Hasn't that been a traditional method of catching a suspect? "Come out with your hands up, we have you surrounded!"
Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy. We'll have to wait for the reasons to be published.
The Swedish prosecutor has failed to her their duty (as confirmed by the Swedish supreme court) to in refusing to accept Assanges statement from the UK/Ecuadorian embassy.
Had the prosecutor done her job Assanges case would have already gone through the courts, but now he has been unnecessarily detained (essentially in investigative custody, by whom isn't relevant here) for several years.
Edit: I'm not sure why this is getting downvotes, Sweden has already admitted that there's no need to have Assange in Sweden unless he's sentenced. Therefore forcing Assange to stay in the Embassy under the threat of (unnecessary) extradition to Sweden can undoubtedly be considered detainment.
Had the prosecutor done their job Assange would've been charged, got his trial and potentially (very likely, considering the evidence) found not guilty.
Of course, a guilty sentence would completely change the situation.
Judging from his written submissions, he says that the UK has caused him to face "an impossible dilemma", namely, choosing between confinement in the embassy or giving up his (inalienable) right to non-refoulement as a refugee. Apparently the WGAD has previously held that putting someone in that position involves unlawful detention. So it turns out that is the significance of the fact he is in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that
Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy
What about forcing down a presidential plane (of a nearby country)? Would a government in their right mind do that?
Once a hegemonic country's closest-held secrets are involved, all bets seem to be off.
I'm actually a bit surprised that Britain didn't stage some kind of covert snatch from the Ecuadorian embassy after all these years (at the behest of the US).
While we're speculating: Could this mean that the US doesn't want Assange anymore?
I think the value of catching Assange probably dropped a lot post-Snowden though. He's probably more famous, and more importantly he proves that Assange isn't a one-off.
Note that Part 1(1)(4) states[0]:
"The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law."
So it's not like they can do this willy-nilly. Under that act, there has to be a reason permissible under international law to revoke the consulate land, and it's a complete revocation of the land rights, requiring a new application by the foreign state to re-establish the consulate.
I find it a bit humorous though, that Assange said he would honor the UN panels decision just moments before that decision is leaked to the press. Funny how he didn't make that promise when he first applied for the ruling...
Technically, they are not forcing him at all.
Edit: I wouldn't mind if the downvoter explained why they did so, I can't fathom that anyone familiar with the case would think I am wrong. Even the Swedish supreme court agrees with me.
Also, Chelsea Manning stupidly believed that there would be fair treatment in the US, and ended in solitary confinement for life.
Also, Denmark admitted that the US planes parked there are CIA planes that are waiting to kidnap Edward Snowden in case he go Denmark, Sweden or Norway.
What makes you think, that Assange is immune from that treatment? The CIA planes are already there! If Assange go to Sweden, the US can kidnap him very easily, Denmark+Sweden authorizing it or not, and historically they have authorized quite frequently (maybe every single time).
This is a pretty nasty (and inaccurate) thing to say about what motivated Chelsea to make the decisions she did that eventually led to her arrest.