Representations of diplomatic discourse in the periodical press after Sir Rogers' resignation from UkRep to the European Union

On 3 January 2017, after wishing “happy New Year” to the government, Sir Ivan Rogers resigned from his position as UK ambassador to the EU, where he had been operating since November 2013. Had everything worked according to routine, he would have been appointed at least until October 2017, and he was likely to have his mandate further extended. In his letter of resignation, Ivan Rogers explained that he had decided to “step down” from UKRep so that a new appointee could be in place by the time negotiations about Article 50 would start. However, the letter also overtly expresses his opinion on the government’s conduct after Brexit: “My own view remains as it has always been. We do not yet know what the government will set as negotiating objectives for the UK's relationship with the EU after exit.” These remarks, as well as his rather unveiled criticism addressed to pro-Brexit ministers, have raised reactions both in the UK government and in the media. To be vehemently debated, even before his decision to depart, is not only the ambassador’s standpoint, but the alleged overstepping of his role, which, according to Theresa May’s spokesman, should have been that of reporting “the views of others.” (The Telegraph, 15 December 2016). Hence, this incident has brought to the fore, besides the conflict of opinions, also a conflict that involves the pragmatics of diplomatic discourse in relation to (domestic as well as international) political discourse.