Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think what he's saying is that no-one in the MUN cares about our little (utterly stupid) law.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by eff01)
    Oh for goodness sake! Are you really that out of touch? Implement this policy in RL and the consequences of this Bill will be huge.
    (Original post by eff01)
    I echo the statement of my Honourable Friend and Colleague. This Bill has left the United Kingdom more vulnerable than ever before. If a prosperous, established democracy like the UK is not willing to uphold this crucial diplomatic treaty, then why should any other country uphold this treaty for us. Tonight, a foreign government can storm a British Embassy, arrest our diplomatic staff on the most trivial of charges and this government can not do anything about it.

    Shame on this government, that has weakened the United Kingdom's international position and left our diplomatic staff across the world vulnerable than ever. Appalling.

    You know what? I'm bored of reading your comments again. You whine and whine and whine and people are fed up with it. You aren't respected at all because you act like an idiot and engage in pointless theatrics. I'm fed up of reading your posts all the time which are devoid of any debate whatsoever and either expose you as someone who can't debate or someone who has no ideas. I have no interest in finding out which of the two is true so good day to you. I hope though that your party has the sense to bring back your predecessor who was skilled in this House and in the field of foreign affairs.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    I think what he's saying is that no-one in the MUN cares about our little (utterly stupid) law.
    Well done that man. My argument is that we can only speculate what the RL response would be, but where we do have evidence for an international response (i.e. the MUN) there has been so little protest that no-one cares. Interestingly, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 didn't appear to create a huge worldwide outcry when passed so why would this? Surely that Act would have put our embassies in danger, but it didn't.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    I frankly couldn't care less what the response is in the MUN and as an organisation, it is becoming so far detached from real life, it's almost an irrelevance to any of our proceedings. My objections would have been down to the response we would have received from the international community in real life had this gone through. It would have been a disaster for foreign relations, jeopardised our diplomatic missions and possibly even threatened our security.
    See Thunder's response and my own response.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    I think what he's saying is that no-one in the MUN cares about our little (utterly stupid) law.
    But I don't care about what the MUN thinks and I don't think their response or lack of response should have been raised as an argument either way. I guess in fairness to toronto, he was responding to eff01 who I think raised the MUN first.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I feel I should clarify that I don't necessarily disagree with the principles behind the bill. The Vienna Convention is strange and flawed. However, this kind of unilateral alteration is bonkers.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    You know what? I'm bored of reading your comments again. You whine and whine and whine and people are fed up with it. You aren't respected at all because you act like an idiot and engage in pointless theatrics. I'm fed up of reading your posts all the time which are devoid of any debate whatsoever and either expose you as someone who can't debate or someone who has no ideas. I have no interest in finding out which of the two is true so good day to you. I hope though that your party has the sense to bring back your predecessor who was skilled in this House and in the field of foreign affairs.
    If being respected means you insult people, then frankly I do not want to be respected. If you are bored of reading my comments, then don't quote me. No one is forcing you to read them. At-the-end-of-the-day, you can say whatever you want about me, criticise me, **** me off..I quite simply do not care
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Well done that man. My argument is that we can only speculate what the RL response would be, but where we do have evidence for an international response (i.e. the MUN) there has been so little protest that no-one cares. Interestingly, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 didn't appear to create a huge worldwide outcry when passed so why would this? Surely that Act would have put our embassies in danger, but it didn't.
    do you not watch the news? Ecuador and indeed most of South America reacted furiously to the suggestion we would use that act to arrest Assange...
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    do you not watch the news? Ecuador and indeed most of South America reacted furiously to the suggestion we would use that act to arrest Assange...
    They did, but only when there was a suggestion that the Act would be used. We have only legislated for an eventuality like in 1987 with the other Act and not threatened to use the Act. There's a difference between legislating for an eventuality (which is what we have done) and enacting said legislation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Well done that man. My argument is that we can only speculate what the RL response would be, but where we do have evidence for an international response (i.e. the MUN) there has been so little protest that no-one cares. Interestingly, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 didn't appear to create a huge worldwide outcry when passed so why would this? Surely that Act would have put our embassies in danger, but it didn't.
    That Act was regarded as fully consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Vienna Convention and kept the United Kingdom in line with other countries. Your Act seeks to give the Secretaries of State full authority to ignore the conventions with regards to prosecuting diplomats.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    That Act was regarded as fully consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Vienna Convention and kept the United Kingdom in line with other countries. Your Act seeks to give the Secretaries of State full authority to ignore the conventions with regards to prosecuting diplomats.
    Though at the moment it hasn't been enacted and so we're in line with the Convention, but have additional options at our disposal.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    They did, but only when there was a suggestion that the Act would be used. We have only legislated for an eventuality like in 1987 with the other Act and not threatened to use the Act. There's a difference between legislating for an eventuality (which is what we have done) and enacting said legislation.
    we had to withdraw that thread to avoid a serious international incident and it's already done untold damage to our relations with not only Ecuador but the entire region...

    and this is without mentioning of course that your bill gives much more power to ignore international law to the secretary of state...so to claim it wouldn't be controversial and cause international political tension if you tried it IRL is frankly just an outright lie.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    we had to withdraw that thread to avoid a serious international incident and it's already done untold damage to our relations with not only Ecuador but the entire region...

    and this is without mentioning of course that your bill gives much more power to ignore international law to the secretary of state...so to claim it wouldn't be controversial and cause international political tension if you tried it IRL is frankly just an outright lie.
    No I think you're misunderstanding my point so let me clarify. At the current time, said legislation hasn't been used and is therefore comparable to the 1987 Act which was legislated for and not used immediately when passed (barring one time which was uncontroversial). There that Act wasn't criticised and this one shouldn't be either. We would seek to use the Act and speak to our counterparts before using said Act and, therefore, learn from the lessons of the Assange case. The powers are there and, when used, they will be used sparingly and after dialogue with the diplomatic staff's country of origin. At least that's how I imagine it being used. I imagine it being used in a very similar way to the 1987 Act.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Though at the moment it hasn't been enacted and so we're in line with the Convention, but have additional options at our disposal.
    I should refer you to this clause in the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

    "The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law."

    Your Act gives the Secretary of State the authority to completely disregard international law. The two are not comparable.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    I should refer you to this clause in the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

    "The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law."

    Your Act gives the Secretary of State the authority to completely disregard international law. The two are not comparable.
    I'll speak to Life_peer, the author of the Bill, but I'm sure that we'd be willing to amend the Act to include that text.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    No I think you're misunderstanding my point so let me clarify. At the current time, said legislation hasn't been used and is therefore comparable to the 1987 Act which was legislated for and not used immediately when passed (barring one time which was uncontroversial). There that Act wasn't criticised and this one shouldn't be either. We would seek to use the Act and speak to our counterparts before using said Act and, therefore, learn from the lessons of the Assange case. The powers are there and, when used, they will be used sparingly and after dialogue with the diplomatic staff's country of origin.
    what is the purpose of an act if not to be used?

    if you ever use these powers you not only undermine Britain's international standing significantly but far worse you undermine international law and by doing so would directly put the lives of many, including British people at risk, not to mention the potentially far reaching consequences of such a blatant disregard for the Vienna convention by a nation as prominent as ours.

    edit: just saw Metro's post, so there you go that's why the first act wasn't controversial because it still makes sure we comply with international law, your act essentially gives us an opt out, which is a horrific precedent for any country to set, yet alone one as supposedly advanced and progressive as ours.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    what is the purpose of an act if not to be used?

    if you ever use these powers you not only undermine Britain's international standing significantly but far worse you undermine international law and by doing so would directly put the lives of many, including British people at risk, not to mention the potentially far reaching consequences of such a blatant disregard for the Vienna convention by a nation as prominent as ours.
    Well we'll discuss amending the Act to include the text which Nick has highlighted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eff01)
    I echo the statement of my Honourable Friend and Colleague. This Bill has left the United Kingdom more vulnerable than ever before. If a prosperous, established democracy like the UK is not willing to uphold this crucial diplomatic treaty, then why should any other country uphold this treaty for us. Tonight, a foreign government can storm a British Embassy, arrest our diplomatic staff on the most trivial of charges and this government can not do anything about it.

    Shame on this government, that has weakened the United Kingdom's international position and left our diplomatic staff across the world vulnerable than ever. Appalling.
    If our diplomats commit a crime I support the decision of other nations to arrest and charge them. Storming embassies though is something which should not be done by anyone.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    If our diplomats commit a crime I support the decision of other nations to arrest and charge them. Storming embassies though is something which should not be done by anyone.
    Even where other countries definition of a 'crime' vastly differs from our own?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Would this act actually be permissible under international law? The VC is the international law for diplomatic relations. If the clause is included then it will not be possible for this Act to be used. Right?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 18, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.