Should A Eu Ambassador Get Full Diplomatic Immunity?

[webbo3]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/uk-insists-it-will-not-grant-eu-ambassador-full-diplomatic-status

\\The UK has been insisting it will not give the EU ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida, and his 25-strong mission the privileges and immunities afforded to diplomats under the Vienna Convention.//

\\The Foreign Office said: “The EU, its Delegation and staff will receive the privileges and immunities necessary to enable them to carry out their work in the UK effectively.”//

\\The Foreign Office says it would set a precedent by treating an international body in the same way as a nation state. Other international organisations would then apply, it says, leading to a proliferation of other such bodies seeking diplomatic status//

\\It is understood that the Foreign Office is affording the EU the same level of diplomatic protection as other international organisations and this is considered sufficient for the staff. The protection includes embassy property and documents being inviolable, and some staff being exempt from taxes. No staff can be prosecuted for acts committed in the course of their diplomatic duties.//

the EU is Political and economic union.
.

[lankeela]

No.

[dannyk13]

No, the EU is not a state.

[jim360]

Why should any Ambassador, if it comes to that? But leaving that aside, I hope this is resolved quickly. It seems stupid to keep finding relatively minor reasons to get into disagreements with the EU.

[ToraToraTora]

No, they are not a Nation.

[Canary42]

No.

[naomi24]

No.

[Khandro]

When they retire as an 'ambassador' (which may be coming sooner than they think) they will be granted higher pensions from the EU Ponzi scheme, simple.

[Hopkirk]

Aren't there more important things to worry about?

I voted Brexit, and am pleased to have left. However if this is the price to pay for building a healthy relationship, then give them what they want.

[Togo]

Just tell them that if they want an ambassador with full diplomatic status then the diplomats that represent the member states won't have it. Let them choose.

[jim360]

Careful, Hopkirk, you'll be accused of being anti-British with posts like that. :/

[woofgang]

I agree with Togo, no double dipping

[Ellipsis]

From the article:

> [The] UK is virtually unique in taking this position. The bloc enjoys full diplomatic status with 142 other countries around the world where it has delegations, and where its ambassadors are all granted the same status as diplomats representing sovereign nations.

I can see the logic of the UK's position but I'm no expert on international diplomacy, so there must be more to it than appears on the surface. I have to ask why we'd do something different to the USA, Canada, Australia etc etc, 142 other countries.

[jim360]

The UK's position technically enjoys legal support, as far as I can see: the Vienna Convention affords diplomatic immunity to ambassadors from sovereign states, rather than organisations. The EU is clearly in the latter category. On the other hand, the EU is also clearly far more important as international organisations go than most: the 27 member states have agreed to operate in many international settings as a single entity, and most countries treat it as such. As far as I can tell, the UK is only taking this stance to make a political point, rather than because this is the best way to treat EU Ambassadors.

[jno]

why employ one ambassador when you can have 27? (Plus entourages.) I'm sure the Foreign Office will see the value in it, even if taxpayers don't.

[vulcan42]

Isn't every country within the EU already diplomatically represented in the UK, why does the EU need a separate diplomat? That's like having an American, Canadian and North American diplomat.

[dannyk13]

Jim, so if we have an EU Ambassador does that mean that all the other European ambassadors that are in the UK will leave and go back to their respective countries?

[naomi24]

Jno, is it a case of one or twenty-seven? I thought not so I see no financial benefit in it.

[jim360]

Because at least sometimes you'll want to deal with the EU as opposed to any of its member states. In any case, the UK recognises the value of having an EU diplomat -- the question is merely about what level of protections they will get, not their presence per se.

[dannyk13]

Jim, so sometimes we will deal with the French ambassador , or the German ambassador, or the EU Ambassador.What a ridiculous idea.

[jim360]

How is it ridiculous? Sometimes we'll want to speak to Germany alone, sometimes we'll want to speak to France alone, and sometimes we'll want to speak to the EU.