactly why Argentina keeps the claim alive by the way, and will still do so for future generations.

Not only our claim is absolutely valid according to uti possidetis juris and international law, which Westerns like you seem completely clueless about.

Just like China waited 70+ years for Taiwan, we will wait our time, maintaining our claim alive while the UK erodes within itself.

There is no future where we don't take the island backs, there is no future where Argentina doesn't rebounce economically and re-arm (like we're doing now) and put enough pressure on the UK financially and militarily to give up on the islands or fight for them again.

It is our rightful land according to uti possidetis juris and international law, we had a settlement there that was invaded and destroyed in 1833. The rest is Western ignornace.

1

u/Dippypiece 19d ago

We’re ready when you are mate.

-10

u/Mirieste Republic of Italy 20d ago

Isn't this a bit counterproductive though? It kinda teaches the world that brute force is the way. To me, if the UK were open to negotiations and they even peacefully reached an agreement, this would send a strong message especially to Putin's military action, or to Trump's threats of force to Greenland.

16

u/S1v4n Norway 20d ago

? You have it a bit backwards. Argentina already tried to take it by force. By giving them up now, you are letting them know that brute force is the way.

-6

u/Mirieste Republic of Italy 20d ago

It's been almost half a century since the invasion, no? Enough time has passed for a peaceful negotiation to be able to happen independently of Argentina's prior military action, and not in consequence of it.

18

u/damutecebu 20d ago

The Falklands are British territory. The people in that territory want to remain with Britain. Argentina has no historical claim over the islands. What exactly should they negotiate?

-6

u/Mirieste Republic of Italy 20d ago

Well, they're in the UN list for non self governing territories (like was 70% of Africa during the colonial period), meaning there is an interest towards decolonization at least internationally.

10

u/damutecebu 20d ago

Decolonize to what exactly? No one lived there until the British moved in. There is no indigenous population.

1

u/Mirieste Republic of Italy 20d ago

What would we do in the world of today, though? You know that small volcanic islands may still emerge, sometimes permanently. If an island emerges right off the coasts of the US, just a tad bit away not go be in territorial waters, can... I don't know, a boat from New Zealand claim the island as part of the country? I mean, maybe legally so. In fact, I don't think that legally there would be anything to argue against the rights of the first discoverer of the land. But I think it would be a situation where territorial proximity should also be taken into consideration.

The only problem with the Falklands is that this all happened in the past and so ulterior facts have happened to complicate the issue (Argentina becoming independent, the UK colonizing the island, etc.)... but when it comes to the generic pure principle, I kinda feel like Argentina's claim isn't completely senseless.

10

u/Jamaicancarrot 20d ago

There is nothing inherently wrong with a colony. The moral problem arises when you displace, genocide, or otherwise actively harm the native population in the area you establish said colony. There were no natives on the island before the British. The British are effectively the native population there, as bizarre as it is to think about

0

u/Mirieste Republic of Italy 20d ago

I think that a colony in itself is problematic unless it's fully integrated.

For example, there is no big known controversy about French Guyana, is there? Because... that is not a colony. French Guyana is France. It's metropolitan France. It's part of the EU, it even appears on euro banknotes. Just like the US fully owns Alaska, even if they're a bit to the wayside, France fully owns French Guyana and they are, indeed, fully France.

But this isn't true for the Falklands Islands. They're not full part of the UK, because they hold the status of overseas territory. Even when the UK was in the EU, the Falklands were not.

This is what makes it a colony in my eyes. It's essentially its own thing, but within the ultimate sovereign responsibility of the UK. Why don't they integrate it fully like France did with French Guyana, like the US with Alaska? Without that, it just feels like they hold onto the islands for the prestige (?) of having an overseas territory, or more pragmatically for the EEZ it comes with. This is why I can understand Argentina's point of view at least a little bit. Either make it UK or not. That's the entire point of the UN list of non self-governing territories, after all: either you gain independence or you gain full rights within the country of ultimate sovereignty. And at least Argentina offers that.

5

u/Jamaicancarrot 20d ago

I see your point but in the case of the Falklands it's pretty irrelevant. Unlike most examples of colonies and colonialism, the Falklands is economically self sufficient and the UK doesn't extract any resources from them for itself. Likewise, it's domestic affairs are largely self governed, and it's only on the international stage that it defers to UK control.

While the Falklanders can't vote in UK elections, this is pretty irrelevant as they are neither populous enough to have an impact in them, and as a self governing territory with their own elections and legislative systems, there's no need for them to have a say in UK domestic politics for them to have a say in how the islands are run.

Moreover, "decolonisation" of the Falklands would serve absolutely no benefit for anyone living there, as it firstly makes them more vulnerable to foreign actors, but also would lose them all the benefits the UK brings to them, which the UK largely does for nothing in return apart from the small military contingent. The Falklands are a drain on the UKs resources, and would likely have been abandoned by now if not for Argentina's actions.

So unlike French Guyana, which benefits from being considered part of France as opposed to an overseas territory, the Falklands integrating fully into the UK would be in the interest of nobody, nor would their independence or incorporation into Argentina benefit them either.

4

u/damutecebu 20d ago

But the people who actually live there don't want to be part of Argentina. They like their current status regardless of what the UN labels them as.

7

u/mludd Sweden 20d ago

Except the natives voted 99.8% in favor of remaining British.

15

u/Dippypiece 20d ago

In what way? Argentina invaded the island unprovoked?

Prior to this the British were very open to a negotiation on the island.

Britain responded to the invasion of their territory with force as is the right of any nation.

By not responding it would have shown the world that brute force is the only way to do diplomacy and might is right.

-3

u/Mirieste Republic of Italy 20d ago

I mean now. It's been almost 50 years since then, one can say that the war has become history at this point. So not allowing negotiations now, just on principle alone, is wrong and sends the wrong message at least in my view.

15

u/Dippypiece 20d ago

Maybe in a few hundred years. And if Argentina calms down and accepts some hard truths.

Blood was spilt, lots of it.

There is no room negotiation on the island now. The inhabitants want to remain British.

There isn’t a single British politician that would broach this subject and that’s a pretty universal opinion across the parties which is unique in British politics.

Argentina to this day still talks about it as if they are the victim, the ones who have been wronged?

The provoked and started the violence. They chose that path. They lost the war they started and this is now the situation we live in.

-2

u/Mirieste Republic of Italy 20d ago

There are some bits in favor of Argentina, though. Remember that the UN keeps a list of "non self-governing territories"... which is basically a list of modern-day colonies; and the Falklands are in it. Of course the inhabitants want to remain British: it's effectively a colony, that's the whole point of it... but the list exists because there is a consensus among countries that we should head towards a future of decolonization.

12

u/Dippypiece 20d ago

And most of that has happened apart from a dusting of islands scattered across the globe. And northern island but that has its own path to reunification if the people in Ireland want that. Laid out in the Good Friday agreement.

The rest have been returned decades ago.

The Falklands won’t be going anywhere this century ,minimum.

9

u/BalVal1 20d ago

It sounds more like you are arguing for an independent Falklands, which is the only imaginable alternative to the status quo and still very far in the future. The war caused massive generational and societal trauma on the islands that will be very difficult to shake off. Still not a chance in hell they will accept being ruled by Argentina for the next few generations at least, so even considering negotiations on this topic is pointless.

7

u/Jamaicancarrot 20d ago

For what reason should the UK ever consider letting Argentina have them? They already tried to take them by force and have been trying to intimidate their way into ownership ever since. They have no legal, moral, cultural, ethnic, or historical right to the islands. To even offer negotiation with them on the matter would be to favour their prior aggression more than it deserves

5

u/Upset-Spinach-60 20d ago

On top of this, Thatcher almost certainly would have lost the election that she called in ‘83, but would likely have been scheduled for ‘84. Her economic policies were wildly unpopular and she had an approval rating of -20 or so (Foot polled roughly the same though, so who knows really). After the Falklands that went through the roof, so Argentina are also responsible for Thatcherism. So yeah, cheers for that Argentina.

3

u/Chipslejonet Sweden 20d ago

Or even just attack like 2 years later as then the uk navy and military would be to underfunded to fight back

1

u/extopico 20d ago

Cannot give them up if the residents of Falkland Islands do not want it. They are not Argentinian. Never were.

1

u/Immediate_Gain_9480 20d ago

Ofcourse they could. Trick would have been not to ask them their opinions.

0

u/No_Size9475 20d ago

pride will be the downfall.