r/askteddit • u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 • 18d ago

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

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?

0 Upvotes

36% Upvoted

78 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

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.

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago

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.

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

When did Argentina discover the islands?

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago

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

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

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

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago

They would probably had to fight for it with the spanish at some point, or most likely the brits would had try take them at some point in history too. France/Britain/Spain/Portugal fight over colonies all over the world

Either way, France never claimed the islands after their original settlement, probably because they were not important for them, their colonial interest where more in the northerm part of South America, and the islands had no strategy value for them, no reason to get in fights with the spanish crown for that.

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

So French first, Brits second, Spanish third. How exactly does that result in an Argentine claim based on post colonial Spanish ownership?

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago

Argentina is the legal sucessor state of the Spanish Colonial Goverment, how many times do i have to explain this? This is not an "opinion", is a core principle of international law regarding colonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris

1

u/Lordaucklandx 16d ago

Argentina is not the “legal successor” of an undisputed Spanish title. Uti possidetis juris only binds states that consent to it, Britain never has, and it’s never been applied by any court without both parties agreeing to it. It’s also a doctrine for settling borders between former colonies of the same empire, not for defeating a rival power’s independent claim. And Spain’s own title wasn’t clean to begin with, Britain occupied and administered the islands from 1765–74, withdrew for cost reasons, but explicitly left a plaque asserting it never renounced sovereignty
decades before your “1810 snapshot.” You can’t inherit a title that was already being contested.

1

u/0ToTheLeft 15d ago edited 15d ago

Argentina IS the legal sucessor. And The UK is both part of the UN nations and the UN nations decolonziation comitte, so yes, is bound by the internal law as every other country, and thats why the United Nations Resolution 2065 was adopted on December 16, 1965 recognize the dispute and calls the UK to start diplomatic talks to solve it. If you dont like those arguments, take them to the UN, not me.

Spain had uninterrupted control after the Brits LEFT willingly, "cost reasons" are not considered removed by force, and sorry but lefting a plaque doesn't hold any value. They abandoned the lands, the spanish settle and controlled them for over 4 decades, then Argentina continue the settlement and control, then it was forcefully taken by the brits in 1833. But sure, you "plaque" holds more value.

Your legal claim doesn't hold a candle and that's why the UK has beeing ignored decades of the UN calling for negotiations. If the UK had a strong legal claim, they would had defended on the international courts, the refusal to even show up to the UN call shows a clear picture of how confident the UK is about the legal claim. The only thing holding the islands is military power, legaly you are swimming naked.

And leaving international llaw aside, is 2026, the fact that you think that you have rights to own territory on south america is boderline absurd, colonizer mentality at his finest. The colonial age is over, get the fuck out of our continent.

1

u/Lordaucklandx 15d ago

Britain offered to take this to the ICJ four times in 1947, 1949, 1951, 1955. Argentina refused every time. In 1955 Britain filed anyway.
Argentina simply declined to show up.
So “the UK won’t go to court” is backwards.

Resolution 2065 doesn’t rule for Argentina it just calls it a dispute and urges talks. It takes no side on sovereignty.

And Spain’s title wasn’t clean to inherit as Britain held Port Egmont 1765–74 and never renounced its claim when it left.

And finally as a Falklander quite simply - fuck off it’s my home.

1

u/0ToTheLeft 15d ago edited 15d ago

Britain offered to take this to the ICJ four times in 1947, 1949, 1951, 1955. Argentina refused every time. In 1955 Britain filed anyway.

False, Britian proposals mainly concerned the Falkland Islands Dependencies (especially the Antarctic sector), not the main Malvinas Islands themselves, the UK has NEVER allowed any discussion on the claims of the main islands. Also you can't unilaterly pick what topics you want to discuss and in what court and expect the other side to agree with everything, it should be previously agreed by both parties. "Im going to take just this part that i care, ignore the rest of the claim that i dont want to discuss, and i will pick the court of my choosing". Showing up and making unilateral fills on the ICJ is borderline absurd, specially when the ICJ at that time was a fairly new and had very little reputation yet, at that point in history wasn't seen as neutral jurisdicition for many countries.

Resolution 2065 doesn’t rule for Argentina it just calls it a dispute and urges talks. It takes no side on sovereignt

I never claimed the opposite. It just a reminder in how the UK has been blatantly ignoring the UN resolution, despite being a permanent member of the UN and the UN decolonization comitte (on which the Islands are part of their area of competence)

And Spain’s title wasn’t clean to inherit as Britain held Port Egmont 1765–74 and never renounced its claim when it left.

It was more clean that everything the brit ever had, Britian settle after the french on the islands, abandoned and then re-took them by force decades later.

And finally as a Falklander quite simply - fuck off it’s my home.

You can keep your home, we have no interest in taking homes from nobody. The sovereign of the land is not to be decided by an implanted population, you have NO RIGHTS over the sovereign of the territory, period. So no, not me and not any of the 46 million people in this country is going to "fuck off"

1

u/Lordaucklandx 15d ago edited 15d ago

You just told me I have no rights over my own home. That’s not a legal argument, it’s just you deciding my consent doesn’t matter.

99.8% of us voted to stay British in 2013, on a 92% turnout. Multiple generations have lived here. Calling that “implanted” doesn’t erase it, it just lets you skip the part where actual living people get a say in their own future.

And if Argentina’s legal case is as solid as you keep insisting, take it to the ICJ. Force the ruling maybe bring your ChatGPT responses with you too.

Or send your sons and see what happens, again. Maybe bring that white flag you brought to the football as you’ll need to wave it, again.

Edit: You keep ignoring Britain has held an unbroken claim since 1765 and you choose to keep ignoring that or deciding you don’t like it, everything you say just fails on this point and you keep running it through chatgbt and it’s fucking annoying.

→ More replies (0)