The UK refusing to give full diplomatic status the EU's mission in London is baffling at at time when @BorisJohnson is trying to connect with @JoeBiden - because it recalls what Trump administration did to the EU ambassador back in 2019. Stay with

@BorisJohnson @JoeBiden The spat has been going for a while - we reported it in May, when the #Brexit trade talks were getting testy and - I assumed - it was the UK seeking a bit of leverage as the talks progressed. But we have a deal...and still no deal on the EU mission/2

https://t.co/O7bdVDAcvo
@BorisJohnson @JoeBiden Essentially the UK government wants to treat the @EUdelegationUK as a "international organisation based in London" - and not accord it full diplomatic status, as almost every other country in the world does, including the United States /3
@BorisJohnson @JoeBiden @EUdelegationUK Indeed when EU formed it's External Action Service (EEAS) the UK supported the idea that EU representatives should be full ambassadors - a fact reflected in the Treaty of Lisbon which we signed - and which reflected on fact EU had a currency, made laws etc. /4
@BorisJohnson @JoeBiden @EUdelegationUK It took some time for everyone to recognise this, but after @BarackObama came to power in 2016 even the USA did the same....then along came Donald Trump and in 2019 surreptitiously downgraded the status of the EU ambassador @D0Sullivan /4
@BorisJohnson @JoeBiden @EUdelegationUK @BarackObama @D0Sullivan Mr O'Sullivan only found when he attended George H W Bush's funeral and found he was listed not in proper order of precedence (according time served in DC) but at the back of the queue. /5
Genial fellow that he is, Mr O'Sullivan didn't kick up a stink, make a scene (some uppity ambos of my experience might have been less genial!) but when it got back to Member States/Brussels (which of course then included UK) there were furious /6
In the end, Trump quietly backed down but why on earth would @BorisJohnson - a PM trying to shake the "Britain Trump" moniker - pick this fight to score a few petty points at home? Baffling. /7
@BorisJohnson As @@D0Sullivan observed to me and my colleagues @jimbrunsden @Mikepeeljourno today, it really is a "surprising" approach to take - and one that gains the UK frankly nothing that I can see /8
@BorisJohnson @D0Sullivan @jimbrunsden @Mikepeeljourno The UK argument seems to be that the status they ARE prepared to accord @ValedeAlmeidaEU will still confer the same practical powers as full recognition....which of course, as always in matters of Protocol, misses the point /9
@BorisJohnson @D0Sullivan @jimbrunsden @Mikepeeljourno @ValedeAlmeidaEU As @Tobias_Ellwood - Tory MP& Chair defence select cmme - points out, this is "petty", but worse than that, surely is that it's clumsy and incompetence and surely isn't going to help @DominicRaab
forge links with Bidenworld /10

https://t.co/djhBVICEQ1
@BorisJohnson @D0Sullivan @jimbrunsden @Mikepeeljourno @ValedeAlmeidaEU @Tobias_Ellwood @DominicRaab I frankly couldn't give a monkeys about anyone dignity or the flummeries of diplomatic protocol - it's the clumsiness that kills you. /11
@BorisJohnson @D0Sullivan @jimbrunsden @Mikepeeljourno @ValedeAlmeidaEU @Tobias_Ellwood @DominicRaab This should have quietly gone away in January.

Now the govt risks damage in both Brussels, EU capitals & DC...just when we're trying to strike the 'global Britain' pose and learn how to play piggy in the middle with those two regulatory behemoths.

Way to go. END

More from Peter Foster

More from Brexit

Two excellent questions at the end of a very sensible thread summarising the post-Brexit UK FP debate. My own take at attempting to offer an answer - ahead of the IR is as follow:


1. The two versions have a converging point: a tilt to the Indo-pacific doesn’t preclude a role as a convening power on global issues;
2. On the contrary, it underwrites the credibility for leadership on global issues, by seeking to strike two points:

A. Engaging with a part of the world in which world order and global issues are central to security, prosperity, and - not least - values;
B. Propelling the UK towards a more diversified set of economic, political, and security ties;

3. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific whilst structurally based on a realist perception of the world, it is also deeply multilateral. Central to it is the notion of a Britain that is a convening power.
4. It is as a result a notion that stands on the ability to renew diplomacy;

5. It puts in relation to this a premium on under-utilised formats such as FPDA, 5Eyes, and indeed the Commonwealth - especially South Pacific islands;
6. It equally puts a premium on exploring new bilateral and multilateral formats. On former, Japan, Australia. On latter, Quad;
It is time to talk Brexit and standards again. (thread)


Let's start off with: I don't think any trade experts are surprised by this. It is why the TCA did not do much on SPS. It is why the EU did not offer much on SPS. It is why the UK did not ask much on SPS.

But it also shows that the popular slogan "after Brexit we'll have the same standards as before, so why would anything change in trade" was wrong - and worse, it was purposefully trying to stifle a necessary debate.

And this leads me to the next point: I have no issue with changing the rules, I have a massive issue with how it is done. Here's what we should discuss:

The decisive question: What are the standards the UK as a country wants. To inform this debate, we need the following information:

You May Also Like