NationStates

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:39 am**

It's a fairly simple question. The Falkland Islands, a small group os islands off the coast of South America, belong to Britain and inhabitated by British people. Back in the old day, it was claimed by a few empires, with the dispute between Britain and Spain being the most prominent one. After Argentina declared independence, they put a claim on the island based on the idea of them having gained its ownership from Spain's former ownership of it. In 1833, the British responded by sending a taskforce to reassert their sovereignty over the islands. British sovreugnity would continue on the island until the Falklands War, in which the Argentinian dictatorship tried invading the islands to gain support. They captured them, but the British took them back again, and the British sovreignity continued.

In the modern day. Argentina still claims them. But who should the islands belong to?

In my opinion, the islands should remain British. The people there have overwhelmingly voiced their support for British rule, and I believe that their right to self-determination should be respected. I personally don't care about the legal arguments for ownership, for in my opinion, the wellbeing of the people is more important. There's no reason for Argentina to snatch the islanders away from their home country just because they used to own them, if that was was a valid reason, then a lot of land would need to change owner.

Some people argue that the right of self-determination doesn't matter here because they were descended from settlers, but I don't see why that matters. Studies show that no native Americans lived on the islands, and when the British took control of the islands, no one was kicked off of them. Some islanders have had their families living there for 8 or 9 generations, so the whole "settler" argument really depends on how long it takes for a group of people to be accepted as the "true natives", and for that, there is no objectively true answer.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:39 am**

The islanders have made their stance very clear. In a rational world that would be the end of it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:41 am**

Vassenor wrote:The islanders have made their stance very clear. In a rational world that would be the end of it.

That stance would be biased though, so i think the united nation should step in and decentralise it, so the islands are like some kind of confederation thing and independent from both, with argentina and UK both havign bases on to protect it and they will pay for the entire falklands government.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:42 am**

No. We bled for the islands and will bleed for them again. The islanders recognised the sacrifices we've made for them and have voted time and time again to remain with us. To deny them this is not only undemocratic but tyrannical, taking a people from a nation where their culture is in the majority and putting them into a nation where not only would they be a tiny minority but a despised one.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:43 am**

Just give them to Switzerland. Nobody bothers switzerland.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:44 am**

The sun will never set on the British Empire, which includes the Falklands as far as I’m concerned.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:44 am**

Allyrije wrote:No. We bled for the islands and will bleed for them again. The islanders recognised the sacrifices we've made for them and have voted time and time again to remain with us. To deny them this is not only undemocratic but tyrannical, taking a people from a nation where their culture is in the majority and putting them into a nation where not only would they be a tiny minority but a despised on.

well world war three could happen if we dont have UN peacekeepers protecting the island

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:44 am**

Argentina has no claim on the Islands whatsoever.
The inhabitants want to be British.

What possible reason could one have to even consider giving it to Argentina ?

So give it to Uruguay

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:45 am**

Clavonian Empire wrote:The sun will never set on the British Empire, which includes the Falklands as far as I’m concerned.

Already has.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:45 am**

The Falklands are the rightful clay of the penguins, and soon the day will come when the human interlopers will be driven out once and for all.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:46 am**

Moderated Macroeconomis wrote:well world war three could happen if we dont have UN peacekeepers protecting the island

UN Peacekeepers have proven themselves time and time again to be about as useful as a chocolate frying pan and about as competent as a midwife with two hooks for hands. Placing them on British territory would make about as much sense as putting Harvey Weinstein in charge of a Nursery

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:47 am**

It should be left up to the people who live there. They've consisently voted to remain with the UK, and the islands were uninhabited before European colonization.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:47 am**

The Falklands are needed by the UK for strategic sheep purposes. They will never be surrendered.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:47 am**

Mystic Warriors wrote:
Clavonian Empire wrote:The sun will never set on the British Empire, which includes the Falklands as far as I’m concerned.

Already has.

It actually hasn't.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:48 am**

Make them independent, but have them join the British Commonwealth... if this isn't the case already. That way Argentina is forced to recognize them as a sovereign nation instead of a British Colony that in their view, rightfully belongs to them.

Have the newly christened Falkland Republic (or whatever name the Falkland government decides to call themselves) form a treaty with Argentina allowing them to establish a small military base on one of the islands (for a fee of course). Also allow the British Navy to do the same.

All parties win, the islanders technically self-governing yet still part of the British Empire for all intents and purposes, Argentina has access and influence on the Island(s) which is probably what they really wanted anyway, and it it helps foster good relations between all three parties.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:48 am**

Allyrije wrote:
Moderated Macroeconomis wrote:well world war three could happen if we dont have UN peacekeepers protecting the island

UN Peacekeepers have proven themselves time and time again to be about as useful as a chocolate frying pan and about as competent as a midwife with two hooks for hands. Placing them on British territory would make about as much sense as putting Harvey Weinstein in charge of a Nursery

well, it would be good if we had a giant UN peacekeeper force in the islands to protect the penguins (nature conservation) and the oil.

All the latin american countries, the UK and the EU should have bases on so they will peacefully interact with each other, and wont be able to invade the islands.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:49 am**

Durzan wrote:Make them independent, but have them join the British Commonwealth.

Then have them form a treaty with Argentina allowing them to establish a small military base on one of the islands (for a fee of course). Also allow the British Navy to do the same.

Both parties win, and the islanders technically self-governing yet still part of the British Empire for all intents and purposes.

that sounds like a good idea

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:50 am**

Any time an impopular Argentine government wants to capture the public imagination, they start claiming the Falklands.
In my opinion, any government that mirrors the actions of the Videla regime has already forfeited any territorial claim they make. That kind of jingoistic proto-fascism should not be in charge of any country, not even Argentina itself.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:53 am**

The only problem with Falklands independence is the fact less than 3,000 people live there, they couldn't sustain a nation with such a small and widely spread population.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:54 am**

While we're at it, why don't we give Estonia to the Maldives? Would be just as popular with Estonians as it would be to give the Falklands to Argentina.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:55 am**

Agarntrop wrote:The only problem with Falklands independence is the fact less than 3,000 people live there, they couldn't sustain a nation with such a small and widely spread population.

lichtenstein and monaco are smaller but are richest countries every
falklands has oil, so it would be the richest in the planet with GDP per capita

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:55 am**

NO. Not after the shit that Argentina pulled. Any claim that they may have had is now null and void. They are never getting the Falklands back. Ever. It would also be political suicide for any UK political party that tried it.

This exact same topic was discussed on the threads about a year ago, and the consensus was that Argentina should be left hanging.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:56 am**

Moderated Macroeconomis wrote:
Agarntrop wrote:The only problem with Falklands independence is the fact less than 3,000 people live there, they couldn't sustain a nation with such a small and widely spread population.

lichtenstein and monaco are smaller but are richest countries every
falklands has oil, so it would be the richest in the planet with GDP per capita

They both have populations of over 30,000. Plus, the Falklands population is spread over an area as big as Ireland. Leichenstien and Monaco are tiny and interconnected.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:57 am**

The islanders have already voted on the issue. Both sides need to act like grown ups and accept the outcome of this vote. If both nations involved clam to be democratic, the issue should be considered settled with an outcome of a vote, and nothing more.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:58 am**

the poll says your opinion is not correct

NationStates

Should the U.K. give the Falklands to Argentina?

Should the U.K. give the Falklands to Argentina?