UK refuses to recognise EU embassy

Absolutely pathetic, but if I'm honest, nothing less than what I would expect from this xenophobic government.

It's bizarre, almost childlike.

I think Johnson's 'government' are heading for a big fall. Biden will work to the EU and sideline the UK.

Absolutely pathetic, but if I'm honest, nothing less than what I would expect from this xenophobic government.

Who genuinely cares? From what it seems, the EU ambassador has the normal range of immunities and so on, and that a discussion on the status is ongoing. If all we're talking about here is an invite to the Queen's garden party or some other diplomatic flummery, I really can't bring myself to give a toss either way.

What can they not do under the current arrangement? Why does this suddenly matter when it's been discussed for months and no conclusion has been arrived at?

I think I would provisionally agree with the government on this issue.

At it's heart, the EU is a simple & bogstandard supranational organisation created through international treaties - Treaty of Rome, Treaty of Paris etc ... Nothing more. However, it is not a nation state. I think there is an important technical difference.

I think once we go down this road, I am not sure why any other NGO across the world (such as the WHO) cannot also be afforded "diplomatic cover" for their spokesman.

Who genuinely cares? From what it seems, the EU ambassador has the normal range of immunities and so on, and that a discussion on the status is ongoing. If all we're talking about here is an invite to the Queen's garden party or some other diplomatic flummery, I really can't bring myself to give a toss either way.

What can they not do under the current arrangement? Why does this suddenly matter when it's been discussed for months and no conclusion has been arrived at?

While I agree with you almost entirely, the flip side is why, why make waves and gove the EU such a large FU, for no reason or gain?

It's more than that - it's a question of who we deal with. The big global powers deal with the EU as a diplomatic entity, they perform negotiations, they talk to the EU via EU diplomats as a state. The UK government is trying to get around that for ideological reasons, but it simply marginalises the UK even more than it already has marginalised itself (which is a lot) because whilst most other countries are dealing direct with the EU, the UK will be trying to deal separately with each EU member state and failing, as attempted with the negotiations and also failed.

It's actually a strong indicator that our current government are wildly out of their depth, incompetent, ideological nutters who simply can't face reality.

So far as I can see, it's got nothing to do with how we relate to the EU at all - it's simply a matter of precedence and an honorific that might mean something in terms of standing, but nothing much beyond that. It might be mildly insulting, but does it actually impact on anything material?

I doubt other countries really care how we rank our ambassadors, to be honest.

Not so. It would infer that we have no diplomatic relations with the entity of the EU.

Yet the whole point (allegedly) of Brexit was that we were leaving because we did not wish to be part of the grand federalising project to turn the EU into a superstate. Now we've left, our government are pretending it's not any sort of state.

I appreciate that for a lot of people everything must be framed in Brexit/Remainer terms, but I don't think Brexit or the EU have much relevance here. It's a question of diplomatic rights of non-state entities.

I think you've got a bit carried away with the headlines here. The UK obviously does have diplomatic relations with the EU and a number of other international organisations too. We deal with the European Commission, as an entity, constantly.

The question, so far as I can see, is one of standing - because it seems that the current or interim status provides all the same immunities and so on that are expected.

Xenophobic government 🤣🤣🤣🤣

All aside I don't understand what they are trying to achieve by this political muscle flexing, I'm guessing the excuse is the EU isn't a country and is too big for it boot having one! But.... why rock the boat ... just why?

International diplomacy doesn't really work like that. An entity decides it is the Supreme Sausage or whatever and we either accept it or earn it and its supporters' displeasure. Anomalous diplomatic entities have always existed and continue to be created. We are not the arbiters of classification.

A Protestant monarch does not receive an Ambassador from the Vatican City State. She receives a Papal Nuncio from the Holy See. Angeline Jolie travels on a diplomatic passport issued by the United Nations. Belarus and Ukraine were founder members of the UN. India joined 6 days later in 1945. What is an Aga Khan?

I think I would provisionally agree with the government on this issue.

At it's heart, the EU is a simple & bogstandard supranational organisation created through international treaties - Treaty of Rome, Treaty of Paris etc ... Nothing more. However, it is not a nation state. I think there is an important technical difference.

I think once we go down this road, I am not sure why any other NGO across the world (such as the WHO) cannot also be afforded "diplomatic cover" for their spokesman.