Im an outsider! Not try to spark problems. Just a question of opinion. Please debate nicely if you are so inclined Just curious of the feeling of each people. Please vote and say why you voted that way. If you object to this poll it will be noted and possibly deleted. This is just a curious question form an outside perspective.
IMO they should be a member of whatever country they decide!
I agree, they should decide their own fate.
Joined the last option (of the poll, of course :lol: )
It should, of course, be entirely up to them. Although they have of course three options rather than 2 – status quo, join Argentina, independence.
Interesting point that is probably relevant here:
If you want to go changing the ownership of territory because you object to its conquest more than 150 years ago, you’d better be consistent and apply that all over the world – the question then becomes, how far back do you go? Even if we only go back to the Second World War, northern Poland should be returned to Germany, and most of the Borders in Central and Eastern Europe should be redrawn. If you want to go back even further, we could redraw all the European borders in completely different ways, depending on when you want to draw your cut-off date. And let’s not forget that all of the Americas were obtained by conquest, shall we? Glasshouses and stones spring to mind…
It’s up to those who live there as to which direction they wish to take.
Agreed. Democracy is a wonderful thing.
Up to the Islanders.
Up to the Islanders who they want to be part of.
I’d stick to the democratic side and let the Islanders decide.
Well seems that we all agree on something! 
Still waiting for Eagle and Panzerknacker…
I voted in favour of the democratic decision too.
As at time of posting we’re all in agreement, if anyone dissents it would be interesting to hear how they justify it.
Well, of course when you are choosing the last option you are only hiding your desires of keeping the archipelagos as british…
I was wondering what would happen if the most of the members would be argentine… because we know very much that the most of the members are from another country in this forum, are you agree?
Sorry to cut your INVICT, but my vote to Argentina.
The actual islanders stablished there by the force in 1833, removing the argentine population there. I’ve posted a large article that I’ve done here recording the anniversary, but the mods deleted it.
A self-determination right could be accepted where the population is a native, or the first population installed there, by pacific mediums, as happened in a lot of colonies which had been taken by the european countries the past centuries (the most of the african countries or middle east countries, when they got their independence accepted by the UN accepting their self-determinations rights), or nearer to me, the conflict between Argentina and Chile, about the claiming of the Beagle Channel’s islands… the population of that islands (which were the first people who standed there) were asked about their nationality, and they said that they were chilean, and the argentine government had to accept it.
If the british islanders would be the firts inhabitants of the islands we would talking about another thing… but they invaded by the force a territory that was under a sovereign country flag, a country recognized by the same United Kingdom who invaded them.
If we accept that theory Eagle, are we limited to certain dates, or should we, as you suggest, follow the pattern that has emerged in Africa ?
If so, who would own the majority of South America ?
Or is that a different kettle of fish ?
Hmmmmm. Self-determination only applies to natives, does it? Or by peaceful settlement?
So, given that Spain and Portugal conquered South America by force, that should mean that self-determination should not apply to the vast majority of the populations living there.
To be logically consistent, why aren’t you also campaigning for Argentina to be given back to the Amerindians, and the population of European origin to be sent back to their native lands?
Or do you have double standards?
You see this is where it all gets tricky and double stardarded for me. Its perfectly OK for Argentina to claim the Falklands, but not for the original native population of Argentina to claim their country back?
Can anyone please explain to me why this is?
There is nobody alive today in Argentina that can even remember living in the Falklands.
The Islanders on the other hand have 5 or more generations of island history.
The claim the Argentines have is purely based on the proximity of the islands to Argentina, although they are outside the territorial waters.
Britains claim to the islands goes back centuries to before Argentina even existed.
The arguements used by the Argentine position is bordering on the absurd. At the end of the day, if you give the islands to the Argentines, then all countries would be forced to hand the countries back to the original native inhabitents and return whence they came. Spain, Portugal, Britian and France would be packed!!!
Just ask the Islanders what they want to do and have done. It nothing to do with how many people on this site are British or Argentine, it is to do with what the people in that location wish.
To do otherwise would mean that it would have been very fair for the Argentines to have had their declaration of independence laughed at by the rest of the world, and told that they would belong to the Spanish.
Eagle is right in that I am quite amenable to the idea of national self determination (Who remembers this concept from Wilson’s 14 points?) because I know what the result would be. However, I have yet to see any reasoned argument for why the islanders should be deprived of the opportunity.
They should belong to Argentina.
I dont think that the Kelpers will be amused with the self determination idea, they probably prefer to stay as a British territory.