What should happen with the Falklands (Malvinas) Islands?

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War. The Falklands Islands (Malvinas Islands) are a group of small islands of the southern Atlantic coast of South America. It has a population of 2 500 - 3 000, most descendant from British settlers.

Britain and Argentina have disputed the islands since the British occupied the islands in 1833. In 1982, the military junta of Argentina invaded and occupied the islands; they were repulsed by the British a few months latter. Over 900 people were killed, mostly Argentines. The defeat hasten the fall of the Argentine military government and boosted the popularity of the Thacher government in the UK.

Since, the UK government has set up a better base to deter future invasions, while the squid industry has brought new prosperity to the Islands. There is talk about developing its oil and gas resources. Argentina, with a democratic government, still claims the Islands, but will only use peaceful means to recover them.

Question: should the Falklands remain British, or should the Malvinas be transfered to Argentina?

The British should keep the Falklands.

The Argentines should get the Malvinas.
I am especially comfortable with the last option, as they don't exist.

Plebiscite.

Let the people choose how they want to be administered. I think the British and Argentinians will be civilised enough to respect the decision of the people.

taillesskangaru said:

Plebiscite.

Let the people choose how they want to be administered. I think the British and Argentinians will be civilised enough to respect the decision of the people.

Click to expand...

Ermm, I think you missed out on the history.
The people want to stay British,
It is only the British and the Argentines who wish the opposite.

Britain should keep them. Aftwer all, the people on the islands wish to be British, so let them.

ComradeDavo said:

Britain should keep them. Aftwer all, the people on the islands wish to be British, so let them.

Click to expand...

International Law dictates that everyone has the right to self-determination. The people on the Falklands consider themselves to be British, Britian has a reasonable level of control over them and thus they are British.

The UN has already considered the case and the Falklands are staying as they are. Argentina had their chance to take the Islands when we were, arguably, at our weakest and failed.

bathsheba666 said:

Ermm, I think you missed out on the history.
The people want to stay British,
It is only the British and the Argentines who wish the opposite.

Click to expand...

A bit of history. the British first steal the island, dump some people on it, have an election and then of course they win. What would you say if Argentina took Isle of man, moved 300 000 people there held an election and won. There is no reason why the British should own it.

AL_DA_GREAT said:

A bit of history. the British first steal the island, dump some people on it, have an election and then of course they win.

Click to expand...

Bit of History for you, the British had settled on the Falklands before Argentina were even recognised as an independent country.

AL_DA_GREAT said:

What would you say if Argentina took Isle of man, moved 300 000 people there held an election and won. There is no reason why the British should own it.

Click to expand...

That there were already British people on the Isle of Man under British control and that it's a different set of circumstances entirely from the Falklands?

Sovereignty should be handed to Argentina, and some form of leasing agreement formed so that the UK can continue to have administrative rights over the islands. Our claim to the islands is a pretty lousy one, but we should be able to come to a grown up solution which doesn't require uprooting the people who now live there.

Just as an aside, as far as I know, the Falklanders don't have an MP and are not represented in the UK parliament. Anyone able to confirm/correct this ? Any thoughts on the implications ?

Why with some very few exceptions there are only british posters in this thread?

I believe they should go to Argentina, but I won't lose my sleep if they stay British. After all, they might have a higher standard of living if they are British. Voted second option.

ComradeDavo said:

Britain should keep them. Aftwer all, the people on the islands wish to be British, so let them.

Click to expand...

Davo, what's your view on the occupied territories in Palestine, particularly where there have been sufficient Israeli settlers to form a majority in an area ? Come to that, what about Kosovo, which now has an Albanian majority ?

Mirc said:

Why with some very few exceptions there are only british posters in this thread?

Click to expand...

Possibly because the Americans haven't woken up yet ? Maybe only the Brits care about it, but it's a bit early to tell.

Pity it's an anonymous poll.

Lambert Simnel said:

Just as an aside, as far as I know, the Falklanders don't have an MP and are not represented in the UK parliament. Anyone able to confirm/correct this ? Any thoughts on the implications ?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what their representation fulls under but in so far as International Law is concerned for a country to maintain soveriegnty over a geographical space it must be able to demostrate that it holds some form of administration over it. This is usually in the form of taxation and public funding of roads or docks.

Eddie Izzard said:

We stole countries with the cunning use of flags. Just sail around the world and stick a flag in. "I claim India for Britain!" And they're going, "You can't claim us, we live here! Five hundred million of us!" "Do you have a flag? ... No flag, no country! Those are the rules, that...I just made up."

Click to expand...

Why give them to Argentina? So Argentina can wreck everything the way theyve wrecked Argentina? Within 5 years, the islands standard of living would plummet until it was on a par with Argentina, its economy would be in ruins, theyd be largely depopulated, and merely serving as large oil platforms for oil companies.

Give them to Slovenia...just to mess with thier heads...

The islands should stay British.

PrinceOfLeigh said:

That there were already British people on the Isle of Man under British control and that it's a different set of circumstances entirely from the Falklands?

Click to expand...

Different in what way? Malvinas were already poulated by Argentinians when UK invaded in 1833.

The full history:

Discovered probably the first time in 1501 (Vespucio) and then in 1521 (Magallanes) and finally cartographied by Francisco Carmago in 1540. (Of course the english have his own "discovery" by John Davis in 1592 ).

Spain owned the islands de facto since then. Spain didnt show any interest on them though and didnt install a governor or populated them permanently. The islands were also sporadically used by Duthc French and English sailors along centuries.

In 1764 the islands were occupied by French forces who built the first permanent settlement. In 1765 the islands were also invaded by English forces who "didnt know" that the french were already there. In 1876 Spain bought the French settlement and expelled the English. Claimed the islands formally and installed governors dependant of the Silver River Viceroyalty (pre-independence Argentina). All countries including England accepted the Spanish rule over the island and the international issue ended there.

However in 1811 during Argentina independence war, Spanish authorities left the islands which were in a legal limb until 1820 when Argentina claimed the islands, send a governor and built a new colony. Then in 1833 GB invaded and expelled the Argentinians claiming that after Spain departure the status of the islands was again the same as in 1764.

I heard once that the British were actually cpnsidering giving them to Argentina, but then the Argentines tried forcing the issue with the invasion. Don't know if that is true.

Anyways, plebescite FTW.

They should have a public referendum on the subject, and the islands should go to whichever country the majority wishes, and those who wish to leave to either Britain or Argentina should be allowed to do so.

But, since we all know they want to remain British, that's the practical end of letting the population vote on the subject.

Thorgalaeg said:

In 1764 the islands were occupied by French forces who built the first permanent settlement. In 1765 the islands were also invaded by English forces who "didnt know" that the french were already there.

Click to expand...

hmm nice use of "invaded" there. The French were on one island, we settled on another. Hardly D-Day was it?

If we knew the French were there? Why wait a year before demanding that they leave?

Thorgalaeg said:

In 1876 Spain bought the French settlement and expelled the English. Claimed the islands formally and installed governors dependant of the Silver River Viceroyalty (pre-independence Argentina). All countries including England accepted the Spanish rule over the island and the international issue ended there.

Click to expand...

Ahh so you conviently by-pass 1771 when the Spanish sign over the rights of the islands to us? At this point there had been no war, no 'invasion' merely a bunch of nations who used the islands from time to time and wanted bases there. The French sold them to you, whilst we were on the other half of the island, then the Spanish signed them to us.

Thorgalaeg said:

However in 1811 during Argentina independence war, Spanish authorities left the islands which were in a legal limb until 1820 when Argentina claimed the islands, send a governor and built a new colony. Then in 1833 GB invaded and expelled the Argentinians claiming that after Spain departure the status of the islands was again the same as in 1764.

Click to expand...

It matters not what happened thereafter 1771. Spain signed them to us freely and with their consent. With us they rightfully remain.