system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The right to determine the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) sits with the Island's population

Today is the 40th anniversary of the end of the Falklands War and the time seems ripe to have a discussion about sovereignty, what I'm really interested in is the views of third parties, i.e. people who don't directly support the British or the Argentinian claim to the islands.

A short history

The first settlement on the Falklands was established by the French in 1764, the following year the British set up a settlement on the opposite side of the island, the Argentinian claim originates in 1767 when Spain, essentially, purchased the French settlement. The British and Spanish settlements came into conflict in 1770 with the British leaving the island  but the following year Spain paid restitutions and allowed the British settlement to be re-established. Britain then abandoned its settlement in 1774 leaving a plaque claiming sovereignty, the Spanish did the same in 1811.

In 1816 the country that we now know as Argentina became independent from Spain and inherited all of Spain's sovereignty claims in the region, including the Falklands, but the islands remained unoccupied till 1828 when Argentina granted fishing rites to a man named Luis Vernat who set up a sealing venture. Britain responded to this venture and the Argentinian claims of sovereignty by sending a task force to the Island in 1833 who demanded that a British flag be raised above Port Louis, a demand that was complied with. Apart for a few months during the Falklands war Britain has retained control of the Falklands ever since. Over time settlers moved to the Falklands and today there is a local population numbering around 3,400.

Argument

The population that currently resides on the Falklands is, essentially, the island's original population. Whilst various global powers have bickered about who controls the islands no one ever resided there before the British Colony was established, all previous presence on the island had been either government or business ventures. No resident of the Falklands has ever been displaced (Vernet was encouraged to continue his operation after the British took control but declined) and Argentina has never directly governed the islands (apart from a short period of time during the war).

Therefore there is no population that has a greater say in the sovereignty of the Falklands rather than the people who have made their lives there. That population almost universally wants to be British, in a 2013 referendum 99.8% of the votes were in favour of keeping the Falklands as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, there were only 3 votes against.

The right to determine sovereignty sits with the local population and what they want is clear, change my view.

Edit - signing off for a bit, I'll answer posts later on. What's been most interesting is people questioning the right to self determination, I never suspected that would be the issue that would dominate discussions.
gpt
> The right to determine sovereignty sits with the local population

This is not usually the case elsewhere. Even much larger communities neighboring their "parent" countries can't detach their region from their current country. The majority-German speaking areas of Belgium and Italy can't just decide that they're a part of a different country, a majority-Latino city in the US (say, El Paso) can't just decide it's a part of Mexico, etc.

I don't necessarily think Argentina should have sovereignty in the Falkland Islands, but the local population can't just shop around for a country that will accept them, along with the various perks of their geography.