Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Why would it? On what grounds? I haven't found anything that says a nation is entitled to an embassy.
|
But that isn't the issue. The issue is that when you do have an embassy, then the premises of that embassy are part of the country's territory and therefore inviolable. That is the diplomatic protocol. Britain would be within its rights to kick the Ecuadorian diplomats out of the country and tell them they no longer wish to have diplomatic ties with them (which would create a considerable diplomatic mess), but that isn't what they are suggesting they might do. They are suggesting they can declare that the embassy is no longer an embassy and then go in to nab Assange. That is unheard of in the diplomatic protocol and is likely to raise a few eyebrows around the world, as it means that the UK isn't playing by the diplomatic rules that the rest of the world plays by.
Btw: I had a look at the squatters' case. It seems to me this can't be compared, as this case was never contested by the Cambodians who'd not actually been in the embassy in nearly 12 years. Quite different from an embassy that is in active use.
Quote:
|
Anyway it's very very unlikely it would ever get that far. The UK Government hasn't acted on that law yet and if they ever do then there would be months or years of court action (our courts) to sort it. No one wants that. However we need to keep challenging Ecuador because they've started this issue with us and we want to resolve it. We were just abiding by EU law, giving him his legal rights, and now he skipped bail and somehow has Asylum...
|
True. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. We seem to be digging quite a hole for ourselves.