Politics1 min ago
Uk's "ambassador To The Eu" Resigns
http://
I meant to ask this before Christmas when Sir Ivan Rogers poked his nose into Brexit. Why does the UK (or anybody else for that matter) require an Ambassador to the EU? With the exception of those sent to the United Nations, I understood Ambassadors to be representatives sent by one sovereign nation to another. The EU is not a sovereign nation and there is certainly no reason why member nations should send "ambassadors" to an organisation where they send Commissioners and MEPs.
Sir Ivan, it is said, has resigned to give a new incumbent the chance to get his feet under the (dining) table before negotiations to leave begin. Surely this is an opportunity to cut the post entirely?
I meant to ask this before Christmas when Sir Ivan Rogers poked his nose into Brexit. Why does the UK (or anybody else for that matter) require an Ambassador to the EU? With the exception of those sent to the United Nations, I understood Ambassadors to be representatives sent by one sovereign nation to another. The EU is not a sovereign nation and there is certainly no reason why member nations should send "ambassadors" to an organisation where they send Commissioners and MEPs.
Sir Ivan, it is said, has resigned to give a new incumbent the chance to get his feet under the (dining) table before negotiations to leave begin. Surely this is an opportunity to cut the post entirely?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by New Judge. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Why does the UK (or anybody else for that matter) require an Ambassador to the EU? //
https:/
To be perfectly honest I wasn't aware that such a post existed.
https:/
To be perfectly honest I wasn't aware that such a post existed.
Because he has no position as soon as A.50 is triggered!
The rules for an 'exiting nation' are, as soon as A 50 is triggered the EU Council meet WITHOUT the exiting state's representatives being present and THEY ALONE ! decide the conditions the exiting state will be offered.
Once we implement A 50 that is the end of it as far as we are concerned , we have no part in deciding our terms for exit. That is down to the EU council with no input from the UK.
I just wish the UK government would admit this and acknowledge that we have no control over what our terms of exit are!
All this posturing over 'negotiating a good deal' is pure BullS***t, we have no say in what we will be offered.
The rules for an 'exiting nation' are, as soon as A 50 is triggered the EU Council meet WITHOUT the exiting state's representatives being present and THEY ALONE ! decide the conditions the exiting state will be offered.
Once we implement A 50 that is the end of it as far as we are concerned , we have no part in deciding our terms for exit. That is down to the EU council with no input from the UK.
I just wish the UK government would admit this and acknowledge that we have no control over what our terms of exit are!
All this posturing over 'negotiating a good deal' is pure BullS***t, we have no say in what we will be offered.
Read this, particularly paragraph 4 !!!
http://
http://
EDDIE - must echo Naomi on this. If they get really difficult (and I think that Sir Ivan resigning is a positive thing, a few more very-pro-EU diplomats need to go, too) then all we have to do is stop paying out subs to this 'club'.
We need to activate Article 50, decided what we want, put it to them and - if they don't agree and want to play- say 'bye then we're leaving on ......'
I go with E.R. and 'Why don't we just leave?' They'll sulk, probably, but eventually will have to trade, make alliances etc.. It would be really nice to have all this in place beforehand and ater the round of European elections this year that may be achieved- but we need to be prepared to just walk away.
We'll be fine.
We need to activate Article 50, decided what we want, put it to them and - if they don't agree and want to play- say 'bye then we're leaving on ......'
I go with E.R. and 'Why don't we just leave?' They'll sulk, probably, but eventually will have to trade, make alliances etc.. It would be really nice to have all this in place beforehand and ater the round of European elections this year that may be achieved- but we need to be prepared to just walk away.
We'll be fine.
I'm unsure, do we have an official Ambassador, ir is that simply what is he known as - or was, now that he has gone.
The two polarised trains of thought - are there any kind where Brexit is concerned are as follows -
Sir Ivan's opponents think he he an Ee-Ore character, always saying you can't do this, or this rule stops you doing that, and they hold him responsible for talking Cameron out of asking for a decent deal when he last went over there to talk to the EU.
His fans say he was well-respected, knew a lot of valuable contacts, and understood the massively complex rules concerning trade deals from which we have to extricate ourselves.
Everyone seems agreed that Mrs May wants her person there, not Cameron's whom she inherited.
As to the reason why he has gone - it seems that he was perfectly happy behind the scenes, but got thrust into the spotlight when he pointed out that it may take ten years to get a deal sorted. The problem there was, he was pilloried for that view when it wasn't actually his - he was simply passing on what the Eurocrats told him, but he got saddled with being a doom-monger. Sources reckon it was this that made him decide to walk away.
As with Brexit itself, everyone will be spouting about the effect, long before the effect is actually known.
The two polarised trains of thought - are there any kind where Brexit is concerned are as follows -
Sir Ivan's opponents think he he an Ee-Ore character, always saying you can't do this, or this rule stops you doing that, and they hold him responsible for talking Cameron out of asking for a decent deal when he last went over there to talk to the EU.
His fans say he was well-respected, knew a lot of valuable contacts, and understood the massively complex rules concerning trade deals from which we have to extricate ourselves.
Everyone seems agreed that Mrs May wants her person there, not Cameron's whom she inherited.
As to the reason why he has gone - it seems that he was perfectly happy behind the scenes, but got thrust into the spotlight when he pointed out that it may take ten years to get a deal sorted. The problem there was, he was pilloried for that view when it wasn't actually his - he was simply passing on what the Eurocrats told him, but he got saddled with being a doom-monger. Sources reckon it was this that made him decide to walk away.
As with Brexit itself, everyone will be spouting about the effect, long before the effect is actually known.
We could in theory just rescind the treaty that we signed to join the EU, but that would mean we have reneged on a legally binding trade agreement, which would put us in a difficult or impossible position when we try to negociate other trade agreements. It would be like a person refusing to pay a loan or mortgage and then trying to get another mortgage / loan and expecting the creditors to ignore the fact that we just 'walked out' of the previous agreement.
https:/
^ Study this link for more information, they explain it better than I can!
https:/
^ Study this link for more information, they explain it better than I can!
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
You've Got To Laugh Haven't You?
News5 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.