UK and EU in row over bloc's diplomatic status.

By James Landale
Diplomatic correspondent

A diplomatic row has broken out between the UK and EU over the status of the bloc's ambassador in London.

The UK is refusing to give Joao Vale de Almeida the full diplomatic status that is granted to other ambassadors.

The Foreign Office is insisting he and his officials should not have the privileges and immunities afforded to diplomats under the Vienna Convention.

It is understood not to want to set a precedent by treating an international body in the same way as a nation state.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55742664

I have long expected that the EU would follow the pattern of the US and evolve from a union of countries called states to a country called the Union with subdivisions called States.

Interesting that Brexit now forces a decision about that.

No. 3

Someday, perhaps?

The idea of a federal Europe has a long history. After WWII Winston Churchill expressed a desire to see a country called Europe, and the 1957 Treaty of Rome contains the intention of fostering 'ever closer union.'

Nonetheless, the UK has always been somewhat hostile to this end - such that brexit is welcome news to federalists in Europe. I myself, was a Remainer and a federalist. I just wonder, now - post brexit, if I'm still a federalist???

No, the EU is not a country.

:up:

Depends on the definition of a country, of course. The EU is usually considered a federation of states, but not a federal state. It's also pretty much a statelike entity sui generis. With the introduction of a EU citizenship, the EU technically meets all the classical requirements of a state (territory, sovereignty, citizens). The sticking point is, however, whether the EU has genuine sovereignty or merely acts on behalf of the individual member states. This is especially visible in terms of external sovereignty, because the EU has almost complete control over the toll and trade regimes, but almost no authority in foreign policy apart from that.

All in all, treating the EU as if it was a state seems the most sensible approach. It's certainly weird to object to the application of the Vienna convention to EU diplomats.

The EU and the UK bear comparison. Both are highly devolved, albeit from completely different directions. Both have parliaments that vote on legislation that the whole must abide by, as well as parliaments within each member state. Given that the EU's trajectory is integration while the UK's is disintegration, one could argue that the EU is much better at being a country than the UK is.

Both are highly devolved — Kenosha Kid

How is the EU devolved?

How is the EU devolved? — baker

Every state has its own local laws. (I appreciate it hasn't devolved, i.e. transitioned from a more centralised government to a more localised one, indeed that was part of my point.)

The EU is not devolved. The direction is the opposite. Competencies are devolved to the EU by sovereign nation states, and as a consequence, the EU moves toward "ever closer union". Or does it?

Is being a country a consequence of the collection of enough of these competencies. Is a "de facto" country possible, or is there some X factor to the idea of country - that the EU lacks?

Relating this to the United States, there is significant discord between federal and state levels of government - in what would nonetheless, universally be considered a country.

You say the EU is not a country - why not?

Depends on the definition of a country, of course. The EU is usually considered a federation of states, but not a federal state. It's also pretty much a statelike entity sui generis. With the introduction of a EU citizenship, the EU technically meets all the classical requirements of a state (territory, sovereignty, citizens). The sticking point is, however, whether the EU has genuine sovereignty or merely acts on behalf of the individual member states. — Echarmion

I agree with all of this - other than the dog latin! Using the term "sui generis" is entirely at odds with the "pretty much state like" part of that sentence. It's either unique - or it's alike. You're right however, that "the sticking point is, whether the EU has genuine sovereignty or merely acts on behalf of the individual member states."

Every now and then, I come across the words of someone (usually an American) who doesn't know European history, nor geography.

This person's complaint is that the division of the European continent into countries (many of which are relatively small) is, basically, idle and arbitrary. Nevermind the long history of many of these countries, and, of course, the multitude of languages that make unity difficult or impossible. This is why Europe is not a country. It's the name of a continent.

I've known Americans who believe that the difference between, for example, Germany and France is like the difference between, say, Michigan and Illinois, or any other two US states. Those Americans gravely underestimate the historical, cultural, national, and, of course, language differences.

The European Union is also not a country, because it's a kind of federal association of several countries in which individual countries still maintain their sovereignity.

I'd say the most important difference is that the EU lacks foreign policy and military competences, and an executive power that can represent the EU in these matters... as such it doesn't really have agency as a state would have vis a vis the rest of the world.

Also while it does have a parliament, the main political body is still the council of the EU, consisting of the leaders of the different memberstates. That organ determines the most important issues, not the parliament.

So I don't think the EU would qualify as a state, but is rather a treaty between states... hence memberstates.

:up:

I'd say the most important difference is that the EU lacks foreign policy and military competences, and an executive power that can represent the EU in these matters... as such it doesn't really have agency as a state would have vis a vis the rest of the world. — ChatteringMonkey

It has foreign policy on trade (it is, after all, a trade union first and foremost). The notion of an EU armed forces keeps getting floated. That would, I agree, be a big step toward state status.

It has foreign policy on trade (it is, after all, a trade union first and foremost). The notion of an EU armed forces keeps getting floated. That would, I agree, be a big step toward state status. — Kenosha Kid

Yes that is true, it started as only a trade union and for that purpose it can do some foreign policy. And it has expanded a bit over the years since its conception, but trade is still the larger part of it. There no political and cultural unity, nor unity concerning social policy etc..

There no political and cultural unity, nor unity concerning social policy etc.. — ChatteringMonkey

Human rights, esp. worker rights, is a big part. But, yes, they don't tell member states how to govern or legislate, within the bounds necessitated by membership.

gave already the simple answer.

There's no way to turn it into something else. Even it's name tells should what it is.

That it has some similarities to nation states hardly matters. The UN can have armed forces and basically could go to war against a country (like it did against North Korea), but nobody thinks it's a country.

Once upon a time I thought the United Kingdom was irrevocably one country (or realm). Now there have been ballots cast as to whether Scotland stays or leaves. Wales? Northern Ireland? Cornwall? Kent? Who's next?

No, I don't think the EU is a country because the Union is composed of sovereign states who maintain their own systems of national government; diplomacy; military policy; education; health care financing; status of religious organizations vis a vis the state--all while sharing a currency and allowing free travel in the Schengen Area.

Question: Do Europeans think of 'European' as a national status? Or are they Estonian Europeans, French Europeans, or Greek Europeans? This American doesn't think of anyone as "European" apart from their national status. But then, this American thinks of himself as Minnesotan as much as American. Probably young people in Europe will adopt a European identity first.

By the American Revolution, the English and Germans-speakers had had over a century to begin forming an identification that transcended their local colony, or their status as English (or whatever they were). Only 70 years after the nation was formally established, we found that in 1860 there were regions, cultural and economic interests that transcended national identity, resulting in succession. Regional differences persisted long after the forced reunification of the country (and have not entirely disappeared yet).

My guess is that Europe will need a century or two to build a European nation and identity. It would not be surprising if there were rough periods of transition.

Question: Do Europeans think of 'European' as a national status? Or are they Estonian Europeans, French Europeans, or Greek Europeans? This American doesn't think of anyone as "European" apart from their national status. — Bitter Crank

And do people in the US refer to Americans as those living in the American continent? Next time someone refers to 'Americans', do they mean also Chileans, Argentinians and Haitians? I don't think so.

Even it's name tells should what it is. — ssu

The UK is a union. The name is irrelevant.

The UN can have armed forces and basically could go to war against a country (like it did against North Korea), but nobody thinks it's a country. — ssu

Because it's a purely military organisation, not an organisation with a military. But, on that, you don't need to have a military to be a country: Greenland, the Camans, Dominica, Panama, Monaco, Liechtenstein...

Still I don't think there is more to discuss to answer the OP's question.

Still I don't think there isn't more discuss at the OP's question. — ssu

Did you intend that double negative?

Sorry. Error in writing. Thanks for the correction. Put it better.

North Americans, anyway, referencing North and South America sometimes say "the Americas". Then there is the Organization of American States which concerns itself with Western Hemispheric affairs.

Many North Americans think that South America begins with Mexico. Not quite, but there is something culturally valid about that. But that's because the US swiped most of Mexico. They weren't doing much with it anyway, and God clearly intended the US map to look the way it does today. Manifest Destiny, and all.

America is derived from Amerigo Vespucci, an early explorer from Florence. Biography.com says that Vespucci "discovered present-day Rio de Janeiro and Rio de la Plata". That's amazing! He must have been using an early time machine. (joke). Anyway, we are all grateful that the two continents weren't named after his last name, where we'd be called Vespa or Pooch (informal for dog). North and South Pooch. Just not very dignified. United States of Vespa; there'd be all sorts of copyright infringement issues.

I think it would have been much nicer if the southern continent of the western hemisphere had been called just America, and the northern continent called Columbia, as it sometimes was anyway. That's how it went down in the alternate history of my vast fictional universe anyway.

Well if we leave strict definitions aside for a moment and go on the general qualities and sentiment of a “nation” then I would be inclined to believe that yes the EU is in some form a country.

Let’s take a look at what goes to make a country. In a loose sense it is a geographical region that is unanimous in its intent to have cooperation between its peoples both economically and socially.
It abides by a common set of laws and rights/liberties or freedoms that it offers all of its people equally.

When we think of the EU we think; freedom of movement, freedom of labour, a common tax/customs area for goods and services, a more or less common currency and language of commerce, A standardised qualifications comparison system, and a governing body that offers provisions based on need so that the whole can be “brought up to speed” - that is to say established on a level playing field with one another in a developmental sense - the weakest countries often considered second world or even third world have in a matter of decades been accelerated into first world conditions/ quality of life.

People in the EU generally consider themselves as a “European citizen.” The EU is a place of common interests and community that has sought to expand its territory and “unite” people of different areas under one geographical/ social/ legal/ financial and political entity.

It has many parallels with a country. Allow me to make note that the term “country” is relatively arbitrary in definition; by regard of religion (most countries are multi-denominational already), Socioeconomic (many countries have distinct socioeconomic regions (think north Italy vs the Mezzogiorno), linguistically (many countries have more than one officially recognised language (Ireland has English and Irish, Spain - Galician, Catalan, basque and castellano), India has 20+, as well as dialects within a language - Italy for example. Currency - several nations have multiple currencies: Cyprus, jersey islands, Bhutan and Cuba are typical examples. And politics - the USA is highly partisan as well as Britain and many others with distinct political sub populations within one nation.

So it’s clear what goes to defining a country is, at best, difficult and vague. I would look at it from a historical progression. Tribes were the first communities. Every country has had a diverse array of tribes, clans or families which led their territory, then came kingdoms of which Italy had dozens upon dozens - each very unique, these Types of regions evolved into unified countries which then unified into larger entities such as the EU. The term tribe, kingdom, nation or union are somewhat synonymous in that they are symbolic of human cooperation and willingness to identify as a group with a mutually agreed border. An ever expanding “us” and ever diminishing “them”.

If we were to encounter life on other planets the scale would once again inflate and we would likely identify as a global nation/country in an intergalactic set of “countries” or territories.

Thanks for your comments. Some good stuff here. Sadly, I've lost interest in the subject. Or rather, my attempt to discuss something other than how to avoid the impending extinction of humankind - has proven unsuccessful. Sorry.

Europeans are a bad family. We all want to belong to another.
Spaniards generally have a better mood. Around here it is said that a German, a French and a Spaniard attended a congress of surgeons.
The German said:
- We put a stick on a guy with no arm to replace him and now he's a javelin champion.
The Frenchman replied:
- Ok. We put a broom on a boy without a leg and now he is the champion of the 100m hurdles.
And the Spaniard replied:
- Well, in my country we have put a melon on a guy whose head was cut off and now he is Prime Minister.