A thinly staffed Yes case, built around the idea that territorial claims themselves demand punishment, carried the vote by eight points. Its strongest voice said “business as usual obviously cannot continue”, a formulation that turned embassies, aid, visas and flights into instruments of deterrence rather than routine diplomacy.
The winning side’s argument ranged from sanctions and non-cooperation to a harder-edged promise to defend the territories. Another Yes voter put the condition starkly: “step one is simple: stop eyeing up our land”, while the most bellicose contribution argued that the UK should have shown it could strike Argentina.
The No case was more populous and more internally developed. Its highest-rated voice said “Diplomacy stops wars, talking is much better than killing each other”, while another offered the practical objection that it was “pretty hard to find a diplomatic solution if you freeze relations”; the argument was that claims are not attacks, and channels matter most when tensions rise.
That was the debate’s central disconnect: Yes voters treated diplomatic normality as indulgence, while No voters saw freezing relations as throwing away leverage. The latter case repeatedly drew the room back to the distinction between firmness and rupture — “stalking off in a huff is a childish and counterproductive response” — and members gave that caution more sustained support than the final decision suggests.
The vote chose the gesture, but the debate’s best-developed arguments mostly defended the channel.
25 Opinions
Diplomacy stops wars, talking is much better than killing each other
Of course we should. Britain has been too reticent in standing up for itself. When countries like Argentina & Mauritius renege of previous agreements and threaten international court action we should be telling them that business as usual obviously cannot continue. This can include closing embassies and other issues such as cancelling aid (obviously), visa bans and banning direct flights etc. They should understand that we wont just sit passively while they attack us.
We should have multiple measures, including non-cooperation, cutting aid and sanctions
Jaw jaw is always better than “war, war”. Keeping diplomacy alive is one way to stop the progression through sanctions to open hostility. And this is much better than losing civilian and military lives.
We should make it clear to Argentina and others we will defend our territory and if attacked you are leaving your countries open to attack. In 82 Maggie should have bombed a couple o Argentinian cities to show we could hit them if we wanted
Pretty hard to find a diplomatic solution if you freeze relations.
Why are we pouring tea and cutting trade deals with foreign politicians who spend their weekends plotting to nick Gibraltar or the Falklands? If you want diplomatic access and British trade, step one is simple: stop eyeing up our land and let self-determination of islanders / residents do what it does.
It is easy to vote yes for this but the potential fall out of breaking diplomatic ties for simple making a claim could be disastrous. This referendum only mentions claims, no action. Just words, no declaration of war. Under these circumstances diplomatic channels must be open.
In my first comment I pointed out that most of these claims are just symbolic lip service and aren’t any kind of meaningful threat. But let’s consider the hypothetical in which there is actually a prospect of the country in question taking action to try and press their claim. The most important function of diplomacy is to manage conflict, no sensible or reasonable country cuts off diplomatic ties due to risk of war - potential war makes diplomacy more important not less.
Don't freeze relation but refuse to discuss the matter. The answer is no. End of discussion.