Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE FALKLAND ISLANDS will hold a referendum on its political status in 2013 in a bid to end the bitter territorial dispute between Britain and Argentina, the archipelago’s government said today.
Gavin Short, chairman of the Falklands’ legislative assembly, said the residents of the British overseas territory had no wish to be ruled by Buenos Aires, which views the islands as occupied Argentine territory.
“We have decided, with the full support of the British government, to hold a referendum on the Falkland Islands to eliminate any possible doubt about our wishes,” said Short, adding the vote would be held in the first half of 2013.
“I have no doubt that the people of the Falklands wish for the islands to remain a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom,” he said. ”
We certainly have no desire to be ruled by the government in Buenos Aires, a fact that is immediately obvious to anyone who has visited the Islands and heard our views.”
The announcement comes as both Britain and Argentina commemorate the 30th anniversary of the 74-day war they fought over the islands in the South Atlantic, costing the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British troops.
British forces reclaimed control of the Falklands in June 1982 following an Argentine invasion after then prime minister Margaret Thatcher sent a naval task force.
Prime Minister David Cameron welcomed the announcement of the referendum, saying it should be “up to the Falkland Islanders themselves to choose whether they want to be British”.
“Thirty years ago they made clear that they wanted to stay British. That’s why British forces bravely liberated the island from Argentine invaders,” he said.
“Now the Argentine government wants to put that choice in doubt again, by shouting down the islanders’ ability to speak for themselves and punishing them for exercising their own free choice.” He added: “Britain will respect and defend their choice.”
The United States, which has encountered criticism in some corners of both Britain and Argentina for refusing to take a stand on the bitter row, declined to say whether it would respect the results of the referendum.
“Our position remains one of neutrality,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters when asked about the referendum plans.
“We recognise de facto UK administration of the islands but we don’t take any position regarding sovereignty claims. So our position has not changed,” she said.
Britain has held the Falklands since 1833, but Argentina claims the archipelago, which is home to fewer than 3,000 people and known as Las Malvinas in Spanish, as its own.
Tensions between Britain and Argentina have risen in the run-up to the 30th anniversary of the war.
Analysts believe oil supplies worth tens of billions of dollars may lie off the Falklands, and London enraged Buenos Aires by authorising prospecting in 2010.
Last week, Argentina declared British oil exploration off the Falklands ”illegal” and immediately set about suing five companies for pursuing activities around the islands. A junior British foreign minister, Jeremy Browne, is currently visiting the Falklands.
Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner will be at the UN headquarters in New York on Thursday to step up Buenos Aires’ claim to the islands at the annual UN decolonisation committee hearings.
The visit is unusual as the committee is normally the preserve of lower-level diplomats, but Argentina has been building up its diplomatic campaign in recent months.
Britain is not a member of the committee and refuses to make submissions to its hearings on the islands. But for several years legislators from the Atlantic territory have taken on Argentinian ministers and other top officials at the debates.
The committee normally calls for a negotiated solution to the dispute.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
When will they hold one in northern Ireland or Gibraltar ?
Exactly Peter
Northern Ireland has power sharing, they can have a referendum if they wish, Gibraltar last had one in 2002 asking whether Spain and Britain should share sovereignty, 98.48% against.
The results would be the same, huge majorities wishing to remain British, so what would be the point. Who in their right mind would want to leave the UK to join countries which are bankrupt and, worse, in the euro.
I doubt it would be huge majorities Richard, but the power sharing suit both parties best for now as populations across the decide are closer to a par now than ever before.. as for bankrupt countries, The UK’s financial balances certainly don’t make for good reading.
Peter you are a tool. The good Friday agreement states that the northern irish people will decide by plebiscite whether to remain part of the UK or not.
It hasn’t happened as the majority still favour the UK.
The Falklands were never Argentinian in the first place
But it’s all British living on it ,,, will be a landslide on the vote to be British
Peter, they held them in Gibraltar in 1967 and 2002. The results were 99.1% and 98.5% in favour of staying as a British Overseas Territory respectively
Surprise, surprise!
Good for them. If they want to remain British that’s their choice.
Good Sovereignty should be decided democratically by the inhabitants. and when the Islanders overwhelming vote for the status quo. the Argentine government will have to look for something else to distract the Argentinian population from their tanking economy
Can we please stop the united Ireland crap for the time being, it’s not going to happen for a long long time and it suits us fine.It’s childish, especially those “hup the Ra ” kids.
Childish and anachronistic.
Look at the recent poll in Northern Ireland, just seven percent of the population said they would agree with a united Ireland this year. Only 32 percent would agree to a united Ireland in 20 years time.
”just seven percent of the population said they would agree with a united Ireland this year” You read this from the Belfast Telegraph right? I would take no notice of these polls, Sinn Fein has an enormous following in the North and you believe only 7% of the population want a united Ireland this year. You shouldn’t take much notice of those polls which are just newspaper headliners.
I think you’ll find that 73% of people in NI wish for it to remain in the UK. This includes a 60% Catholic vote who are happy with the way things are. To be honest, would you want to “unite” with a bankrupt two bit state? They know what side their bread us buttered. If I’m not mistaken the Journal ran a piece on this a few months ago stating this…
i live in northern ireland, nobody asked me to vote. i would have said yes to a united ireland just so you no “coybig”
I dont like the fact that Britain owned it in the first place but these people have lived there for centuries and any democrat has to support their right to choose who rules over them. I believe in the best interests of the situation an agreement has to be made with the Argentines in regards to any natural resources around the islands but the sovreignty of the Islands should be decided by its inhabitants.
I don’t really see much difference between the British claim to the Falklands and the claim that France have on St Pierre or New Caledonia for example.
But you don’t see Canada or Australia making a fuss there.
It does seem that the Falklands comes up whenever an Argentinian politician has domestic problems.
Well Chris I dont agree with overseas territories at all so I would disagree with France! But I am a democrat and so support the islanders right to decide.
Argentina has absolutely no claim to the Falklands so why should the British or the Falklanders give it any say. Historically the Spanish or French may have a right to contest it, but Argentina has zero.
The British had ” a lease ” on Hong Kong” and had to get out of their some years back whether the people wanted it or not. The reason being China was too big to be messed about with. Bottom line, if Argentina had the military might .. The Brits would have been kicked out of las Malvinas back in the 80s. My memory of that was the Suns headline which read ” Up your Junta” . .. A reference to the Irish governments failure to support the British expedition just after we broke monetary parity with sterling. ( punt)
@Strongbow62 How is “Up your Junta” anything at all to do with Ireland? The Junta referred to was the repressive regime in Argentina at the time.
Sure we have rockall
Firstly, Rockall is nowhere near Irish territorial waters. Many other nations, such as Iceland and Norway, have all laid claim to it aswell. I think you have been listening to the Wolfe Tones nonsense too much…
And the Falklands, or Las Maldivas, is just off Argentina and was, initially, inhabited by Argentines. Much like us the Argentine people feel aggrieved at the fact their territory was taken, planted by British settlers and suddenly became British overseas territory. Up until the seventies, the British government was not wholly against the idea of resettling the tiny population that resided there in Britain. Then the Argentines got over zealous, Britain got the Iron Lady and the rest is history. It is worth bearing that in mind
While I am also a democrat, we should keep the Argentine perspective in mind. Clearly, this new government is not helping its case by its aggressive rhetoric, but there is some weight in a lot of their points. If I moved 3000 people to the Aran Islands, cleared off the population and called it ‘anti-FG land’ would that be ok? Would Irish people have a right to protest at the ignorant usurpation of their power? Would this wound fester and become a constant source of national ignominy? People need some perspective in this discussion. We are all subjected to the British propaganda regarding this issue and the argentine narrative is buried.
You’re wrong there Ken. Britain claimed the Falklands and established a settlement there before there was an Argentina.
While you make a decent point that the British side does seem to be the most heard, that’s why votes like these are so important. Most residents of the Malvinas are part of families who have lived there for generations and their wishes for government should be respected first and foremost.
Nice bit of makey uppey history there Kenneth!
For the rest of us who happen to live in the real world, here are the facts:
First known sighting of the islands – 1600, Dutch.
First known to have set foot on the islands – 1690, British
(native patagonians were relatively primitive hunters and farmers, believed to engage in coastal seal hunts but with no evidence of true seafaring capability – extremely unlikely that they would have been capable of crossing 265 miles of some of the wildest oceans on the planet).
First known settlements – 1764, French, East Falkland. 1765-66, British, West Falkland. Each settlement ignorant of the presence of the other.
First involvement of the Spanish – 1767, when they took control of the French settlement.
First act of aggression – 1770, when the Spanish attacked the British colony and temporarily drove them from the islands.
By 1811 all settlers had withdrawn, leaving the islands uninhabited once again. Each settlement maintains its respective claim to the islands.
1816 – Argentine Republic founded.
1820 – Argentina claim the islands for themselves.
1828-31 – settlement established by Louis Vernet, a German merchant, after seeking permission from British and Argentine authorities. Settlement destroyed by the US.
1832 – Argentina attempt to create a penal colony but subsequently agree to leave after being requested to do so by the British.
1833 – Settlement established by the British. In continuous settlement to the present day, despite ten week Argentine invasion in 1982.
“Las Maldivas”
The Maldives are several thousand miles away in the Indian Ocean and have been independent since 1965.
“the argentine narrative is buried”, Well, as related by you it should be buried. It’s laughably incorrect on several points.
Thats like asking the nazis if they wanted a poland independent of germany
Godwin’s law !
Hmm, again a report relating to the UK Argentina argy-bargy, while the spat between Spain and Argentina is yet to be mentioned. Bit of an agenda?
With a name like Kingstown why don’t you go live there so,,,
Whats his name got to do with it???
@ Peter. They had a referendum in Gibraltar in 2002. Northern Ireland may cede from Britain one day but maybe continued peace will break down the divide over generations so maybe its worth the wait, who knows.
The Falklands, a lot of sheep, penguins and never ending wind and miserable weather. The Brits have been there for many generations before the Argentinians started this whole claim business, best leave them alone with their elephant seals. I know they discovered oil there so let just be honest that this is what its about. Far more important stuff going on in the world anyway like serious social problems in South America with the landless indigenous people.
That’s wrong Reg. There was a small settlement on it, which was cleared by the British in 1834. The island was always considered Argentine. I have discussed it with an Argentine and British Historian, both of whom confirmed repeated Argentine settlements on the island. You are believing the spin I’m afraid.
I have also read quite a bit about it Ken. There was a British settlement at Port Egmont in the 1760s and as you rightly point out there was a later Argentine settlement in the early 1830′s that were forced to leave. Maybe it is you that belives the spin!
I think Kenneth you will find the penguins have more of a claim on the islands than Argentina does. They were never Argentinian to begin with. The French were there too 200 years ago, do they have a claim as well?
Is it just me, or is there a certain irony in the fact that Gavin Short is a foot smaller than the lads either side?
Excuse the pedantry but no, it’s not irony. That would be if he was a foot taller. His name is an aptronym though.
The British payed ppl to move there gave them grants ,,, think it’s more to do with oil as I said above RockAll . That belongs to the British in Irish waters
Yes of course they paid them, because oil under the sea was so important back in the 1800s when Britain re-established it’s control.
Argentina has said that “This has no value at all since Argentina rejects the possibility of self-determination for an implanted population, such is the implanted British population”
Of course most of the population of North America, South America and Australia is “implanted”. Should they have self determination?
Pity they can’t see the irony in that argument….
Argentina did exist when the British captured the Falklands. Argentina claimed the islands on independence as part of lands vacated by the Spanish. They were unable to defend these though partly due to the many issues that required military attention on the mainland but mainly because the British navy would have destroyed them anyway.
I think the date of Argentina’s independence is 1816. Britain had established a settlement on the Falklands 50 years before that. It didn’t last and Span and France had settlements there in the years before independence also.
@Gemma
Your assertion that Britain ‘captured’ the Falklands implies that they took them from someone. This is clearly untrue, unless you mean that they captured them from the resident seals and penguins!
The British were the first to have set foot on the islands in the late 1600′s and when they later established a settlement on the uninhabited west Falkland they were unaware that the French had established a settlement on east Falkland a year earlier.
It could certainly be argued that Britain recaptured them from Argentina though, both in the 1830′s and the 1980′s…
Not denying that Britain had a claim before Argentina was formed. Just saying that the French were the first to settle on the island (1 year before Britain) this settlement was then acquired by the Spanish. When the Spanish left the Argentines staked their claim. Both Spanish and British settlements were uninhabited at the time of the Argentine claim.
It is a tenuous claim I know but that is what the Argentines believe. Spent the last few months travelling in Argentina and got the chance to chat to the people on the ground. Most see past the government rhetoric as a smokescreen for the many social and economic problems plaguing the country. Every now and then I came across some anti British sentiment but mainly just throwaway comments. The people were concentrating more on keeping their jobs and a roof over their families heads.
As an example, I was in Ushuaia when the local governor blocked cruise ships who had visited the Falklands from docking. Cue uproar from local people whose lifeblood is tourism.
Far be it from anyone here to tell the people of the Falklands what flag to run up a pole. But this is only a story because of oil/gas/money that supposedly lurks underneath the waves.
Hence the Argentine governments decision to nationalise YPF as a way of first controlling the escalating fuel prices but also lashing out at the western world in general. And it’s the average Argentine on the street who suffers most.
Glad to see you backtracking on your earlier erroneous post ;)
It’s all about the oil.
Up the ra do you even know what it means in Irish
Could you tell us in own eloquent way what it means to be Irish finbar?
Good podcast on British policy in the Falklands on http://www.historyhub.ie
have your say