British Embassies, High Commissions and Consulates all over the world?

None of the answers thus far addresses the European Union issue at its heart; and unfortunately the asker apparently didn't see it either. This is that one of the rights of a "European citizen" -- a citizen of the Union http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/a12000.htm -- is to call on the facilities of a diplomatic mission of another Member State for consular and diplomatic assistance if his or her or its own nation is not represented there.

See the Treaty of Maastricht http://europa.eu.int/en/record/mt/title2.html article 8c:

"ARTICLE 8c

Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. Before 31 December 1993, Member States shall establish the necessary rules among themselves and start the international negotiations required to secure this protection."

The Nordic countries have been representing each other in various third countries for consular purposes for decades.

The issue is more complex for economic, and even more so commercial, political and cultural embassy functions.

While many economic issues (trade, monetary policy in the euro region) and immigration to some extent (Schengen area) are now European Union matters -- often exclusively so: see the standard breakdown of policy categories of the Amsterdam Treaty http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/s50000.htm -- embassies do more than that, and more than simply wave the flag.

It is true that the communcations revolution of the 1980s -- and the concomitant rise of English as the language of international affairs -- has led to "working levels" of government agencies largely bypassing foreign ministries and embassies and contacting their counterparts directly. Counterparts they will have met on a regular basis over the course of their careers. It is also true that embassies have alwys reported mostly "from the vernacular newspapers" of the country where they are located. Which is why FBIS was such a valuable resource, and why CNN and now the Internet as well, made much of what embassies do redundant.

It is also true that domestic politics sometimes makes embassy reporting irrelevant. Everybody knows that Zimbabwe is now internally a terror state, a totalitarian hell-hole for people forced to live there. That Somalia and the Sudan and lots of other places are genocidal and anarchic. But the West is unwilling to do anything about it. And in some of those places they lack diplomatic representation. Which makes it worse. Whatever one's grievances with Iran, not to have personnel on the spot means that one lacks the "feel" of attitudes in the street.

To be confined to the Green Zone, or excluded completely, made Washington hostage to self-aggrandizing lies by Chalabi and other sycophants and criminals in the making of Iraq policy.

The problem is greater with respect to collection of intelligence, to the work of the CIA. It is hard enough to infiltrate extremist, closed societies. Without a local base it is impossible. One winds up, with respect to a country like Iraq or Iran or Syria with people like Chalabi who speak good English, and who say different things in the two languages: who lie in translation.

It is hoped that having personnel -- who, unlike those in the book "The Ugly American", will speak the local language well (and, one hopes, have diplomatic skills as well as linguistic ones, ability to ace the Modern Language Aptitude Test) and be able to keep the "experts" honest.

If one has to rely on academics with an agenda, one will probably find policy recommendations skewed to the left (although Condoleeza Rice was an academic exception).

For a large country the cost of foreign missions is insignificant. For a country like Slovenia (1.2 million, say) or a micro-state (under 1 million) other than perhaps the wealthy Vatican, funding missions in many countries is impossible. But micro-states don't have the ear of foreign countries, and they often have a patron: Monaco (France), Liechtenstein (Switzerland), Belau (USA), Cook Islands (N.Z.; but that led to corruption: http://www.uniset.ca/microstates/19993NZLR744.htm ) and so on.

I could write a longer essay, but I will close by asking you to think of non-states and what they do to accomplish what recognized states accomplish. They do different things: Abkhazia http://www.abkhazia.org/ and Transdnestria and other breakaway provinces have Russia behind them. Taiwan, wealthy, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, not poor, have their "unofficial" representative offices (and the TRNC has Turkey). Who does Somaliland (the sole stable quasi-sovereign entity within Somalia) have besides its emigré community abroad? What about Palestinians (as to whom those recognized as citizens by the Palestinian Authority under Oslo (with the consent of Israel) secure consular services via Israeli consular offices abroad. (The PA has certain representative offices, as at the UN and in a few capitals, but they do not issue passports, etc.)

Which brings up an afterthought: should a state be represented by its emigrants, perhaps dual nationals (dual nationality being a relatively new phenomenon expanded by easy migration and by recognition of the right of married women to pass on their citizenship), or are they a Fifth Column against whom an expertise must be developed which can only be done by official diplomatic representation? Those in power -- most notably Bush and Blair -- may ignore the advice of the experts. But it is well that they have access to it. A lot of times in a lot of places embassy personnel spend most of their effort just trying to get enough food and supplies, and assure their kids an education of sorts. But they are there, and have to be there, just in case there is a revolution. (Actually, I was told that an American ambassador, Goodwin Cooke, was on the tennis courts when Jean-Bédel Bokassa I, Emperor of Central African Empire, was overthrown in 1979, and failed to report on the riots that preceded it when students, angry over having to buy expensive uniforms. So perhaps having someone on the scene doesn't guarantee instant, accurate reporting all the time.

Until the EU gets its act together, a citizen living abroad has to go to the Consulate of their home country to get a passport. Even the British Consulates can be bloody difficult. When my husband was working temporarily in France his passport was due for renewal. He went to the consular section of the British Embassy in Paris and was told, that they could not renew it. He either had to go to England or go to the British Consulate in Switzerland. (His country of residence). So, although under a great deal of pressure at work, he had to come to Switzerland to get a renewal.

Having lived abroad more than half my life, I sometimes think that consulates (from all countries) are only there to make life as difficult as possible.

This is a valid question that needs asking. Foreign missions are an anachronism. In the days when the King needed a representative to relay his word to people in foreign lands, it made sense for the King to have a representative in those lands. Nowadays with international travel being what it is, government leaders tend to conduct their own diplomacy.

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Tony Blair covered thousands of miles flying from country to country in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt at getting a UN reolution in favour of the invasion. In all of the countries Blair visited, Britain had an expensive Ambassador or High Commissioner who would, in theory at least, have had access to the top levels of government to deliver the message of the British government.

In other words, it ought not to be necessary for the prime minister or the foreign secretary to fly to Washington because we have an Ambassador over there with a full compliment of staff and offices. So, yes this is a terrible waste of a great deal of money.

I jut hope for your sake that you never have any kind of diffuculty abroad. If you do, you might appreciate the work these people do. Would you trust some EU bureacrat to sort you out? I wouldn't.

I want a British consul with tea and biscuits, and yes, I am living in the past.

It was a much better time and place.

Its not got the sway it had a few years ago,but next to the US passport its the one I would feel safest in the world. Britains prestige probably mostly gained through the Queen and her rather splendid message in the cover would get you out of any problrms that were not your fault. If anyone commits crime abroad then not much can help them.

If you lose your passport abroad or get arrested or civil war breaks outyou need the embassies help to get you home.

A pretty ignorant question man.

The overseas people of your FCO are great (I'm not one of them by the way) & have a reputaion for being effective & protecting British interests & citizens overseas.

My guys at South Africa House are rubbish in comparison. You can't even understand 1/2 the okes!

All other countries of EU do exactly the same;until a common external policy has been agreed upon.

If you want the french and germans to speak on your behalf leave Britain now .

good idea, i am sure the EU who can't ballance their books and is rife with fraud should run our High commission, and promote trade with our Country.