Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[rollover]

1 hour ago, 14stFlyer said:

Looks like it is already happening with Covid vaccines, although in this case it is the EU that is threatening vaccine nationalism - not a good look...

Your comment is taken out of the context, while trying to blame the EU.

 

The UK-headquartered pharmaceutical company unexpectedly announced last week that it would cut vaccine supplies to Europe because of production issues.

One EU official involved in the talks told Reuters the EU explicitly asked AstraZeneca whether it could divert to the bloc doses produced in Britain, at least through March.

But the company did not answer these questions, the official said.

The UK government said there would be no change to the UK's vaccination campaign because of AstraZeneca's decision to reduce deliveries to the continent.

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday the bloc "means business" about getting its fair share of vaccines after British officials feared the EU could restrict exports of vaccines manufactured in Europe.

UK Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi warned the EU against adopting "the dead end of vaccine nationalism", while Health Minister Matt Hancock said "protectionism is not the right approach in the middle of the pandemic" when asked about the EU potentially restricting exports.

thenationalnews

[kzb]

16 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

It's up to them how they arrange their diplomatic representation now. If they want to band together on some things through the EU then it's no use us telling them that we don't recognise their club.

No, it's got to be a sovereign nation to have diplomats with diplomatic status.  The EU is not yet that.  One day it will be, and at that point it will have diplomats afforded diplomatic status.

Maybe the member states can say, we appoint X to be our ambassador and  this address here will be our joint mission.   Maybe that would fulfil the treaty conditions and we would be obligated to grant diplomatic status.  I don't know.

[IMHAL]

2 hours ago, rollover said:

Your comment is taken out of the context, while trying to blame the EU.

 

The UK-headquartered pharmaceutical company unexpectedly announced last week that it would cut vaccine supplies to Europe because of production issues.

One EU official involved in the talks told Reuters the EU explicitly asked AstraZeneca whether it could divert to the bloc doses produced in Britain, at least through March.

But the company did not answer these questions, the official said.

The UK government said there would be no change to the UK's vaccination campaign because of AstraZeneca's decision to reduce deliveries to the continent.

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday the bloc "means business" about getting its fair share of vaccines after British officials feared the EU could restrict exports of vaccines manufactured in Europe.

UK Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi warned the EU against adopting "the dead end of vaccine nationalism", while Health Minister Matt Hancock said "protectionism is not the right approach in the middle of the pandemic" when asked about the EU potentially restricting exports.

thenationalnews

Remember, in Brexitland, what's ours is ours and what's their's is ours.......that is the Brexidiot mentallity.

Where is the old British sense of fair play?

Really, we are headed for a much worse relations with the EU.....you have to wonder if is by accident or by design?.......

My early prediction of 'Brexit will never be Brexity enough' looks set to continue.

Edited January 26 by IMHAL

[IMHAL]

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

No, it's got to be a sovereign nation to have diplomats with diplomatic status.  The EU is not yet that.  One day it will be, and at that point it will have diplomats afforded diplomatic status.

143 other nations disagree. Good old British exceptionalism...and a large dose of idiocy is at work.

 

[thecrashingisles]

59 minutes ago, kzb said:

No, it's got to be a sovereign nation to have diplomats with diplomatic status.  The EU is not yet that.  One day it will be, and at that point it will have diplomats afforded diplomatic status.

Maybe the member states can say, we appoint X to be our ambassador and  this address here will be our joint mission.   Maybe that would fulfil the treaty conditions and we would be obligated to grant diplomatic status.  I don't know.

So the Secretary General of the UN shouldn’t get diplomatic status in your book?

[kzb]

15 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

So the Secretary General of the UN shouldn’t get diplomatic status in your book?

I think there are a small number of organisations (as opposed to nations) covered by treaty, but I believe the EU is not one of them.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

The issue of whether the EU is a state is largely irrelavent.

The UK as a sovereign nation can have relations with who it wants, regardless of whether we think they are states, or whether or not the rest of the world thinks they are states. It isn't forced to have relations with a country because the rest of the world does. Of course having/not having relations can have consequences. See Taiwan/China.

The bigger question to me is whether or not it is in the UKs interest to give diplomatic status to the EU staff. And I don't know what the answer to this is, as I don't know what it is the EU intend to use those staff for, whether those staff currently have diplomatic immunity or not. At the moment we appear to conduct relations with the EU. Do their staff have diplomatic immunity, and if they didn't have diplomatic immunity previously why would it be necessary for them to have it now ?

Diplomatic immunity to me isn't something you should give lightly. You should give it to people who need it to do their jobs, when it is necessary. It shouldn't be something that is just assigned on a whim.

[Confusion of VIs]

7 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

The issue of whether the EU is a state is largely irrelavent.

The UK as a sovereign nation can have relations with who it wants, regardless of whether we think they are states, or whether or not the rest of the world thinks they are states. It isn't forced to have relations with a country because the rest of the world does. Of course having/not having relations can have consequences. See Taiwan/China.

The bigger question to me is whether or not it is in the UKs interest to give diplomatic status to the EU staff. And I don't know what the answer to this is, as I don't know what it is the EU intend to use those staff for, whether those staff currently have diplomatic immunity or not. At the moment we appear to conduct relations with the EU. Do their staff have diplomatic immunity, and if they didn't have diplomatic immunity previously why would it be necessary for them to have it now ?

Diplomatic immunity to me isn't something you should give lightly. You should give it to people who need it to do their jobs, when it is necessary. It shouldn't be something that is just assigned on a whim.

Every other country in the world recognises the EU diplomats. Hard to think of this as other than an embarrassingly pointless piece of childish behaviour.    

 

[IMHAL]

40 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

The issue of whether the EU is a state is largely irrelavent.

The UK as a sovereign nation can have relations with who it wants, regardless of whether we think they are states, or whether or not the rest of the world thinks they are states. It isn't forced to have relations with a country because the rest of the world does. Of course having/not having relations can have consequences. See Taiwan/China.

The bigger question to me is whether or not it is in the UKs interest to give diplomatic status to the EU staff. And I don't know what the answer to this is, as I don't know what it is the EU intend to use those staff for, whether those staff currently have diplomatic immunity or not. At the moment we appear to conduct relations with the EU. Do their staff have diplomatic immunity, and if they didn't have diplomatic immunity previously why would it be necessary for them to have it now ?

Diplomatic immunity to me isn't something you should give lightly. You should give it to people who need it to do their jobs, when it is necessary. It shouldn't be something that is just assigned on a whim.

Ooooow...really hard question to answer that.... the fact that the EU is our biggest customer might give us a little clue..........

[IMHAL]

27 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Every other country in the world recognises the EU diplomats. Hard to think of this as other than an embarrassingly pointless piece of childish behaviour.    

 

It is embarassing. I'd say the most stupid thing we have done so far.....apart from about 100 other Brexit related idiotic self harming fckwittery.

[kzb]

43 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

The issue of whether the EU is a state is largely irrelavent.

The UK as a sovereign nation can have relations with who it wants, regardless of whether we think they are states, or whether or not the rest of the world thinks they are states. It isn't forced to have relations with a country because the rest of the world does. Of course having/not having relations can have consequences. See Taiwan/China.

The bigger question to me is whether or not it is in the UKs interest to give diplomatic status to the EU staff. And I don't know what the answer to this is, as I don't know what it is the EU intend to use those staff for, whether those staff currently have diplomatic immunity or not. At the moment we appear to conduct relations with the EU. Do their staff have diplomatic immunity, and if they didn't have diplomatic immunity previously why would it be necessary for them to have it now ?

Diplomatic immunity to me isn't something you should give lightly. You should give it to people who need it to do their jobs, when it is necessary. It shouldn't be something that is just assigned on a whim.

It's not about relationships or interests.  There are treaties governing these areas.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an international treaty that defines a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. (My bold).

After that it is a bit more complex.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations

This treaty is not in force, because it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of nations.  France has not ratified.  Neither have Portugal or Poland.  The USA neither, but we have.

On top of that, the EU is not listed as one of the "international organisations":

...there are 12 international organizations that issued formal confirmations of the convention: IAEA, ICAO, Interpol, ILO, IMO, OPCW, CTBTO Preparatory Commission, the UN, UNIDO, UPU, WHO, WIPO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties_between_States_and_International_Organizations_or_between_International_Organizations

So basically, the first treaty is not applicable because that is between independent countries.  The second treaty is not in force and if it were said to be in force in the UK because the UK is one of the few nations that has ratified it, the EU is not one of the organisations that has agreed to it.

So there does not seem to be any legal requirement for giving EU officials diplomatic status under these treaties.

You could say we'll grant them diplomatic status as a favour.  But then every man and his dog would be after it.

You could say we will grant them special privileges similar to diplomats, but if we do, we don't say it is because of any international law.  We are doing this as a favour, not because we need to or even should do.  We don't give them  titles of ambassador or diplomats, we say they are representatives with special privileges or something.

 

[kzb]

3 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Let's go back a bit further, how many is many.

It's clearly not one or two, I would say it implies at least a significant minority.

The truth is not many, if any, people are saying it. 

    

Oh come on.  You thought it was only a swivel-eyed site saying it.  And it turns out to be Andrew Bailey......oh dear.  And if he says it, do you not think there will be a great many agreeing with what he says?

 

[dugsbody]

32 minutes ago, kzb said:

It's not about relationships or interests.  There are treaties governing these areas.

You keep going round in circles about the same irrelevancies. There are indeed treaties governing the areas. Stop with that now.

The point is, every single other nation chooses to go above the treaties and afford diplomatic status to the EU, and why not. Why is the UK alone in the world in not doing that?

And the answer is because the UK is engaged in a childish tantrum to please the local audience of idiot brexiters. And it works. End of explanation.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

Ooooow...really hard question to answer that.... the fact that the EU is our biggest customer might give us a little clue..........

So you're basically saying that because we trade with someone, their representatives on our soil should have immunity from our laws.

Sorry, guess we'll have to differ on that one. To me that is subjective rather than objective though.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

1 minute ago, dugsbody said:

You keep going round in circles about the same irrelevancies. There are indeed treaties governing the areas. Stop with that now.

The point is, every single other nation chooses to go above the treaties and afford diplomatic status to the EU, and why not. Why is the UK alone in the world in not doing that?

And the answer is because the UK is engaged in a childish tantrum to please the local audience of idiot brexiters. And it works. End of explanation.

Maybe because the UK doesn't want to confer diplomatic rights on people without serious consideration, especially since they can have grave consequences for UK people who might suffer as a consequence of their actions, as well as seriously affect the relationships between the countries involved ?

And maybe because once those rights are established it is very hard to rescind them ?

Personally I would hope the UK only gives diplomatic immunity to people who it is absolutely necessary to. The less people that have it the better IMO.

 

[14stFlyer]

4 hours ago, rollover said:

 

5 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:

Looks like it is already happening with Covid vaccines, although in this case it is the EU that is threatening vaccine nationalism - not a good look...

Your comment is taken out of the context, while trying to blame the EU

 

Sorry Rollover, I had not seen this phrase used by others.  I was just saying it as I see it. 
 

To be clear, I was recently panning the British government for their position on the EU diplomatic mission (where it is looking confused and petty in my view), and rubbishing an attempt to say the EU was indoctrinating our young people. So here I am on the other side pointing out the EU is not looking great on the much more important issue of fair and legal distribution of vaccines. 

I am still hopeful that the EU will not restrict private corporation exports of Covid-19 vaccines to fulfil contracts.  But If it does, then I am afraid EU-bashers will have a lot more ammo. 
 

Even if they do not, the threat to do so from Jens Spahn, the German health minister, was, as I said, not a good look.  

[IMHAL]

54 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

So you're basically saying that because we trade with someone, their representatives on our soil should have immunity from our laws.

Erm...they are the biggest trade block in the world...not exactly just 'someone' are they?

54 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Sorry, guess we'll have to differ on that one. To me that is subjective rather than objective though.

I go with the subjective....143 countries have 'subjectively chosen to...one hasn't.....kind of makes it virtually objective don't you think 

 

[IMHAL]

4 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

Sorry Rollover, I had not seen this phrase used by others.  I was just saying it as I see it. 
 

To be clear, I was recently panning the British government for their position on the EU diplomatic mission (where it is looking confused and petty in my view), and rubbishing an attempt to say the EU was indoctrinating our young people. So here I am on the other side pointing out the EU is not looking great on the much more important issue of fair and legal distribution of vaccines. 

I am still hopeful that the EU will not restrict private corporation exports of Covid-19 vaccines to fulfil contracts.  But If it does, then I am afraid EU-bashers will have a lot more ammo. 
 

Even if they do not, the threat to do so from Jens Spahn, the German health minister, was, as I said, not a good look.  

I admire a balanced view and understand that the EU may potentially look bad but, all they are saying is that if the UK does not play fair and share then why should the EU not at least try to monitor and ensure a fairer distribution?

[14stFlyer]

9 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

I admire a balanced view and understand that the EU may potentially look bad but, all they are saying is that if the UK does not play fair and share then why should the EU not at least try to monitor and ensure a fairer distribution?

Understood. . 
 

I find it astonishing that I feel concern for big pharma companies like AstraZeneca and Pfizer. But to be honest I think I now trust them to be more transparent than our current set of politicians, and dread to think what pressures they may be under behind the scenes...  I have perhaps become too cynical. 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Erm...they are the biggest trade block in the world...not exactly just 'someone' are they?

I go with the subjective....143 countries have 'subjectively chosen to...one hasn't.....kind of makes it virtually objective don't you think 

 

Not really, no.

I don't believe we should strive or do something just because the rest of the world does it too.

Take the corruption index for example :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

We are joint 12th. I don't believe that because on average the worlds countries are more corrupt than the UK that that is something we should strive for. You can cite a whole host of other situations similar to this as well.

Ultimately the UK will decide what it decides. But to me it should give serious consideration to who it does and doesn't hand diplomatic immunity to, and recent cases illustrate this. I think it's understandable that the UK can't prioritise the rights of an individual over the benefits that diplomats may bring to the entire nation. Due consideration is all most people can ask for/expect. And I don't think the UK is being petulant or childish in taking that consideration.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

Oh come on.  You thought it was only a swivel-eyed site saying it.  And it turns out to be Andrew Bailey......oh dear.  And if he says it, do you not think there will be a great many agreeing with what he says?

 

Your original claim was

Many are saying they will indeed be an even bigger global player without the dead hand of EU regulations.  I don't pretend to know much about this world myself but this is what many are saying, so there is an alternative view to yours.

You then claimed that Baliey supported this view, giving the following link as evidence of this 

Brexit job exodus 'substantially less' than predicted, BoE governor says | Business News | Sky News

Nowhere in this article does he say anything that comes even remotely near supporting your claim. 

A fair summary of his interview would be he said "things have not turned out as badly as some said they would". 

As some people said we would end up eating grass, this is pretty much the same as saying nothing and was no doubt his way of avoiding being drawn into criticising Brexit.

[IMHAL]

13 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Not really, no.

I don't believe we should strive or do something just because the rest of the world does it too.

Stop right there.

You don't think that being our biggest customer and the largest trade block in the world with 20 odd countries who all speak with one voice on issues that range from trade, security, data, regulations etc are not worth taking seriously and with sensitivity , as all the others have?

Sorry.... this is just Brexit speak that closely resembles our faux pas with breaking international law.

13 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Take the corruption index for example :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

We are joint 12th. I don't believe that because on average the worlds countries are more corrupt than the UK that that is something we should strive for. You can cite a whole host of other situations similar to this as well.

What? You cannot equate the two situations.

13 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Ultimately the UK will decide what it decides. But to me it should give serious consideration to who it does and doesn't hand diplomatic immunity to, and recent cases illustrate this. I think it's understandable that the UK can't prioritise the rights of an individual over the benefits that diplomats may bring to the entire nation. Due consideration is all most people can ask for/expect. And I don't think the UK is being petulant or childish in taking that consideration.

 Deary me....the purpose of diplomany is to get really difficult and sensitive things done. It is quite clear that the UK does not want to 'get things done' with the EU, so in this respect it is par for the course for the UK. More Brexit please!

[kzb]

36 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Erm...they are the biggest trade block in the world...not exactly just 'someone' are they?

So do we have diplomats from NAFTA or CPTPP ?  (Honest side question: is the EU bigger than NAFTA?)

[IMHAL]

1 minute ago, kzb said:

So do we have diplomats from NAFTA or CPTPP ?  (Honest side question: is the EU bigger than NAFTA?)

Not listening again I see. The EU dealt with a range of issues that is far far broader than just trade ie security, data, etc etc etc.. the represented coubtries speak as one on these issues. There is little point talking to them individually on these commonly represented issues.

Look, if you are an advocate for damaging trade and that broad range of other areas, then you are going about it the right way. Fill your boots...but don't say you where not warned.

[kzb]

1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

You keep going round in circles about the same irrelevancies. There are indeed treaties governing the areas. Stop with that now.

The point is, every single other nation chooses to go above the treaties and afford diplomatic status to the EU, and why not. Why is the UK alone in the world in not doing that?

And the answer is because the UK is engaged in a childish tantrum to please the local audience of idiot brexiters. And it works. End of explanation.

No I think it is inconsistent to afford the same status to an organisation that is granted to sovereign nations.

Backed up by the fact there is no legal reason to do so.  Why should the EU expect this anyhow?  Does that not indicate incredible arrogance on their part?

I also think we need a bit more detail on these 143 other countries.  Check if it is actually true that they have all given the EU exactly the same diplomatic status as a sovereign country.  If they have, why.  Also there are 195 countries recognised in the world.  What about the remaining 52?

If this is so important to them why don't they actually sign up to the Convention I linked above?  Why don't they get France and Portugal et al to ratify it while they are at it?