Atheists can be morons too - probably.

[grumbler]

And the second point is that looking up Britain's recognition of the Vatican (which I did, in fact, know about) has no bearing on the information I requested of our lawyer brethren. I didn't think I explicitly had to include Britain in the term "number of countries it has diplomatic relations with" in my opening post.

Actually, you asked the lawyers "what [you were] missing."  One of the things you are missing in the post is that, while Mark Stephens claimed that Mussolini's action had no standing in international law, Britain's formal recognition that the Pope is head of state of the Holy See certainly does.  Since this is a British court we are talking about (in part), this is something you were missing.  You are missing it no longer.

[Agelastus]

Actually, you asked the lawyers "what [you were] missing."  One of the things you are missing in the post is that, while Mark Stephens claimed that Mussolini's action had no standing in international law, Britain's formal recognition that the Pope is head of state of the Holy See certainly does.  Since this is a British court we are talking about (in part), this is something you were missing.  You are missing it no longer.

Actually, it doesn't. If Italy's recognition of the Vatican City by Mussolini as the legitimate head of government and his king Victor Emmanuel III as the legitimate head of state at the time has no standing in international law, then neither does Margaret Thatcher's and Elizabeth II's for the United Kingdom. If one legitimate government's recognition is not legitimate in international law, then neither can any other government's recognition be.

I consider Mark Stephen's argument to be completely fatuous precisely because of this vast number of recognitions by various legitimate national governments...which I mentioned, somewhat incorrectly, as "diplomatic relations" in my first post (I should have used the term recognitions, nor relations.) And although as Berkut pointed out using a negative as proof is not 100% appropriate, the fact that the board's lawyers discussed the issue based on whether or not the Pope could be held accountable as a head of state rather than discussing the legitimacy of the Vatican itself is telling, in my opinion.

[Razgovory]

Actually it's a shame really.  The British have moved so far.  They don't even burn the pope in effigy every year.  Well mostly.

[Barrister]

Actually, it doesn't. If Italy's recognition of the Vatican City by Mussolini as the legitimate head of government and his king Victor Emmanuel III as the legitimate head of state at the time has no standing in international law, then neither does Margaret Thatcher's and Elizabeth II's for the United Kingdom. If one legitimate government's recognition is not legitimate in international law, then neither can any other government's recognition be.

Whether or not the UK has recognized the Vatican City as a legitimate state has huge importance on how UK law deals with the matter...

[grumbler]

Actually, it doesn't. If Italy's recognition of the Vatican City by Mussolini as the legitimate head of government and his king Victor Emmanuel III as the legitimate head of state at the time has no standing in international law, then neither does Margaret Thatcher's and Elizabeth II's for the United Kingdom. If one legitimate government's recognition is not legitimate in international law, then neither can any other government's recognition be.   

The difference between a single state's recognition of another government and multiple state recognitions is huge in international law and custom. 

And are you seriously advancing the argument that a Queen's Justice (who is merely sitting in for the Queen, mind you) takes no heed of the Queen's decision to recognize a fellow sovereign when ruling on whether that sovereign has sovereign immunity?  Since, technically, the Queen herself could intervene and make the ruling in any court, her justices are obliged to act as she would, where such is clear (and it gets no clearer than this).

[grumbler]

Whether or not the UK has recognized the Vatican City as a legitimate state has huge importance on how UK law deals with the matter...

Yeah.  I cannot imagine how Agelastus could have come to the conclusion that the Queen's decisions are of no import to her justices.

[Barrister]

And are you seriously advancing the argument that a Queen's Justice (who is merely sitting in for the Queen, mind you) takes no heed of the Queen's decision to recognize a fellow sovereign when ruling on whether that sovereign has sovereign immunity?  Since, technically, the Queen herself could intervene and make the ruling in any court, her justices are obliged to act as she would, where such is clear (and it gets no clearer than this).

This is just a side point, but I don't believe that has been the case for some time.

Remember that the Queen is frequently a party to court proceedings.  A Justice is to act in the interests of justice, not the interests of the Queen.  That being said the Justice is there to enforce the laws of Parliament, which are assented to by the Queen...

[Agelastus]

This is just a side point, but I don't believe that has been the case for some time.

Remember that the Queen is frequently a party to court proceedings.  A Justice is to act in the interests of justice, not the interests of the Queen.  That being said the Justice is there to enforce the laws of Parliament, which are assented to by the Queen...

And the Queen never withholds assent. So Justices act on the will of parliament, even if the fiction is still that they act on the will of the Queen.

[Agelastus]

Actually, it doesn't. If Italy's recognition of the Vatican City by Mussolini as the legitimate head of government and his king Victor Emmanuel III as the legitimate head of state at the time has no standing in international law, then neither does Margaret Thatcher's and Elizabeth II's for the United Kingdom. If one legitimate government's recognition is not legitimate in international law, then neither can any other government's recognition be.

Whether or not the UK has recognized the Vatican City as a legitimate state has huge importance on how UK law deals with the matter...

I just stated the logical corrollary of the case if the court was to decide that the recognition by Mussolini was illegitimate. His government was the first to recognise the Vatican, after all.

I also stated, which neither you nor Grumbler has quoted, that I believed the argument to be completely fatuous on the part of the lawyer in question precisely due to the multiple governments that have recognised the Vatican.

This is selective quoting at its worst, gentlemen.

[grumbler]

This is just a side point, but I don't believe that has been the case for some time. 

It was certainly the case when I lived there some 25 years ago.  The Queen was, in fact, about to be party to a suit (that is, she was personally going to be a party, not "the Crown") and every newspaper was avid to see what would happen, as the Justice couldn't act against her interests, being a mere representative whom she sent to take her place because she was too busy to administer all the justice herself.

I looked to see if there has been some legal reform to affect that, and could find nothing.  The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 doesn't address this, as far as I can tell.

Remember that the Queen is frequently a party to court proceedings.  A Justice is to act in the interests of justice, not the interests of the Queen.  That being said the Justice is there to enforce the laws of Parliament, which are assented to by the Queen...

Is British diplomatic recognition a matter of statute law, of common law?  I would think statute, since parliament has to implement treaty obligations.

However, I agree that in practice the justices are supposed to serve justice, and that the sovereign in practice does not interfere (since the theory is that the Queen wants justice above all other things).  In a case where the Queen isn't a party, but the justice must decide an an action to which the Queen has taken a public stance, can the justice find the Queen wrong?

[grumbler]

Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament.  Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

[grumbler]

I just stated the logical corrollary of the case if the court was to decide that the recognition by Mussolini was illegitimate. His government was the first to recognise the Vatican, after all.

I have no idea why you would believe this to be true.  The first government to recognize has no special standing whatever.  For a British court, what would count is whether the British sovereign had recognized a fellow-sovereign.

This is selective quoting at its worst, gentlemen.

The rest of your statement had no logical connection to the first part of your statement.  Selective quoting is necessary if we are not to add the length of every prior post to each new post.  Thus, i would call this selective quoting at its finest.

[Barrister]

Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament.  Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

You sure about that?  Why would the Queen be barred from proceedings then (except for the Speech from the Throne?

[grumbler]

Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament.  Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

You sure about that?  Why would the Queen be barred from proceedings then (except for the Speech from the Throne?

What proceedings?  The proceedings of the House of Commons?  Because the sovereign is a member of the Parliament , not the Commons. Members of the Commons and Lords are also barred from the procedings, of the other chamber, are they not?

[Oexmelin]

Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament.  Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

AFAIK, she is not. What you are looking for is Queen-in-Parliament, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Parliament is a separate body from the Crown.