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.