‘Las Malvinas son Argentinas’? Not quite – but the Falklands cannot remain British for ever | Simon Jenkins
The enmity between London and Buenos Aires has gone on for far too long – sooner or later, wise heads will prevail This week Britain
The enmity between London and Buenos Aires has gone on for far too long – sooner or later, wise heads will prevail This week Britain and Spain agreed to demolish the border dividing Gibraltar from the Spanish mainland. It was good news. Decades of negotiation came to a happy compromise. Unfortunately the deal will not be celebrated on Sunday in a World Cup final between Spain and England.
But is it too much to hope that a similar negotiation might arise from last night’s semi-final, a crushing defeat for England at the hands of Argentina, after which the Falklands-Malvinas issue raised its tired head in the form of a banner on the pitch? Can nothing good follow the generous embrace of Lionel Messi and Harry Kane? None of Britain’s imperial-era territories have an eternal right to stay as they are, let alone one that costs British taxpayers upwards of £60m a year in defence costs.
In the case of the Falklands, its status as an overseas territory has been staunchly defended by successive governments largely as the price of victory in the 1982 Falklands war. In truth, I suspect this has much to do with the fact that the islanders, unlike the abandoned Hongkongers or Diego Garcians, were white British. The war also rescued Margaret Thatcher’s government from unpopularity and covered the then prime minister in glory, unlike later military adventures.
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist Continue reading...
The BriefWire