UK refuses to recognise EU embassy

Scroll to see replies

Hello there

I am not sure which part of my post you are responding to.

As I understand, it's a question of whether you give full diplomatic cover a la Vienna Convention or a more ad hoc approach.

What I am saying is that it is a diplomatic dead end to decide that an organisation shouldn’t have full diplomacy status when it and its supporters has decided that it should even if by rights it shouldn’t have that status.

Reply 21

Burton Bridge

Original post by imlikeahermit

Definition of Xenophobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.

If removing us from the biggest trading bloc in the world based on a referendum that was sold on reducing immigration isn't xenophobia I don't know what is.

You are confused, this topic isn't about removing us from the SM/CU by leaving a political union the British people never wished to join! Nor is it about why people voted leave in the referendum referendum. It's about the UK government refusing to recognise the EU ambassador. Which most other countries recognises, in turn recognising the EU as a diplomatic entity.

The on topic point is UK government refusal to recognise the EU ambassador to the UK, which the majority of countries do. Which as @ByEeek stated is a daft move because if you want anything from anyone in the EU you need to ask their overlords (the EU) first. On the on topic point, I completely agree with him! Why wouldn't you recognise the EU ambassador, what gain are we getting from it?

Unfortunately the usual "footballifcation" (as James O'Brien refers to it) prevents any conversation as crass repitive statements are made with no thought or logic from each side. Like "football songs" chanted at the "other team" in a mindless united tribal front. In this case the Xenophobic nonsense, which made me laugh. Even if leave did win on reducing immigration (which they didn't) this isn't necessarily xenophobia. And even if it is, it isn't an accurate description to use for the governments questionable (to put it mildly) decision to recognise every other country's diplomatic representatives but snub the EU's because they are not a country.

You need to move on, the country needs to move on. If people like you don't move on we we end up like America. If that's not a sobering thought I really dont know what is.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 22

Napp

Original post by L i b

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.

In fairness, how ambassadors are ranked, and if they're snubbed, is generally given quite a lot of note in the halls of power. It tends to be taken as a national snub and entails all the associated effects.
As an example, I believe it was Darroch who wrote a bit about it in his autobiography in that countries like to use how their ambassador is treated to see how they're perceived. If you want to offend a government you iltreat their ambassador. For our largest trading partner and the key to our defence many would consider it a pointless bit of petty posturing to insult them for no good reason other than, at best, party political showmanship to their followers.

Reply 23

Rakas21

I actually have a lot of sympathy here. EU states can either have us recognise the EU as the entity or their individual states, not both (though it's their decision).

Arguably though for those states who are part of the core at least, it probably does make sense to merge embassies. I guess it's states like Italy and Poland that may not be overly keen.

Reply 24

username1799249

Original post by Burton Bridge

The on topic point is UK government refusal to recognise the EU ambassador to the UK, which the majority of countries do. Which as @ByEeek stated is a daft move because if you want anything from anyone in the EU you need to ask their overlords (the EU) first. On the on topic point, I completely agree with him! Why wouldn't you recognise the EU ambassador, what gain are we getting from it?

I think you are being a bit disingenuous calling the EU the overlords. The EU is a club with which to pool bargaining power just like members of trades unions do. As a group of people you have so much more power than as an individual. We used to have lots of power when we were inside and influencing the EU. Now we have the illusion of freedom some call sovereignty, but no power to influence others any more.

Reply 25

Pythian

Original post by nulli tertius

Fair enough.

I take a different view, whilst diplomacy from classical Greece to the Renaissance is about disputes between the major powers being settled via diplomacy and negotiation; there is - in my view - too much diplomatic protection.

Whilst I am in favour of states not forcibly entering an embassy without permission or not having their ambassador's communications and mail respected; I do not see why NGO's ought to also enjoy diplomatic immunity from prosecution - a la Harry Dunn. It's bad enough having other states do as they please without adding people at the WHO, UN, or EU. The original aegis of diplomatic legal immunity makes sense to a point and it used to be negotiated on an ad hoc bilateral basis between two states. I don't think any such similar privilege should be extended to any NGO official when they don't have a state of their own to negotiate qui-pro-quo back with us? I think this sets an awful precedent.

Reply 26

Pythian

Original post by ByEeek

It does present itself like a nation state though. If you want to do business with a country in the EU, you need to talk to Uncle EU first. The question really is why wouldn't you recognise an embassy. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer and all that. Except the EU is an organisation we formed and its member states are our very close friends and allies plus our immediate neighbours.

Hi ByEeek,

"If you want to do business with a country in the EU, you need to talk to Uncle EU first."

This is not true. Because of the internal market, a business can go to any EU member state and do business directly with a supplier etc ... without having to ask some official's permission. You would get the same rates across the EU.

Reply 27

username1799249

Original post by Pythian

Agreed. But we are no longer a member state.

But this is more on a governmental level. If the UK wants to trade with France it can only deal with the EU as a whole.

Reply 28

Rakas21

Original post by ByEeek

Agreed. But we are no longer a member state.

But this is more on a governmental level. If the UK wants to trade with France it can only deal with the EU as a whole.

Then the French should be closing their embassy in favour of an EU one, no?

Reply 29

Pythian

Original post by ByEeek

Agreed. But we are no longer a member state.

But this is more on a governmental level. If the UK wants to trade with France it can only deal with the EU as a whole.

You don't need to speak an ambassador to sell the French some of our Lancashire sausages.

Reply 30

Starship Trooper

Good. It's not a country.

Reply 31

Burton Bridge

Original post by ByEeek

I don't think so, an overlord is a person of great power or authority. The EU enforce member states to sign up to the superiority of EU law, therefore making themselves of greater power than individual member.

I'm not convinced we have no power of influence anymore, anyway even if we have opening these old argeuments are not helpful. We should be holding the government to account for what it does, not fighting in remain/leave tribes, which was my point. I think we both agree on that?

Reply 32

username1799249

Original post by Rakas21

Then the French should be closing their embassy in favour of an EU one, no?

No. Because in matters of defence and other world matters, you deal directly with the government.

It is a bit like the employer saying they won't recognise the union and then being surprised when all the employees go on strike. Embassys are simply an opportunity to talk. The more you talk, the fewer surprises you are likely to encounter.

Reply 33

username1799249

Original post by Burton Bridge

Rubbish. The member states control the EU. Do you even know how the EU works? Nothing happens in the EU without being ratified by the member states. Many people think the EU commission run the EU but they don't. All they do is propose legislation. And the final arbiter are the MEPs who we voted for. The idea that the EU is some rogue organisation exerting its will on everyone else without checks and balances is a complete fallacy.

When we were in the EU, much of what was supposedly imposed on us was actually proposed by the UK government! You know - like human rights are the removal of mobile telephone roaming charges. And the one thing that was imposed us has benefitted us massively. Can you remember those heady days when you would be swimming in the sea off Bridlington and see your morning turd our for the same bracing experience?

Reply 34

Burton Bridge

Original post by ByEeek

We are moving off topic now. I do realise how the EU works, I realise the EU's law is superior to its member states law. That makes the EU more powerful in law to its members, which is why I called it an overlord, you referd it to an big uncle, same thing.

I'm not getting into off topic dialog about how broken the European parliament is or isnt. I maintain my view point that viewing everything through remain/leave specs isn't helpful.

Reply 35

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Rakas21

Then the French should be closing their embassy in favour of an EU one, no?

There's some merit to the argument that if we are to have an EU embassy (and send an ambassador to the EU) then we should no longer operate separate full embassies with all the member states. These would effectively become local Consulates. I agree that to some extent the EU wants its cake and eat eat it, as the member states still demand full representation.

It might be best to approach the EU as some sort of observing status, a little like the British 'embassy' in the Vatican which has always been more like a friendly visiting observer than a mainstream embassy to a true sovereign power.

The UN recognises the EU as a full separate participant now.

Reply 36

Rakas21

Original post by Fullofsurprises

The UN is flaccid and does as it is told, that's not an argument in favour.

Personally I consider having as few bodies represented as possible to be ideal. Beyond symbolism I'm not even sure why allow a Vatican observer.

Reply 37

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Rakas21

The Vatican one is arguably just a tradition, but another argument is that the Holy See does have a global reach, it is a meeting place for many countries and the Papacy is still surprisingly powerful, so when you look at it like that, maybe it's merited.

The issue now is that the reality is that the EU is a much more important body than any of its national governments and therefore it is at that level that representation should take place. This is now totally recognised by the global corporations and their lobbyists. By pretending that somehow it isn't, the UK government are playing politics with their foolish backbenchers and closing their eyes to reality. The separate question of national state representations to Germany, France, Italy, etc, should likewise be dialled back. It's complete foolishness for the UK government to imagine they can somehow negotiate at that level going forwards.