So who thinks they can explain what has actually happened with the EU and The Falkland Islands?

[cakeorwine]

Various media groups and no doubt some columnists seem upset about something the EU has done.

Can anyone explain what they think the EU has done and whether we should be upset about it?

What a dumbshit comment. Who cares? The people who live there! Who overwhelmingly consider themselves British.

I dunno, think the people who live there might care a bit

I find it very hard to believe that the EU did that out of spite. More like it was looking out for it's own commercial interests

I agree with this.

Argentina is kind of in the shit economically rn but it's tipped as a possible BRICS joiner due to links with Brazil and there's still a lot of wealth there. Depending on the intended audience of the document it may be politic to refer to the islands by their Spanish name - Spanish being the main language for much of the global south americas and the second language for a large chunk of the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure it's not a green light for Argentina to go invading all over again.

There is a long running dispute between the U.K. and Argentina in regard to The Falkland Islands. Importantly the people of The Falkland Islands wish to remain British.
There was a Falklands war which the U.K. won defending the Falkland Islands from Argentina.
Very recently the EU have negotiated a trade deal with a group including Argentina. In this deal the EU have accepted The Falkland Islands being also described as The Malvinas (which is their Argentinian name) Argentina have claimed this as a huge diplomatic support to their claim to the islands. This is a massive diplomatic issue between the EU and U.K.

Agreed

We can't rejoin!

I know all about the Falklands conflct. I was trying to see what had actually happened with the EU as the media reports seem conflicting and no doubt a bit biased.

I don't think it seems a huge diplomatic issue. Using both names does not mean support for a particular view.

If they had not used "Falkland Islands", then I think they could say it was a diplomatic issue.

Lol at “should we be upset about it” ….you’re either upset about it or you’re not

They went half way round the world to get Thatcher another term in office. Prior to the invasion she was trying to dump them on Argentina.

Until then Falkland Islanders were not British citizens but 'British Overseas Territories Citizens.

It’s petty and of no consequence.

The EU are pissed off that over time we will pay less and less to prop up the bureaucracy they have saddled themselves with and so some countries will have to plug the gap.

Remember this is a bureaucracy that couldn’t agree where to base itself so it shuttles between Strasbourg and Brussels costing c€100m+ every year.

This with bells on. And the Argentine dictator invaded them for similar political reasons too. It's all a smokescreen and people who get angry about them and 'sovereignty ' are just playing into the politicians hands. Nothing like a war to stoke some nationalism and they all know this.

Yes. Absolutely.

Why is it so important in some cases, and not in others?

Many places have different names in different languages. It's considered very disrespectful in some cases, and routinely acceptable in others.

The ones that attract controversy are usually colonial powers imposing colonial era names on colonised territory.

We can - see Art 49.

OK - agreed.

But the hoops would be plenty. They have to have a unanimous vote. Do they all like us? Have we enough diplomatic heft to get all countries to agree to let us back in?

I think what I mean is - it would take a chunk of time and it ain't a given!

But Falkland Islands is the 'real' name.

This is not the same as using a British name when they use something else locally.

Falkland Islanders do not call it Malvinas, they consider it an insulting name in fact.

Insulting / a sign of aggression probably more accurately.