EU politicians have caused fury after sharing a map depicting the Falkland Islands as part of Argentina, before having to issue a correction.
The European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group in the European Parliament, shared an image on social media yesterday, boasting about creating the ‘largest free trade zone in the world’ after completing negotiations for a free trade deal.
The EPP is an umbrella group of centre-right parties in the European Parliament from EU states.
In the image, EU countries as well as Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina are coloured in blue to signify the countries involved in the landmark Mercosur Agreement.
However the image caused huge controversy after the Falkland Islands were depicted in blue alongside Argentina, while the UK was depicted in grey as it was not involved in the EU-trade agreement.
The Falklands archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean has been at the centre of a dispute for centuries. It culminated in the Falklands War of 1982, in which 255 British servicemen lost their lives after Argentina’s military dictatorship invaded.
Eagled-eyed users noticed that the EPP had duplicated the Islands in the image, leaving one in grey and one in blue.
This led some to suspect the party was ‘hedging its bets’ after reaching a deal which involved Argentina, who claim The Falklands belongs to the South American country.
An hour later, the EPP Group re-posted the picture with a correction, showing the Falkland Islands in grey.
The post caused fury and ridicule online and on X, formerly Twitter, as people reacted to the blunder.
One user directly tagged the EPP Group in the post and asked ‘why are The Falklands in blue here?’
Another said: ‘Shout-out to them putting TWO Falklands on this map, and making one of them blue’
Another user said: ‘How many people can you offend with just one map? European People’s Party: Yes!’
One user said: ‘Bets being hedged here, because the Falklands are shown in both blue and grey (though I can’t whether the blue islands or the grey islands are the geographically accurate ones) Is this the visual equivalent of putting an inappropriate exonym for the Falklands in brackets?’
Another furious person wrote: ‘The Falklands are British and will forever be. God save the King – and f*** you.’
In 2013, citizens of the Islands voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining a UK territory, with just three people voting against.
The Mercosur agreement between the EU and South American countries brings the end of 25 years of negotiations to create a free trade zone between the countries.
The EPP claim the agreement has created the largest free trade zone in the world with an additional market of 260 million potential consumers of European goods.
It is not the first time that the EU has made a mistake over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
In 2023, the EU called the islands ‘Las Malvinas’ in a treaty signed in Brussels, leading Argentina to celebrate a ‘diplomatic triumph’.
Then-British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly demanded that European Council president Charles Michel ‘clarify’ the bloc’s position – but the request was refused.
An EU insider said: ‘The UK is not part of the EU. They are upset by the use of the word Malvinas. If they were in the EU perhaps they would have pushed back against it.’ The official also said that ‘the Argentines have spun it in a certain way’.
Multiple sources from the Argentinian delegation in Brussels claimed it as a victory over Britain. ‘It is the first time in a long time that the European Union talks about ‘Malvinas’. That is not little, it is a lot’, one insider told The Times.
In October this year, Argentinian president Javier Milei suggested the country could pry The Falklands from the UK through diplomacy, following Labour’s decision to hand the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius.
He said that the decision by Sir Keir Starmer’s government to complete a Tory deal to hand the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) to Mauritius showed how control of the islands – known as the Malvinas in Argentina, could be achieved.
However the Prime Minister’s spokesman said the Chagos deal was a ‘unique situation, adding: ‘Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is not up for negotiation.
‘There are no British territories where the sovereignty is up for negotiation.’
Mr Milei told the Financial Times: ‘If you are in conflict, you are not going to make any progress. ‘With what the previous government (in Argentina) was doing, they were never going to be Argentine again.’
Referencing the Chagos Islands deal he added: ‘By that mechanism, we believe that in the long term [the islands] will become Argentine again.’
Argentinian foreign minister Diana Mondino, also raised the prospect of reintroducing direct flights from Argentina to the Falklands.
Such flights are viewed with some suspicion with islanders, who fear they could be used to exert political and economic pressure.
Ms Mondino suggested the Chagos deal is good for Argentina’s claim to the islands.
Earlier this year she vowed ‘concrete action’ to ensure the Falklands are handed to Buenos Aires.
During his presidential campaign, Milei insisted that Britain returning the Falkland Islands was ‘non-negotiable’, adding that the territory, known as the Malvinas in Argentina, is Argentine.
After his election in 2023, Grant Shapps, then-Defence Secretary, said: ‘The Falkland Islands are British. That is non-negotiable and undeniable.’
Referring to the results of the island’s 2013 referendum, Shapps continued: ‘99.8% of islanders voted to remain British and we will always defend their right to self-determination and the UK’s sovereignty.’
The discovery of a large oil field in the Falklands also led to recent controversy with the UK government, as Labour’s commitments to no new oil drilling licenses means they would not assist the islanders with extracting the natural resource.
The Sea Lion oil field, first discovered in 2010 in the North Falkland Basin roughly 135 miles (220 kilometres) offshore, was hailed at the time as potentially the biggest discovery of its kind since North Sea Oil.
But an updated report conducted in October by a top energy analysis firm estimated that some 917 million barrels of oil could be recovered from Sea Lion – roughly twice the annual output of the entire North Sea.
Rockhopper Exploration, the company leading the development, now plans to extract 532 million barrels – a substantial increase from its earlier estimate of 312 million that could lead to a potentially enormous economic boon for the British Overseas Territory.
The Falklands Islands Government (FIG) greenlit the exploitation of Sea Lion earlier this year after a consultation with the population of around 3,500 was reportedly met with widespread support.
A final decision on proceeding with drilling is expected next year with the first exploration of the field expected as early as 2027.
But the plans represent a significant thorn in the side of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government which banned the issuing of new drilling licenses to oil and gas firms eager to exploit the North Sea days after taking office in July.
Labour is also racing to reduce carbon emissions by at least 68% by 2030, compared to a 1990 baseline as part of a wider goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
As a result, the government will not provide any financial support to the Falklands plan after Foreign Secretary David Lammy declared in September: ‘Action on the climate and nature crisis will be central to all that the Foreign Office does.’
The Falkland Islands constitute a British Overseas Territory and the UK is responsible for its engagement in foreign affairs and for its defence.
But power over governance of the islands domestic affairs is devolved to the FIG, so Westminster has no say over internal matters.
A statement released by a FIG spokesperson said: ‘The matter of development of the natural resources of the Falkland Islands is a devolved matter and is for the people of the Falkland Islands to decide.
‘Given the UK’s robust and continued support to uphold the Falkland Islanders right to determine their own future we would expect this to extend to our freedom to choose whether or not to develop a hydrocarbon industry, subject to all of the appropriate checks and balances.’
The EPP has been contacted for comment.