Is there a precedent for representatives from other blocs e.g NATO, mercosur etc getting diplomatic status? If so this is fairly petty. If not I can kind of see where they’re coming from but yeah still a bit petty considering it’s an established precedent with the EU in itself .. especially under the circumstances.
NATO and the UN generally have their own classes of visas that do not grant diplomatic privileges. In the US for example, there are NATO visas for NATO representatives, and G visas for members of international organizations [0] (although they made an exception to that and let the EU and African Union representatives enter on diplomatic A visas) [1].
The funny part is that this is a total tempest in a teapot. Diplomatic immunity hardly ever gets used nowadays; the only real advantage to diplomatic status is avoiding the London congestion taxes.
And that turned into a significant diplomatic incident precisely because of the way diplomatic immunity was exercised in that case... In serious situations like that between friendly countries with fair judicial systems, diplomatic immunity usually gets waived.
It still hasn’t been resolved last I checked and it was a decision made by the current administration so I’ve little faith that the attitude has changed.
The innevitable conclusion to this (after plenty of willy waggling and insisting that Brexit meant taking back sovereignty whilst also now inisting the EU doesn't have soveriegnty) is that you can cover the diplomats as representatives from their home countries. So Joao Vale de Almeida will just be a Portugese diplomat serving in his role in the EU.
The UKs existing laws do not allow the granting of diplomatic status to organizations only to representatives of nation states the existing laws need to be amended.
Why they weren’t and why this wasn’t part of the withdrawal deal I don’t know, probably more oversight than outright malice.
So I’m not so sure it’s petty at least not as of yet as there is no legal framework in the UK to extend diplomatic status to people who represent the EU (or any other organization) but who’s own nation state has not issued diplomatic credentials to and requested the UK to accept them.
If it’s a matter of oversight that EU officials heretofore had not this status then it is surely petty to not recognise the precedent and amend the laws if needs be.
The law does not allow for the recognition of organizations, the fact that it would be a precedence is exactly why it cannot be amended this quickly as the impact on the British legal system needs to be reviewed and understood.
The law hasn’t been amended since 1964 and it has impact on other things including taxation
It’s literally hasn’t been even a month since Brexit and only about 2 weeks since the request came in and about a week since it became an actual issue.
Okay, the devil is in the detail on this one. I took it that the UK said they “won’t” - or are unwilling to - but by your interpretation they say they “can’t” - presently but might like to review that in the future ...
The “Profit” is in performing to the pre-senile grumps that make up the rump of the Tory base. This kind of thing wouldn’t be out of place in the Telegraph at all ...
After what happened with the US and diplomatic immunity of the women that murdered the kid, I'm not surprised that the UK is not willing to extend it to huge delegations coming in.
It's easier to control and administer on a per-country basis.
Well, does France, say, still have an ambassador to the UK? Why? Does Alaska have one? No, but the US has one. So if the EU wants to be a country, accept their ambassador, and send away the ambassadors of France, Spain, Italy, Greece, and all the rest.
But if you've got ambassadors from all of those countries, why should you have an EU ambassador? If France and Germany are countries with ambassadors, then what's the EU?
