this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
46 points (97.9% liked)

United Kingdom

4107 readers
156 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Britain has said the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is not up for negotiation, after Argentina’s newly-elected president promised to “get them back”.

Javier Milei, who won a resounding victory in Argentina’s presidential election on Sunday, said Buenos Aires had "non-negotiable" sovereignty over the Falklands, the archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean which is known as Islas Malvinas in Argentina.

Mr Milei said during a TV debate in the run-up to the election that “we have to make every effort to recover the islands through diplomatic channels”.

On Tuesday a spokesperson for prime minister Rishi Sunak said: “The UK has no doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and indeed South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

“The UK government will continue to proactively defend the Falkland islanders’ right to self determination.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If the islands were uninhabited there might actually be a good point, but they're not uninhabited. The land is already under the sovereignty of another country and countries don't get to annex land just because that land is nearby, how would that work?

[–] PhobosAnomaly 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sorry my friend, you're the second person that's come to that conclusion from my comment, so I've obviously written it like a muppet.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, it wouldn't work and any form of annexation would be unwise to say the least.

My point is that having an island sat that close to your own borders under the ownership of another country sat on a large prospect of oil would always prove to be a lightning rod for nationalists or rabble-rousers, which is what the Argentine (Argentinian? I'm not sure) government has been seemingly using to deflect from their own failings for years.

[–] echodot -2 points 1 year ago

It's not "just off the coast of Argentina" it's nowhere near Argentina, it's like Australia claiming they own New Zealand.