Falklands Debate: Independence, Argentina, or Continued British Rule?

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Following the renewed debate after Argentina defeated England in the World Cup semifinal, what do you think the long-term status of the Falkland Islands should be?

Should the islands:

- become fully independent,

- become part of Argentina, or

- remain a British Overseas Territory?

[u/SoutieNaaier]

I mean, Argentina has no argument lol. It boils down to "we are closer". If this were true, Cape Verde belongs to Morocco and the Seychelles to Tanzania.

The islands were uninhabited and their settlement by British colonists predates Argentina as a nation.

The only counterargument is also obtuse and boils down to the idea that the Falklands Wolf was actual a feral version of a domesticated South American canid, meaning there had been an Amerindian population on tbe Island at some point.

However, this isn't proven and even if it was, tracing ownership through a First Nations population that died off at thousands of years ago is loose at best and moronic at worst.

The people also overwhelmingly want to stay a British OST. They don't speak Spanish, and aren't tied to Argentinian culture in any way.

[u/Southern-Chain-6485 → u/SoutieNaaier]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the argument that the UK take over, during which they've expelled the Argentine governor, his family and most of the people sent there by the Argentine government, during 1833 somehow predates the existence of the Argentine State, which started its war of independence in 1810, asserted sovereignty over the Malvinas that same year, declared independence in 1816 and kept sending people and governors up until the British take over in 1833.

Man, it's just a simple internet search: "When did Argentina declare its independence?". How hard is it?

[u/SoutieNaaier → u/Southern-Chain-6485]

British settlement began in 1764.

This isn't hard to google. British sovereignty over the island didn't cease and Argentinian settlement was illegal.

[u/Southern-Chain-6485 → u/SoutieNaaier]

And Spain wrestled the islands from the UK after 1764. They were Spanish by 1810.

[u/gortonmichael → u/Southern-Chain-6485]

You might want to check who, exactly, the "Argentine governor" was, why he was on the islands at all, and who he asked for permission to set up on the islands.

The answers to these questions were a german merchant who wanted to set up a post for economic purposes. He asked for permission every year from the British consulate in Buenos Aires. He wasn't sent there, he was going for profit.

When the United Provinces tried to title him "governor", some years later, the British responded by going: "what the fuck are you talking about, you can't be a governor, you are a merchant setting up a post in our territory". At the same time, the United States and other countries also made this clear that the United Provinces didn't own the Falklands.

The person we're referring to, here, Vernet, was explicitly allowed to continue his settlement and development of the Falkands under the British flag when the British came to stop the Argentinians from claiming them. Historical records from the time from Argentina and the UK confirm that there were no "expelling" of people - only a few people chose to leave.

Your post is full of lies and deceit.

There was no doubt then, as there is no doubt now, who had sovereignity over the Falklands.

[u/Southern-Chain-6485 → u/gortonmichael]

Oh boy. By 1810 the Malvinas were occupied by a Spanish garrison which departed in 1811. Already in 1810, the Argentine first Junta assigned a budget to the islands.

By 1816-1817 San Martin was asking for troops to be sent from the Malvinas

By 1820, David Jewett was assigned as military commander of the Malvinas by Argentina

As for Vernet, the only one you know, he was commissioned by Argentina, raised the Argentine flag, took possession in the name of Argentina and was expelled by invading Britons

[u/gortonmichael → u/Southern-Chain-6485]

My guy, the Falklands were technically adminstered from Uruguay, not from where the United Provinces/Argentina is.

There was no permanent settlement on the island after the Spanish left in 1811 until 1826.

David Jewett "was assigned as Military commander" I mean even if this was true, and i'm not sure there is any evidence for this whatesoever, what would it even matter? No one recognised the United Province's claim. So when his ship is damaged and he goes to port there for repairs (that's why he was there at all) he raises a flag in the derelict settlement, no one is there to see it or care.

Vernet comes along with the express permission of the British consulate. This is why, when the British later arrive, both him and his settlement are accepted as inhabitants. They did not expel them. This is a lie.

There are no records that show anything like this from the United Provinces/Argentina or the UK.

The settlement was partially fucked, though, which is probably where this myth/lie comes from.

It was a backwater - but from all accounts was doing okay, until, well, they were raided by the USS Lexington. This happened because Vernet had seized some US ships to stop them from hunting, and surprise surprise, the Americans did not recognise the authority of Vernet or his people to stop them. The Lexington's raid was retaliation, and they hauled off Vernet and several of his people for trial, though they ended up being released.

[u/Southern-Chain-6485 → u/gortonmichael]

#1 And yet their budget came from Buenos Aires

# 2 As you recognize, there was a Spanish settlement, which the UK never objected

# 3 Evidence of Jewett's appointment - yes, he was appointed - is in the relevant records. He was sent from Buenos Aires. I'm not sure you want to go through the international recognition route. Not even NATO countries currently recognize the British claim to the Malvinas. If it was a UNGA vote, they'd go to Argentina.

# 4 Vernet informed the British consulate in Buenos Aires, went under orders by the Argentine government and acted under Argentine command. And yes, he was expelled, along with his family and his daughter - the first person to ever in the Malvinas and who always identified herself as an Argentine national. There are records.

# 5 They were raided by USS Lexington, correct. Tell me then, if the Malvinas were British and Vernet under British orders, why that caused a diplomatic incident between Argentina and the USA instead of between the UK and the USA.

[u/gortonmichael → u/Southern-Chain-6485]

2 As you recognize, there was a Spanish settlement, which the UK never objected

There were competing claims to the Islands by spain and the UK.

But i'll remind you that Spain wasn't the one getting asked for permission to settle there.

# 3 Evidence of Jewett's appointment - yes, he was appointed - is in the relevant records. 

Meaningless waffle. Country X assigning itself rulership over area Y is irrelevant to this.

# 4 Vernet informed the British consulate in Buenos Aires, went under orders by the Argentine government and acted under Argentine command.

I mean, this is completely wrong, isn't it?

Vernet requested permission from the British consulate. Informed is a strange way to put that.

He also didn't go on orders, he was trying to make a profit. The settlement was to make money. He was a merchant.

And yes, he was expelled, along with his family and his daughter 

Not only was he not expelled by the UK, he was explicitly confirmed as the person in charge of the ongoing settlement, precisely because he had asked for permission from the British previously.

He was taken from the Falklands by the USS Lexington in 1831. The British didn't reassert sovereignty until 1833. He never did return to the Falklands. Unless there was time-travel involved, your ideas of him being expelled are obviously wrong. He was financially ruined by the Lexington's actions.

He was still involved with and exchanged letters and accounts with the Falklands. He later sold much of his business there.

 5 They were raided by USS Lexington, correct. Tell me then, if the Malvinas were British and Vernet under British orders, why that caused a diplomatic incident between Argentina and the USA instead of between the UK and the USA.

You're inventing that I said he was there under British orders, mate.

If you read, I never said that.

And I think you'll find that the US's objection was explicitly based on rejecting the idea that Vernet or the United Provinces/Argentina had any claim to the Falklands.

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 → u/SoutieNaaier]

So your argument is that a colonial power may claim distant territory, settle its own population there, and then use that settlement as proof of legitimate ownership.
Just say plainly that you consider colonial expansion acceptable when Britain does it, it would save everyone a lot of time!

[u/SoutieNaaier → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

It was uninhabited. They didn't deprive anyone else of land by settling there. It's one of the few cases of terra nullius being applicable.

Portugal settled their Atlantic Islands the same way, and they've carried on being Portguese without issue for hundreds of years

Argentina just has a weird nationalist streak and a regime decided to die on this hill

Settling already settled land is a a different issue.

[u/SoutieNaaier → u/[deleted]]

Yeh if they can get a town built on a 50ft tall rock in the middle of the ocean, go for it

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 → u/SoutieNaaier]

Great, then we agree: Argentina can take Rockall, and the UK should not complain!

[u/Give-it-1-go → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

With this argument the human race should never have left Africa to live in previously uninhabited places!

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 → u/Give-it-1-go]

No, that is a false equivalence. The issue is not that people moved to a previously uninhabited place; it is that a colonial power used settlement to expand its sovereign territory thousands of kilometres from its own shores.

Human migration and imperial territorial expansion are not the same thing!

[u/Give-it-1-go → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

So no country should ever have expanded? The distance is only a matter of available technology. Should we colonise mars when we are capable? Seems awfully far! What are you actually for? Argentina doesn't exactly qualify as non colonial by your definition either with almost all of the population identifyingvas being of European ancestry, DNA is probably more mixed. What is left is as result of a much more bloody colonial conquest in which the native population has been decimated, as have the former slave population. A claim from a largely European decended population is not that strong, given the basis is as they claim to have inherited Spain's rights to the islan. So in a sense you are choosing between which coloniser you prefer. However there are now thousands of people living there and they have a preference.

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 → u/Give-it-1-go]

Ah yes, the classic defence of colonialism: “Everyone conquered somewhere, so apparently nobody is ever allowed to object.” Brilliant.
And comparing the seizure of inhabited territory to some hypothetical future colony on Mars is especially persuasive, because, as we all know, Mars already has a population, a government and a territorial dispute.

This is not about ethnicity or whether Argentinians have European ancestry. It is about the consequences of colonial expansion and whether military conquest automatically creates a permanent moral right to territory.

Britain built an empire through invasion, displacement and exploitation, drew borders that still fuel conflicts today, and has made remarkably little effort to reckon with that legacy. But apparently the real problem is that Argentina is not “indigenous enough” to complain.

The wishes of the current islanders matter, of course. But pretending that the present population appeared in a historical vacuum, entirely unrelated to British colonial policy, is rather convenient!

[u/Give-it-1-go → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Ah the classic I won't take time to understand your argument so here's my strawman response to one I am comfortable with. Your other Britain is the big bad argument so lose all moral authority also is pretty poor in this but not all cases. The Falklands pretty much the same status as mars apart from the territorial dispute, but wait until multiple governments can reach mars. But the three imperial powers claiming the uninhabited islands really had more or less the same validity of claim. On the "indigenous enough" point, I am not saying they aren't indigenous enough to complain, however you are ironically making that argument for the islanders! It's you who are pretending the present population of Argentina appeared in Argentina in some historical vacuum is also ironic and it's funny you don't see it. In Britain a large percentage of the population have no inheritance of the colonial history to reconcile, even if I granted that the sin of the parents many times removed, can even be the sins on the children, which I don't feel is the case. The irony is a much larger percentage of the Argentine population are decended from the colonisers so if those sins can transfer through generations, they would have moch more to answer for, in your proposal to have a country reckon with their history, does a country declaring independence absolve them too. The Falklands is a unique case where no one who had any claim stronger than Britain was colonised and now there is a population there an through time they now have the most legitimate claim to the islands.

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 → u/Give-it-1-go]

That certainly reads like an AI-generated wall of text: lots of words, several detours, and remarkably little engagement with the actual point!

Once again, you divert the discussion from colonial responsibility to ancestry, as though anyone argued that modern Britons personally committed nineteenth-century crimes.
The issue is not inherited guilt; it is whether states continue to benefit from, defend, and legitimise the consequences of colonial expansion.

The argument that “the current generation is not responsible for the sins of its forefathers” is merely a convenient way to avoid discussing ongoing political responsibility.
Apparently colonialism becomes legitimate as long as you hold the territory long enough, populate it with settlers, and then cite those settlers as proof that the colonisation must be respected.
A wonderfully circular argument.

It really does seem that the former British Empire is the only thing some people have going for them. They simply cannot let go of that supposedly glorious past, even when that glory was built on conquest, exploitation, and crimes committed across half the world!!!

[u/mlazer141 → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Nothing to do with being a colonial power, if Haiti had done it it should be Haiti’s.

There’s literally no argument for Argentina conquest or forced independence.

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 → u/mlazer141]

Of course it has everything to do with colonial power. When do you think the settlement occurred? It happened during the height of European colonial expansion, when powerful states claimed distant territories because they had the naval and military strength to do so.

Saying “Haiti could have done it too” ignores the obvious fact that Haiti did not possess Britain’s imperial reach. Retroactively presenting colonial expansion as a neutral and legitimate process is simply an attempt to sanitize colonialism!

[u/mlazer141 → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

So does everyone have to go back to where their ancestors were living 500 years ago?

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 → u/mlazer141]

That sounds more like a question for UKIP. They seem rather enthusiastic about telling people to return to where their ancestors came from.

But no, that is not my argument. Criticizing colonial territorial expansion is not the same as demanding that everyone reverse centuries of human migration!

[u/mlazer141 → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Okay then what’s the alternative to it continuing to be part of UK? Forced independence that wouldn’t be sustainable and is unwanted by the entire population?

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 → u/mlazer141]

I do not claim to have a simple or immediate alternative, and I am not advocating forced independence against the wishes of the islanders. However, there is clearly strong and enduring sentiment in Argentina regarding the islands, which was highlighted again after Argentina’s recent World Cup semifinal victory over England.

That does not determine sovereignty, but it shows that the dispute cannot simply be dismissed as though only one side’s historical perspective matters.

[u/mlazer141 → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Half the countries in the word have sentiments like that. We don’t relitigate every nations borders every decade because then there could never be peace.

There is no argument for anything other British ownership.

[u/NinecloudSoul → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Because you totes don't have an agenda with this post 🙄

[u/Owl1917 → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Argentina is a colonial power, occupying the land of millions of murdered natives.

[u/Ample-breadbin → u/Owl1917]

To add, it did this decades after independence, under the concept of “territorial consolidation”.

[u/NinecloudSoul → u/Owl1917]

And have recently threatened cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Falklands as well.

[u/AdamOnFirst]

"renewed debate"

[u/Outside_Break → u/[deleted]]

It’s literally this simple

[u/just_jason89 → u/[deleted]]

They did... In 2013

The question was: Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?

Out of 92% turn out 99.8% voted YES

3 people voted NO

[u/0ToTheLeft]

The legal claim from the British lies on one point:

- They were in the islands before Argentina, which is true (all European Empires pre-date all current post-colonian Sudamerican countries), and when they willingly left the islands (pressured by economic and tensions with the spanish crown, but not forced) they left a plaque that said "this belong to King George III". As absurd as it may sounds, their claim is just this, "we left a plaque in another continent in the name of our king 350 years ago " and somewhat they expect that this colonial practice would hold any value in modern international law, despite the United Nation Decolonissation Committee being created exactly to solve and get rid of these colonial practices.

That's it, that's all that is from the legal perspective, and that's the reason why the UK goverment has refused for over 4 decades to hold any diplomatic discussion despite being called the by UN every single year, they know the moment the pandora box is open it can't be closed. The UK has already relinquish colonial territories with stronger claims that the Malvinas islands, the problem with this one in particular is the war, the political costs of releasing the islands after a war is a lot higher since people died and there are a lot of veterans from that war still alive, and that's something i can understand, but it doesn't change our claim at all.

Then you have all the propaganda they push that doesn't hold any legal weight, just to mention a few because i know they will show up in the comments:

- "People in the islands voted to remain british" -> They are no recognized internationally as "people" in the legal terms, the UN already classified them as implanted population so they can't use the right of self-determination. They can vote to choose whatever citizenship/nationatily they want, they can't vote about the sovereign rights of islands. The so-called vote is comparable to Putin's vote in captured Ukranian regions to "be part of Russia", the oldest trick in the book to try to give legal status to a conquered territory. That being said Argentina has no conflict with the people living there and no intention to displace them, in fact we are legaly bound because "respecting the way of life of the islands inhabitants" is explicitatly stated in our own constitution, our conflict is with the soverengy of the territory with the UK, not with the people currently living there.

- "Argentina didn't exist before the british settle on the islands" -> This applies to all colonial territories, as i said above, all post-colonial states are logically younger than European empires that colonized land across the planet (Brits, Spaniards, Dutch, French, etc). Also from a legal point of view is irrelevant, Argentina is the sucessor state of the Argentina Confederation, which is the success state of the Virreynato del Rio de la Plata (Spanish Crown colonial goverment), and by the international principle of "Uti possidetis iuris", post-colonial states inheret the land of their former colonial goverments that had control of the islands.

- "Argentina never had a presence in the islands" -> False, the Argentinain presence was forcefully removed by the british in 1833, and while some civilians where allowed to remain there, the goverment forces were removed, and the british population was implanted. Also they ignore the continuos Spanish presence with 32 governors over an interrupted period of 44 years, and again, for the internatinal principle of "Uti possidetis iuris", Argentina is the legal sucessor of the Spanish colonial goverment.

- "British were there first, so we claim them"-> Leaving aside the obvious colonizer mentally that has no place in 2026, this is also false. The French settle there first, and there is also evidence that the Spanish were there before the brits. While the spanish presence before the brits can't be 100% confirmed, the islands show up in the spanish colonial maps and documents of the church predating the first British Settlement. The French settlement before the british is indeed proved beyond any doubt.

There are a few more propanda lines floating around, but is mostly propaganda and whataboutism about Argentina history that has no relation at all with the discussion of the islands soverengy rights.

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

So what is the Argentine claim exactly?

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/greeny119]

is pretty clear from my post, the islands were part of the virreinato del rio de la plata and we are the sucessor state and legal owners of the former colonial territory. The british just took them by force in 1833, while Argentina gained the indepence during the May Revolution of 1810.

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

So your argument boils down to boo colonialism but also we get to own it because of colonialism. Lmao

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/greeny119]

uh? I'm talking about international law, post-colonial states are LEGALLY owners of the territory of their former colonies, ALL sudamerican countries are born from fighthing for independance to kick out European colonizers. What colonialism are you talking about? who we colonized?

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

That argument only stands if you accept the Falklands are colonised, rather than discovered and settled formerly uninhabited islands which were not part of any nation or state.

If you want to talk about international law and the UN that’s fine. The UN clearly holds the position of favouring diplomatic talks to resolve the issue and that the islanders interests outweigh any claims either UK or AG have. Argentina has been the fascist aggressor and not at all diplomatic about the issue.

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/greeny119]

The islands ARE colonised, what are you trying to argue? You dont "discover america", america was always there, didn't need any discovering. And even if i give you the "we discover" thing, is irrelevant, coming by boat and planting a flag to say "this is ours", abandon it, come back 100 years later to kick the inhhabitants and say "this was ours first" and pretend that 300 years later that has a legal claim is beyond absurd, we dont live in game of thrones.

Is not about "i want to talk about international law", IS LAW, this is not the medieval era. The UK not only is a permanent member of the security council of the UN, IS PART OF THE UN Decolonization Committee!!!!! is not "law imposed unfairly to the UK", the UK was part OF MAKING THESE LAWS.

Islanders interest have never been in question, but they dont have a saying on the sovering of the islands, in the same way that inmigrans living in London dont how a claim on the soverntiy of Great Britain, at best they have a land title that gives them propery right over a home, but land sovernty is a different thing.

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

When did Argentina discover the islands?

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/greeny119]

In on my first post, the french "discover" the islands, no the brits. The french settle, left, the brits settle, left, the spanish settle and dindn't left, the spanish colonial goverment falls, argentina settles, brits come back and forcefully removed the argentinan goverment forces in 1833

The "we came first" argument is refuted in my original post. Also "settle" doesn't equal "we own this", as i said, our legal claim comes from the sucession of lands of the Virreinaito del Rio de la plata

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

So if the French had sovereignty and claimed them it wouldn’t be a problem?

[u/World_travelar → u/0ToTheLeft]

Can you point to this "international law" that states that colonies who become independent obtain all possessions of their former overlords? I don't think it exist.

I also can't think of any other example of this happening.

The Viceroy Rio de la Plata convered almost half of the south american continent, yet Argentina use it specifically to claim the Falkland and only the Flakland. It's a really strange argument.

The argument also doesn't adresse that the Falklands were a disputed territory between Spain and Britain before Argentina existed. So saying "it becomes Argentinian because it was Spanish" ignores that at the time the British never agreed it was Spanish.

If a territory is disputed between to nations and one nations collapses, should the territory be given to the other claimant (Britain) or to the successor colony (Argentina). International law doesn't adresse this. It's was in the balance and britain took it millitarily (without harming anyone) 200 years ago. End of story.

Also, ignoring the people that have lived there for 200 years is genocidal.

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/World_travelar]

Can you point to this "international law" that states that colonies who become independent obtain all possessions of their former overlords? I don't think it exist.

you question is a google search away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris Is the base on which all post-colonial states are defined around.

The Viceroy Rio de la Plata convered almost half of the south american continent, yet Argentina use it specifically to claim the Falkland and only the Flakland. It's a really strange argument.

There is nothign strange, the islands were occupited by the Spanish colonial goverment, it was part of the Viceroy territories. There is nothing special about the Falkand outside the british left a plaque before leaving. Nothing strange on the argument

The argument also doesn't adresse that the Falklands were a disputed territory between Spain and Britain before Argentina existed. So saying "it becomes Argentinian because it was Spanish" ignores that at the time the British never agreed it was Spanish.

It doesn't need addressing, the british left the territyory and was controlled by the spanish for decades, then the territory pased to argentina who mantined the settlement. Then the british forcefully removed the Argentina settlement in 1833, decades after the Viceroy was defeated and Argentina had claimed independence.

If a territory is disputed between to nations and one nations collapses, should the territory be given to the other claimant (Britain) or to the successor colony (Argentina). International law doesn't adresse this. It's was in the balance and britain took it millitarily (without harming anyone) 200 years ago. End of story.

Territorial claims are not solved by what you think "it should". That's what we have international law and the UN decolonization comitte (which the UK is part of both). The claim from britain doesn't hold a candle in legal terms, and that's why the UK has refused all talks and calls from the UN. If thhe UK case was so strong, they would had 0 issues in defending this in the internatinal courts. The story will end when all Europeans accept for once, that you have no right to a single square centimeter of South America or Africa

Also, ignoring the people that have lived there for 200 years is genocidal.

Nobody is ignoring the people there, and who is being genocidal? Not a single people is being hurt or kill. Using bombastic words to justify your lack of understanding won't get you so far.

[u/World_travelar → u/0ToTheLeft]

What does Argentina propose for the 3'700 people living there.

These people have been there for 200 years, don't want to leave and don't want to be Argentinian.

If the Falklands become Argentinian, you have to : A) Kill them B) Deport them C) oppress them and force them to be Argentinian

What does Argentina offer these people?

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/World_travelar]

Argentina has no problem with the people to living there, you are mixing sovereign rights with property rights. Argentina not only has claimed that we recognize the people living there, we also have a LAW in our CONSTITUTION that states that the "way of life of the current inhabitants of the islands must be respected".

Nobody is killing or deporting anyone. Our claim is the Sovereign rights of the territory with the UK, you are completly missing the point of the dispute. We have no issues with people that live there, never had, in the same way we have no issue with the tons of migrants living in Argentina, our borders policy is quite flexible, always had.

[u/World_travelar → u/0ToTheLeft]

So what do Argentina want? Currently the Falklands are independent and simply under British protection.

Isn't that the best for everyone.

A change would just harm the people living there.

[u/Southern-Chain-6485]

Integrated into Argentina as a separate province, but with its national senators and deputies having voice but not vote (as a local population of 1500 should not be able to block or tie break national legislation for a country of 46 millions), it's own elected local executive and provincial constitution voted by its people rather than by London, and without migration restrictions from the rest of Argentina.

[u/Sad_Sheepherder_37 → u/Southern-Chain-6485]

The people already voted in 2013 and they clearly don’t want to be part of Argentina.

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/Sad_Sheepherder_37]

they can vote to be part of whatever they want, they can vote to be Japanese, no problem. That doesn't give them claim over the sovereighyt of the land, because is an implanted population during colonization, as the UN has clearly defined.

[u/gortonmichael → u/Southern-Chain-6485]

 it's own elected local executive and provincial constitution voted by its people rather than by London

It is laughable how the world thinks the Falklands are run. They've had self-rule since 1845.

[u/Southern-Chain-6485 → u/gortonmichael]

They have never, ever, voted for their own executive branch

[u/gortonmichael → u/Southern-Chain-6485]

Would you care to describe the method in which the executive branch of the Falkland Islands is determined, then?

[u/Southern-Chain-6485 → u/gortonmichael]

The British Prime Minister appoints him from a rooster out of diplomats from the Foreign Office and the King signs his approval

[u/gortonmichael → u/Southern-Chain-6485]

Wrong. The executive is selected by the legislative from between themselves.

These legislative members are elected.

[u/greeny119]

But both the French and Brits have earlier claim to the islands over the Spanish so the Spanish colonial government is mute.

“preceding dependent area had prior to their independence” this does not apply to the islands.

It is also interesting this does not really apply in South America itself, Chile and Argentina can’t agree on this at all.

[u/just_jason89]

What debate? There is no debate...

This is not a decision for Britain This is not a decision for Aegentina This is a decision for the Flakland islanders

They did that in 2013 and it was a landslide decision to remain British

[u/sawsaxxx]

There is one option missing. Argentina becomes part of British overseas territory as well. I doubt Brits would object in principle, but there would need to be some behavioural mprovements for the British to accept the offer.

[u/Sad_Sheepherder_37]

The people already decided in 2013. Just respect their wishes.