**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

Either way you get my point. If you start letting other countries choose your ambassadors, you might as well let them set your foreign policy for you as well.

I actually gave this some thought before responding to this point, because I wasn't really sure if I agreed or not. I don't think I do.

I mean I get your point; it can be perceived as an act of obedience. But it can also be an act of friendship, of trust, of respect. An ambassador is basically a go-between. It makes sense, if you value your relationship, to have a go-between that the other party is agreeable with. It's a potentially mutually beneficial relationship. If you send someone who the President doesn't like, that can be seen as an act of hostility, which can negatively impact on relations.

If May wants to work positively with Trump, she could send Farage to USA, while requesting an individual that she respects gets sent to the UK. It can work both ways, and if I were determined to ensure that my act of agreement wasn't seen as obedience, then that's how I would play it. I'd make sure that USA is sending my recommendation to the UK in return.

I don't expect Farage will get sent to USA. However, I don't feel that to do so would imply obedience, and even if it did, it wouldn't take long before it became clear that wasn't the case.

[Poopadoop]

I actually gave this some thought before responding to this point, because I wasn't really sure if I agreed or not. I don't think I do.

I mean I get your point; it can be perceived as an act of obedience.

Exactly why it isn't done. It's actually demeaning to the visiting country. If, for one of the good reasons I stated in the above post, the current guy was seen as inappropriate to the post, he could be replaced. But just saying 'we'd prefer you sacked this guy and sent someone on our wavelength, never mind that he's not on your wavelength' and thinking we will do it, is just delusional.

But it can also be an act of friendship, of trust, of respect.

That goes both ways. An act of friendship, trust, and respect would be not requesting a specific person but trusting the visiting country to send you someone professional and amenable (or in this case, that they already have). Trump already blew the opportunity to show those qualities to us, but you think we should show them to him?

An ambassador is basically a go-between. It makes sense, if you value your relationship, to have a go-between that the other party is agreeable with. It's a potentially mutually beneficial relationship. If you send someone who the President doesn't like, that can be seen as an act of hostility, which can negatively impact on relations.

Again, someone is already there. There's no reason to think he's incompetent or in any way impeded from talking to the US about foreign affairs.

If May wants to work positively with Trump, she could send Farage to USA, while requesting an individual that she respects gets sent to the UK. It can work both ways, and if I were determined to ensure that my act of agreement wasn't seen as obedience, then that's how I would play it. I'd make sure that USA is sending my recommendation to the UK in return.

Sure that's one solution. But the issue is that Trump didn't raise the possibility in private which would be showing us some respect. He made his view public and put our gov't in an embarrassing position.

I don't expect Farage will get sent to USA. However, I don't feel that to do so would imply obedience, and even if it did, it wouldn't take long before it became clear that wasn't the case.

He could be the greatest ambassador we ever had. It's irrelevant though since he's never going to be offered the job.