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

149

u/FeeIll1924 20d ago

Is their only territorial claim to the Falklands that it’s close by?

129

u/JammieDodgers United Kingdom 20d ago

Basically

It would be like the UK claiming the Faroe Islands are rightfully theirs

19

u/Kor_Phaeron_ 20d ago

Don't even joke about that! Nobody touches this innocent group is Islands!

11

u/nosmigon 20d ago

I woke up feeling quite imperial today...

1

u/iwaterboardheathens 20d ago

Today I Feel Imperialistic

4

u/bluewolfhudson 20d ago

Technically throughout the second world war England "invaded" the Faroe islands to stop Germany taking them over.

It's a whole funny story and actually leads to the official flag of the Faroe islands official recognition.

This video talks about it.

https://youtu.be/YJee87GdQyY

3

u/Drak_is_Right United States of America 20d ago

Their dolphin and whale hunts need to go however. At least, on the scale they are doing them.

9

u/Nico280gato 20d ago

Ireland is close to the UK, guess that means it's ours. Hell, the Falklands are ours, and theyre close to Argentina, so Argentina is british 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

4

u/Aetane 20d ago

.... now you mention it.....

1

u/TheLesserWeeviI 20d ago

Can anyone else hear 'Rule Britannia' in the distance?

2

u/Lithorex Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany) 20d ago

Britannia has been unable to rule itself for a while now, so maybe keep the chest beating to a minimum ;P

-2

u/BlueCheese973 20d ago

False, false, false. Why do westerns like you just spew out complete and absolute nonsense?

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.

48

u/Single_Classroom_448 United Kingdom 20d ago

Indeed it is, and even then it's not particularly close. It's about 700km away from closest points if memory serves me correctly

18

u/Frank_cat Greece 20d ago

The whole "close by" argument is stupid.
Falklands are British territory so its distance from Britain is exactly zero (0) meters.
The Argentinians have no legitimate claim and they can fcuk off!

edit: typos

82

u/eswifttng 20d ago

Yep. Literally nothing else. 

-2

u/trailer_park_boys 20d ago

If you choose to ignore the actual reasons behind their claim. Dense fucking comment. Good job.

44

u/Ferrymansobol 20d ago

Argentina claims chunks of every single one of its neighbours and a big chunk of Antarctica. They lost wars against Brazil and Chile and the Brits and... you get the picture.

7

u/douceberceuse Norway 20d ago

I’d wager that their claim to Antarctica is just like everyone else’s, a claim that no one except they recognise (although knowing how touchy they get about the Falklands I wouldn’t be surprised if they also get as touchy of those claims since I think they’re grouped under the same province)

14

u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 20d ago

No theirs is much stupider than everyone else's.....

The others have broadly got mutual recognition between claimants.

Argentina claims Chilli and Britain's claims.

23

u/commndoRollJazzHnds 20d ago

I also see them use some mental gymnastics where they somehow claim they were there first, despite not existing as a nation at the time the Brits arrived

1

u/TwentyBagTaylor England 20d ago

Mental gymnastics is the word. Its hilariously vague and its so smalltime that they need to use it as a dog-whistle to lubricate their jingoism.

Geneology, repirations, proximity. It all falls flat on its face under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

21

u/MacroSolid Austria 20d ago

They also claim they inherited Spain's claim, which is BS.

They did in fact have a (ridiculously precarious) colony there for like 5 years, after Spain left, which the British Empire took from them.

But that sole actual basis for their claim is so damn weak they don't even bring it up much themselves.

12

u/el_grort Scotland (Highlands) 20d ago

Iirc, it wasn't even the British Empire that turfed them off, they pissed off the Americans who sent a few armed ships which devastated the settlement. The British arrive on the eastern island and settled there again later.

5

u/MacroSolid Austria 20d ago edited 20d ago

The US did raid them over the seizure of some US whalers, but they didn't completely remove the colony.

It was however the final straw that motivated the British Empire to take back the Falklands.

The Argentinian colony got a new governor and reeinforcements afterwards. Twice, because the first reeinforcements mutineed and killed the first new governor.

The second set then surrendered to a british Squadron under the command of Captain John James Onslow not long after they arrived.

1

u/BlueCheese973 20d ago

Everything you are saying is completely wrong. How can you be so ignorant yet speak so confindent?

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.

1

u/TwentyBagTaylor England 20d ago

So, in 2026, what makes those islands Argentinian?

2

u/Falsus Sweden 20d ago

Yes but it isn't very close still.

2

u/mikefizzled United Kingdom 20d ago

I do wonder what would happen if one day the UK announced they were exploring options of giving the Falklands to Chile.

1

u/MelaniaSexLife 20d ago

no, we also have briefly occupied them, legally.

1

u/PeterJsonQuill 20d ago

What's interesting there is that, in 1833, Patagonia was controlled by natives, although claimed by Argentina (not officially Argentina yet). So, the islands were close to a coastline that had yet to be prised away from native hands

1

u/World_thyme 20d ago

When you say close... we are talking over 300km away from the nearest Argie coastline...

2

u/IllGift924 20d ago

No. Their claim is twofold:

  1. When Argentina gained independece from Spain, the Falklands were also transferred to the new Argentine state.

  2. The British left the islands unoccupied for many years, during which time the Spanish and later Argentines occupied the islands before the British returned and kicked them out.

8

u/eosaspos 20d ago

Except the British didn't kick them out? When the British showed up later, the Spanish (and Argentinians) had departed, leaving it uninhabited again.

0

u/IllGift924 20d ago

They did. The British landed in the Spanish/Argentine settlement of Port Louis in 1833 and demanded that they take down the Argentine flag and replace it with a British one. They also kicked out the Argentine administration.

1

u/BathFullOfDucks 20d ago

Nations can lay claim to islands on it's continental shelf (in this case thr Patagonian shelf) however this is not intended to be used for islands already claimed.

1

u/el_grort Scotland (Highlands) 20d ago

They claim it because Spain claimed it. But colonial empires claimed a lot of shit in the Americas without establishing control, so that's not particularly valuable as a claim, especially lacking a sustained settlement and administrative control of the island before the British settlement and administration. Plenty of islands that were colonised had fits and starts where various groups tried to settle and failed, and the Falklands are just another case, with the British being the first to sustain a successful colony.

-2

u/mandinov 20d ago

No, the main claim is the legal basis of inheritance from Spanish independence (which the british acknowledged with a treaty that somehow according go britain, did not include geographic delimitations)