1 million sign petition to stop Trump UK visit

[Farmer77]

UK Speaker 'strongly opposed' to Trump speech in Houses of Parliament

 

The Speaker of Britain's House of Commons says he is "strongly opposed" to letting US President Donald Trump address lawmakers during his state visit to the UK.

John Bercow said his resistance to the speech was because of Parliament's opposition to "racism and sexism."

Bercow is one of three parliamentary officials who must approve any invitation for someone to speak in Westminster Hall, the venue typically used for grand occasions of state.

[LV-426]

39 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

UK Speaker 'strongly opposed' to Trump speech in Houses of Parliament

 

The Speaker of Britain's House of Commons says he is "strongly opposed" to letting US President Donald Trump address lawmakers during his state visit to the UK.

John Bercow said his resistance to the speech was because of Parliament's opposition to "racism and sexism."

Bercow is one of three parliamentary officials who must approve any invitation for someone to speak in Westminster Hall, the venue typically used for grand occasions of state.

Bercow should perhaps remember that his position is supposed to be impartial.

Is this the message we want to send out to our closest allies, that their democratically elected leader can only speak as long as his views align with one side of the political spectrum?

Russian posturing? Islamic extremism? I'm thinking that this incessant liberal need to silence opposing views is going to be the foremost enemy to peace in the coming years

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by LV-426

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Bercow should perhaps remember that his position is supposed to be impartial.

Is this the message we want to send out to our closest allies, that their democratically elected leader can only speak as long as his views align with one side of the political spectrum?

Russian posturing? Islamic extremism? I'm thinking that this incessant liberal need to silence opposing views is going to be the foremost enemy to peace in the coming years

 

I dont fully understand your Parliament so I wont argue your point but I will ask a question. The article said he is one of three people who have to decide who gets invited to speak in Parliament, has this kind of conversation about a world leader happened on that level before? 

[LV-426]

36 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I dont fully understand your Parliament so I wont argue your point but I will ask a question. The article said he is one of three people who have to decide who gets invited to speak in Parliament, has this kind of conversation about a world leader happened on that level before? 

This should clear up the role of the Speaker a little:

Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)

Their primary role is presiding over debates in Parliament, and maintaining order. When they take office they are required drop any affiliations with former political parties.

They also have other responsibilities such as the administration of the House of Commons, which is where Bercow is using his influence.

I personally can't remember any prior instances of the Speaker having a say in other world leaders addressing Parliament, but there are others on here who know their British political history better than I.

Edited February 6, 2017 by LV-426

[bee]

45 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Bercow should perhaps remember that his position is supposed to be impartial.

Is this the message we want to send out to our closest allies, that their democratically elected leader can only speak as long as his views align with one side of the political spectrum?

Russian posturing? Islamic extremism? I'm thinking that this incessant liberal need to silence opposing views is going to be the foremost enemy to peace in the coming years

 

.

All this childish malice and name calling is getting passed a joke now -

who the hell does Bercow think he is..?

It's like people have lost the ability to think rationally about anything to do with Donald Trump and are completely
at the mercy of a psychological operation designed to weaken Britain and the  US because of Brexit and Trump -

Succumbing to mob mentality is not what I expect from the Speaker of the House  -  it's totally unacceptable -

. 

  

 

[+OverSword]

So one million out of a population of fifty three million?  Meh.

[Farmer77]

Just now, OverSword said:

So one million out of a population of fifty three million?  Meh.

And it does sound like many of those are probably bots. 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, LV-426 said:

Bercow should perhaps remember that his position is supposed to be impartial.

Is this the message we want to send out to our closest allies, that their democratically elected leader can only speak as long as his views align with one side of the political spectrum?

Russian posturing? Islamic extremism? I'm thinking that this incessant liberal need to silence opposing views is going to be the foremost enemy to peace in the coming years

 

He is supposed to be politically impartial (even though he clearly favours his own party, the Tories, in debates). It's nothing to do with one side or the other of the political spectrum, it's to do with the country's values as a whole. Trump's recent actions, in Bercow's view, do not fit the UK's values. Therefore, he is not invited to speak at Parliament.

27 minutes ago, bee said:

who the hell does Bercow think he is..?

Perhaps one of only three people in the entire country with the authority to make this decision?

[LV-426]

17 minutes ago, Setton said:

Trump's recent actions, in Bercow's view, do not fit the UK's values. Therefore, he is not invited to speak at Parliament.

Did I miss the other referendum where we decided to formalize our constitution, and appoint the House Speaker as spokesman for what constitutes British values?

Honestly, if there's one thing the actual referendum has shown, it's that we need a complete overhaul of politics in this country.

Bercow does not have the representitive power to make political statements like this for the entire nation.

Edited February 6, 2017 by LV-426

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Bercow does not have the representitive power to make political statements like this for the entire nation.

I thought he was pretty clear it was a moral statement based on Trump the man not Trump the president and not a political statement. 

[Setton]

5 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Did I miss the other referendum where we decided to formalize our constitution, and appoint the House Speaker as spokesman for what constitutes British values?

Honestly, if there's one thing the actual referendum has shown, it's that we need a complete overhaul of politics in this country.

Bercow does not have the representitive power to make political statements like this for the entire nation.

You seem to have missed the part where he has the authority to deny people a chance to speak in Parliament. You might not like it, but he has that authority.

I agree we need an overhaul but this is what we currently have. Don't try to deny an appointed official's legal authority. We have enough of that in the world at the moment...

[LV-426]

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

You seem to have missed the part where he has the authority to deny people a chance to speak in Parliament. You might not like it, but he has that authority.

I agree we need an overhaul but this is what we currently have. Don't try to deny an appointed official's legal authority. We have enough of that in the world at the moment...

I didn't miss it. I just think it's ludicrous, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a backlash to this.

Whatever his motivations, he's making a political decision that could have an impact on the relationship with our foremost ally.

Be realistic about this. Would you be as accepting of this if the boot was on the other foot? What would your view be if he'd decided to prevent someone speaking on civil liberties, for example, if his own personal view was that a particular issue didn't somehow tally with British values?

[Setton]

1 minute ago, LV-426 said:

I didn't miss it. I just think it's ludicrous, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a backlash to this.

Whatever his motivations, he's making a political decision that could have an impact on the relationship with our foremost ally.

Be realistic about this. Would you be as accepting of this if the boot was on the other foot? What would your view be if he'd decided to prevent someone speaking on civil liberties, for example, if his own personal view was that a particular issue didn't somehow tally with British values?

Ludicrous or not, that's the system. I think it's pretty ludicrous that we have a leader that no-one voted for but you don't hear me saying she shouldn't exercise her authority.

Probably not but seeing as that would be against the values that characterise this country (if you want to know them, the government has helpfully insisted that every primary school must teach them, you can probably pop in for a lesson). Just as Trump's actions are against those same values.

[LV-426]

22 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I thought he was pretty clear it was a moral statement based on Trump the man not Trump the president and not a political statement. 

Whichever way you colour it, snubbing the POTUS based on his own personal opinion IS a political statement.

It's not like he's refusing to invite him to his home for a cup of tea...

[Farmer77]

Just now, LV-426 said:

I didn't miss it. I just think it's ludicrous, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a backlash to this.

Whatever his motivations, he's making a political decision that could have an impact on the relationship with our foremost ally.

Be realistic about this. Would you be as accepting of this if the boot was on the other foot? What would your view be if he'd decided to prevent someone speaking on civil liberties, for example, if his own personal view was that a particular issue didn't somehow tally with British values?

 

 

Just now, LV-426 said:

Whichever way you colour it, snubbing the POTUS based on his own personal opinion IS a political statement.

It's not like he's refusing to invite him to his home for a cup of tea...

The dude has been sued by the US Justice department twice for racist practices and lost. He is quoted in a book as having said blacks cant handle his money, only jews. He has been accused and then settled the lawsuit over intentionally targeting the elderly and financially unstable to swindle them.  He was recorded saying he just grabs women by the genitals and they allow him because he is famous, not because they want him to but because hes famous. He mocked a disabled man.

Like I said at the outset the above can be viewed everywhere from offensive to downright racist and sexist. Either way do you really, in the big picture, want your nation to honor a human being who acts like that?

[LV-426]

15 minutes ago, Setton said:

Ludicrous or not, that's the system. I think it's pretty ludicrous that we have a leader that no-one voted for but you don't hear me saying she shouldn't exercise her authority.

Probably not but seeing as that would be against the values that characterise this country (if you want to know them, the government has helpfully insisted that every primary school must teach them, you can probably pop in for a lesson). Just as Trump's actions are against those same values.

Personally, I wish May had opted for an election, as she'd have had a landslide victory... and bear in mind I've never voted Tory in my life.

Really Setton, you want to test our capacity for sarcasm with a snidey comment about "popping in for a lesson"?

Perhaps you should go back to school yourself if you don't know that we don't have a codified constitution. "Government guidelines" as to British values aren't something I ever remember getting a vote on, regarless of whether I agree with them or not.

Edited February 6, 2017 by LV-426

[LV-426]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The dude has been sued by the US Justice department twice for racist practices and lost. He is quoted in a book as having said blacks cant handle his money, only jews. He has been accused and then settled the lawsuit over intentionally targeting the elderly and financially unstable to swindle them.  He was recorded saying he just grabs women by the genitals and they allow him because he is famous, not because they want him to but because hes famous. He mocked a disabled man.

Like I said at the outset the above can be viewed everywhere from offensive to downright racist and sexist. Either way do you really, in the big picture, want your nation to honor a human being who acts like that?

Is he or is he not the democratically elected leader of your country?

It doesn't matter how I view the man personally - and I've made it clear in the past I don't have a particularly high opinion of him - trying to silence his views is going against every principal that both our countries supposedly stand for.

[Farmer77]

Just now, LV-426 said:

Is he or is he not the democratically elected leader of your country?

It doesn't matter how I view the man personally - and I've made it clear in the past I don't have a particularly high opinion of him - trying to silence his views is going against every principal that both our countries supposedly stand for.

I dont know if  not allowing him the honor of speaking in Parliament is not the same as silencing his views. 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, LV-426 said:

Personally, I wish May had opted for an election, as she'd have had a landslide victory... and bear in mind I've never voted Tory in my life.

Really Setton, you want to test our capacity for sarcasm with a snidey comment about "popping in for a lesson"?

Perhaps you should go back to school yourself if you don't know that we don't have a codified constitution. "Government guidelines" as to British values aren't something I ever remember getting a vote on, regarless of whether I agree with them or not.

My point wasn't sarcasm. Pithy perhaps but not sarcasm. The point is that the government insists that these values are taught in all schools and has very clearly set out for everyone in the country what they consider British values.

As for a vote on it, that would be the 2015 general election. 'British Values' feature no fewer than 5 times in the document.

Do you think an elected government shouldn't stick to its manifesto? Or is their opposition to Bercow's move pure hypocrisy?

[aztek]

do we know if he actually wants to speak to parliament? anything he wants to say, he'll tweet and i'm sure everyone who voted against will read and talk about it.

[Setton]

It's a fair point. Like I said, it's a nice compromise. Still recognise him as a head of state with a state visit but a symbolic gesture of disagreement with his policies.

[LV-426]

'Stop Trump state visit' petition rejected

"The UK government has rejected a petition calling for Donald Trump's state visit invitation to be withdrawn.

It said it recognised the "strong views" expressed but looked forward to welcoming the US president once details have been arranged."

[SHaYap]

 

Quote

 

Boris Johnson among record number to renounce American citizenship in 2016

Foreign secretary had previously protested against ‘absolutely outrageous’ US tax obligations after sale of his north London home

 

• guardian com link

~

 

Quote

 

London Mayor Boris Johnson Hates the IRS, Too

The dual citizen says he's renouncing his birthright after getting a fat tax bill from Uncle Sam.

 

• atlantic com link

~

 

[Still Waters]

48 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

'Stop Trump state visit' petition rejected

"The UK government has rejected a petition calling for Donald Trump's state visit invitation to be withdrawn.

I think that was only to be expected.

Plus -

Quote

UK government says Trump will receive 'full courtesy' of state visit.

Preparations would continue for the state visit, the statement said. “This invitation reflects the importance of the relationship between the United States of America and the United Kingdom. At this stage, final dates have not yet been agreed for the state visit.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/14/government-says-trump-receive-full-courtesy-state-visit-petition