Speaker Bercow: Trump should not speak in Parliament

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38884604

 

Torygraph disagrees obviously.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/02/06/john-bercow-does-not-speak-britain-just-monstrous-ego/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

 

That being said, seemed like much of the support came from labor and nothing to speak of from the Tory side. However, this was a pretty big slap in the face for the POTUS. And his first foreign visit should not be to England. National pride is an important thing, and the best way to pay the speaker's disrespect back is to visit somewhere like Japan or Russia first. Words have consequences 

 

[~~~~]

umm Winter we don't normally let the leaders of other countries into our parliment 

[mido9]

He should ignore him and go to parliament anyway if he's allowed. What's he gonna do, punch him? Call the police to arrest him?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

umm Winter we don't normally let the leaders of other countries into our parliment 

Y'all let President Obama in. Relative to the treatment y'all normally afford American Presidents, this is a disgusting slight. 

 

Speaking of values:

 

 

Here's your speaker letting the Emir of Kuwait Speak

 

 

And here's his Hypocritical ass letting Xi speak.

 

POTUS should not step foot in England till Brewcow offers a public apology on commons floor. We'll see if POTUS has any self-respect or not.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Speaking before the House of Commons and the House of Lords is done by invitation at the discretion of the speaker. It is not an automatic feature of a state visit that any leader gets to do. One must be invited, and for an invitation to be delievered one must meet whatever standards the speaker meets. If it is the speakers opinion that Trump should not speak before parliament for such reasons, then so be it. There's no hypocrosy involved if it's by invitation only through standards never made clear to the public.

 

I'm not too sure on the details, but Trump still could speak in Westminster because there are apparently two other 'key-holders' but whatever.

 

I would rather see Trump just ignore the insult, because he's going to get insulted time and again in office. He can't respond aggresively to every slight or else he will just piss of every nation on earth. Hell, I give it a day before he's slinging mud back at the Speaker rather than taking anything resembling a high road (Which will I assume in the Speaker's Eyes validate his choice). I do wonder why emphasis is placed on this one, out of all potential slights.

 

Out of curiosity, how often to state leaders get to speak before Congress or the Senate when they visit the US?

 

EDIT: I think it's worth saying; If words have consequences so do actions. Including Trump's actions in office. If the speaker feels that Trump's decisions in office are unbecoming, and that he thusly does not deserve to speak before parliament, why is this so shocking? It's not a suprise that many outside (And inside) the US disagree with Trump's immigration polcy thus far amongst other things, why is it a suprise that people then do things in opposition to that?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Speaking before the House of Commons and the House of Lords is done by invitation at the discretion of the speaker. It is not an automatic feature of a state visit that any leader gets to do. One must be invited, and for an invitation to be delievered one must meet whatever standards the speaker meets. If it is the speakers opinion that Trump should not speak before parliament for such reasons, then so be it. There's no hypocrosy involved if it's by invitation only through standards never made clear to the public.

 

I'm not too sure on the details, but Trump still could speak in Westminster because there are apparently two other 'key-holders' but whatever.

 

I would rather see Trump just ignore the insult, because he's going to get insulted time and again in office. He can't respond aggresively to every slight or else he will just piss of every nation on earth. Hell, I give it a day before he's slinging mud back at the Speaker rather than taking anything resembling a high road (Which will I assume in the Speaker's Eyes validate his choice). I do wonder why emphasis is placed on this one, out of all potential slights.

 

Out of curiosity, how often to state leaders get to speak before Congress or the Senate when they visit the US?

The problem is he cited sexism, but then invited Gulf Leaders to speak. 

 

The standards he set are hypocritical. Trump shouldn't fling mud, but he should pass up visiting England and go to Russia or Japan instead.

 

Depends on the state Leader. Bibi speaks often. Modi spoke. We've never publicly sheet on England before though

[Aerion Brightflame]

And? There's no objective metric at work here, he can hold different people to different standards. He can expect less from the King of Saudi that the President of the US say, and thus judge them differently. And even if it then becomes hypocrisy, it doesn't change his ability to judge leaders as he has done so. Hypocrisy is very rarely an argument worth much weight I find, because even if someone is being a hypocrite is rarely impacts there ability to do what they are doing. It makes his moral position weaker, but not his position to judge leaders as he has chosen to do so.

 

How long ago are these Gulf Leader meetings then? Because if there's no objective metric at work then if a given time has passed his standards could have changed, and as such it wouldn't be hypocrisy.

 

I personally don't think think Trump playing 'hardball' is the solution here; It doesn't assaunge the things that caused the speaker to not extend him an invitation, it's probably not going to change in the future. The speaker will remain opposed to him regardless of if he meets Russia, or Japan, or France or China or whoever before the UK. If he wants to change the snub he has to prove himself to the speaker, and prove himself better than the low standard he has been assigned. By you know, being diplomatic.

 

I mean hell, the State visit to the UK would be about trade deals in almost all certainity, because that's the reason anyone wants to see the UK right now, make some great trade deals while you can. The guy who is campaigning in part on fixing the US economy and getting fair trade deals for the US is going to put that on hold because of a snub by the Speaker of the House? It's pety in my eyes.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And? There's no objective metric at work here, he can hold different people to different standards. He can expect less from the King of Saudi that the President of the US say, and thus judge them differently. And even if it then becomes hypocrisy, it doesn't change his ability to judge leaders as he has done so. Hypocrisy is very rarely an argument worth much weight I find, because even if someone is being a hypocrite is rarely impacts there ability to do what they are doing. It makes his moral position weaker, but not his position to judge leaders as he has chosen to do so.

 

How long ago are these Gulf Leader meetings then? Because if there's no objective metric at work then if a given time has passed his standards could have changed, and as such it wouldn't be hypocrisy.

 

I personally don't think think Trump playing 'hardball' is the solution here; It doesn't assaunge the things that caused the speaker to not extend him an invitation, it's probably not going to change in the future. The speaker will remain opposed to him regardless of if he meets Russia, or Japan, or France or China or whoever before the UK. If he wants to change the snub he has to prove himself to the speaker, and prove himself better than the low standard he has been assigned. By you know, being diplomatic.

 

I mean hell, the State visit to the UK would be about trade deals in almost all certainity, because that's the reason anyone wants to see the UK right now, make some great trade deals while you can. The guy who is campaigning in part on fixing the US economy and getting fair trade deals for the US is going to put that on hold because of a snub by the Speaker of the House? It's pety in my eyes.

Holding different standards for different leaders seems pretty hypocritical to me. Based on the fact that no conservatives were cheering, I'd assume it was pandering to his base. But with America as the joke. No thanks.

 

Can you honestly say you'd want May to come to the US if the Dems viciously attacked her on the house floor. Like the POTUS or not, the leaders of the UK legislative body insulted the leader of the US, and mocked the nation as a whole on a public court. There was outrage when Boris made comments about President Obama, but you won't see that here.

 

POTUS does not need to visit the UK to get a good trade deal, he can easily send Tillerson and Ross for that to happen. Going where you're insulted and not wanted isn't a sign of being the better person. He shouldn't be petty and should not look to penalize the UK where it matters (the the trade deal). POTUS owes the UK nothing more than that I'm afraid. 

 

That being said, he'll likely cave. I hope he doesn't. But POTUS seems like he would cave. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

The speaker has no political base, he's an 'impartial' member of house. And even if he did have a base to appeal to, he'd be appealing to conservatives, because he's a former Tory MP, not a former Labour one. And are you saying you don't expect less from say the King of Saudi Arabia, or from say a random warlord in charge of an African nation that you would from a leader of the first world interms of attitude and behavoir?

 

This wouldn't even be the first time in recent history that the US is the butt of jokes here, just go back to the Bush era. You probably wouldn't see the Speaker shunning him, but you'd see a tonne of jokes at his expense.

 

I don't really care if May was insulted by the Dem's or not before a state visit. But I have an amazing lack of care for the 40% Iron Lady, so that's not really shocking. I do think however, given what politics has devolved into that it shouldn't affect things that much, and given how many nations have and are going to level insults at Trump during his adminstration, he has to get used to it. Obama (IIRC) didn't react to any name-calling or insults from either within his own nation or outside of it. Hell I don't think he had a negative reaction to Duerte calling him a son of a jabroni for instance?

 

Besides, parliament for the most part aren't shunning Trump. They didn't ban Trump from seeing the Queen on his State visit inspite of the petition, and frankly that should matter to Trump far more than what the speaker thinks. The Queen's approval is one of the greatest signs of political legitimacy in the world currently because of her history.

 

But Trump has made so many claims about his ability to negotate 'the best deals' that not being there to help negotiate the trade deals arguably undercuts his own image. Because then people can go 'Why isn't he there if he knows deals so well?'.

 

I will admit, the speaker probably shouldn't have said this sort of thing. I don't really care that he did because I have a low opinion of Trump, but I'll admit he probably shouldn't have. I also, however think the speaker is within his rights to refuse Trump's visit to parliament, and that his refusal to extend the invitation should be a bigger mark against Trump than him, because it means he failed to hit a pretty low minimum benchmark. If Trump's wants to undo the slight, he has to improve his public perception in the rest of the world, because it's not doing him or the US any favours rightnow.

[vla1ne]

meh. sticks and stones. best counter move is to take the closest auditorium spot to parliament, and hold a speech there. take their spotlight for the day and invite them all to watch him. whether or not they show up, you'll have demonstrated generosity beyond their own, and depending on how well done, could move some power around and away from them in the most peaceful manner possible.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Parliament doesn't need to spotlight though, so I don't see what it would achieve. Unless his visit coincided with something otherwise important happening that day, Parliament would probably relish the lack of spotlight to push forwards some agenda. I don't think parliament actually cares much for the spotlight a lot of time, it would rather get sheet done.

 

Some greater reference by the way since it may be confusing to some (I know it is to me) because of the way that the UK government works:

• A state visit is not something parliament decides or such, it is an invitation extended by the Queen, not by Parliament. A state visit is also not a world leader simply visiting the United Kingdom, it is only an extention of the Queens invitation.
• They are fairly rare affairs, there has only been 102 of them since 1952. Currently there's only an average of two a year.
• Only 2 of these state visits have been US presidents, Bush in 2003, Obama in 2011. Think of how many fairly important or respected presidents haven't been extended this invitation. Trump being given a formal 'state visit' is an honour in and off itself.
• A state visit has very few activities that's seen as 'core' to it, among these being a formal dinner at Buckingham Palace. Talking before the houses of parliament is not one of these activities. Only 48 of 102 State Visits has had the visiting dignitary speak before the two houses.
• It is possible for a head of state to speak before Parliament outside of a State Visit; this has occured 6 times in total, two of which were US presidents (Reagan in 82, and Clinton in 95).
• Likewise, an address before parliament does not mean an address in Westminster. This has only occured in 5 times since 52. 4 of which have been in State visits. These 5 happen to be: Charles de Gaulle (1960), Nelson Mandela (1996), Pope Benedict XVI (2010), Barack Obama (2011), Aung San Suu Kyi (2012). Only 3 of these have occured in State Visits. Suu Kyi was not a state visit, the Pope was an informal talk. It is an exceptional honor to be invited to do so.
• Trump would not be the first State Visitor of the US to be directly denied a chance to speak before parliament due to contraversy. Bush was going to speak before Parliament but fear of protests about the Iraq war the event never actually happened.
• Finally, in spite of all of this, it is worth saying that whilst the Speakers of the House technically have the right to decide if a State Visitor will speak before Parliament, the Queen will write to the speaker asking to allowing the guest to speak before parliament, and such a request has never been refused. So this does not stop Trump from seeing parliament in his eventual state visit.

The simple act of being extended a state visit is an honour in and of itself. Trump should be satisfied with that alone, not infuriated by the potential refusual to extend a rare addendum to an already rare offer. That should presumably be enough to undercut the 'insult' here.

 

All this was taken from this: http://blog.hansardsociety.org.uk/president-trumps-state-visit/

[vla1ne]

So basically, there's no reason to be offended by this. Alright then. Although I have to say going out of his way to tell the public that trump shouldn't be speaking to parliament is still rather rude. If it happens it happens and if it doesn't it doesn't matter, but outright telling people he shouldn't though, is simply unprofessional. (Yeah I know trump's not always the most professional, but still.)

[Aerion Brightflame]

Yeah, there is still a reason to be insulted here because Bercow is saying he thinks that the things Trump stands for are unbecoming of Parliament and thus the heart of British democracy. But it's not as big a deal as it's being made out to be, and the sheer fact that Trump is being extended a full State Visit should mean far more than being able to speak at Parliament because the Queen's 'approval' is a greater form of unofficial legitimacy than that that any other government in the world can give.

 

Bercow is standing by his comments however, which I say good on him for not bowing to the pressure on this and standing by his convictions.

 

I won't contest that there's an insult here, but anyone who thinks that Trump should have been able to speak in say Westminster Hall is kidding themselves. You have two of the greatest humanitarians on earth, Charles de Gaules, God's voice on this earth, and one hell of an orator (Obama is technically an exception, but in 2011 he was still a political leader unlike any we'd seen in recent history in public perception). It's a... hard list to compete with.