Ultimately this is why I flip flop on it. In terms of popular support though people will always side with "What do the people living there want?" and this is what makes it a mess.
I think part of the reason support for being part of Britain is so high is the implicit threat that without British protection then Argentina would take the island and they'd be shit out of luck, potentially even kicked out. Taiwanese separatists are similarly reliant on American protection and the majority of Taiwan wants to "maintain the status quo" because they know what it means if the status quo changes. Similar story there in my opinion.
With all that said, Britain losing more would be good. If the islanders can have their security and existing laws guaranteed then changing hands of the island is probably fine.
There's so many things that the UK (and Argentina) could've done if they actually cared about the people living in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas instead of using them as geopolitical pawns. Like, if we must insist that the Malvinas get labeled "Falkland Islands (UK)" on maps:
The UK could de jure or de facto cede territorial waters to Argentina.
The UK could demilitarize the island.
The UK could grant Argentina fishing and drilling rights on the islands.
The UK could offer to pay a lease for the islands.
The UK could buy the islands from Argentina.
The UK could offer a trade agreement favorable to Argentina for the islands.
The UK could have a similar arrangement like the PRC and Portugal regarding Macau where the island belongs to the UK but is administered by Argentina (or vice versa).
Nobody on the islands has to get deported to the UK and both countries can save face. But the UK had absolutely no intentions for diplomacy.
That's fair. I have no argument to that.
Ultimately this is why I flip flop on it. In terms of popular support though people will always side with "What do the people living there want?" and this is what makes it a mess.
I think part of the reason support for being part of Britain is so high is the implicit threat that without British protection then Argentina would take the island and they'd be shit out of luck, potentially even kicked out. Taiwanese separatists are similarly reliant on American protection and the majority of Taiwan wants to "maintain the status quo" because they know what it means if the status quo changes. Similar story there in my opinion.
With all that said, Britain losing more would be good. If the islanders can have their security and existing laws guaranteed then changing hands of the island is probably fine.
There's so many things that the UK (and Argentina) could've done if they actually cared about the people living in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas instead of using them as geopolitical pawns. Like, if we must insist that the Malvinas get labeled "Falkland Islands (UK)" on maps:
The UK could de jure or de facto cede territorial waters to Argentina.
The UK could demilitarize the island.
The UK could grant Argentina fishing and drilling rights on the islands.
The UK could offer to pay a lease for the islands.
The UK could buy the islands from Argentina.
The UK could offer a trade agreement favorable to Argentina for the islands.
The UK could have a similar arrangement like the PRC and Portugal regarding Macau where the island belongs to the UK but is administered by Argentina (or vice versa).
Nobody on the islands has to get deported to the UK and both countries can save face. But the UK had absolutely no intentions for diplomacy.
Last time the Argentinians invaded, they immediately started rounding up people to be deported.