John Bercow vows to block Trump from addressing Parliament

A top-ranking British lawmaker vowed on Monday to block President Donald Trump from speaking before the U.K. Parliament in the historic Westminster Hall, citing that body’s opposition to racism and sexism and its support for equality and an independent judiciary.

In a blistering statement before the House of Commons, Speaker John Bercow said he was “strongly opposed” to Trump addressing Parliament during an upcoming state visit to the U.K.

“I would not wish to issue an invitation to President Trump to speak,” Bercow said. While British lawmakers value their country’s relationship with the United States, he said, “I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons.”

He would not have backed inviting Trump to address Parliament anyway, Bercow said, but the president’s recent imposition of an anti-Muslim ban made him “even more strongly opposed” to the idea.

“An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right. It is an earned honor,” Bercow said.

The speech was met with applause from other members of Parliament.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-parliament-address-speaker_us_5898b426e4b09bd304bc967a?

Parliament should hear him. Hear how crazy he is. If you only see him, it plays into his hands. He struts around showing off his baubles...but, with interaction, you can see how vacuous his mind is.

Bercow is not a law maker, he is just a jumped up little man with little man syndrome.

nicko wrote:Bercow is not a law maker,   he is just a jumped up little man with little man syndrome.

Bercow is The Speaker, without his invitation nobody is allowed to address Parliament
Amazing how many Brits are ignorant about Parliamentary rules.

Little man he might be, but he appears to have bigger balls, more principles and a stronger backbone than most.

He is a labour man, might have known you would support him.

Jumped up little geranium.

nicko wrote:He is a labour man,    might have known you would support him.

Jumped up little geranium.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Look it up, he was elected as a Conservative and has never been a member of the Labour party. DOH!

Well he always shows favouritism to the Labour benches, and don't say you never noticed.

Did I hit the spot Sass?

Free speech.
Nobody should be prevented from speaking, no matter how much shite they speak.

sassy wrote:

nicko wrote:Bercow is not a law maker,   he is just a jumped up little man with little man syndrome.

Bercow is The Speaker, without his invitation nobody is allowed to address Parliament
Amazing how many Brits are ignorant about Parliamentary rules.

Little man he might be, but he appears to have bigger balls, more principles and a stronger backbone than most.

Being Speaker does not make the grandstanding Bercow a "lawmaker" and he may well have exceeded the authority of his office.

He may, or may not, have sole jurisdiction over who shall be invited to address the House of Commons, but he certainly does not have the power to overrule an invitation to address Parliament, which is "the Lords and Commons together" - in other words the House of Lords and the House of Commons sitting jointly.

So, the first question to be asked is whether Bercow had sought the agreement of the Speaker of the House of Lords (I haven't caught up with the news yet, so I don't know.) Also, did he consult Buckingham Palace? My understanding that this is a tripartite matter involving the Crown and not solely one for Parliament.

The duties of Speaker of the House of Commons were graphically set out by a particular historic favourite of mine, Mr Speaker William Lenthall. When, in 1642, Charles 1 entered the Commons and required Lenthall to give up the Speaker's chair so that he could sit upon it to demand the name of five MPs whom he had come to arrest, Mr Speaker bravely answered that he had "...neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak save as this house is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."

Personally, I think Trump's forthcoming state visit is premature - even though I fully appreciate why May made the invitation -  but I wonder whether the best Speaker of the House of Commons in my lifetime (IMO) would have acted in such an arrogant and precipitous manner as Bercow.

That Speaker, for information, was the excellent Betty Boothroyd, a Labour politician who respected the office far too much to involve herself in histrionic  performances little better than those of a warm-up comedian at a music hall variety show.

Bercow is one of three parliamentary officials who must approve any invitation for someone to speak in Westminster Hall, if all three don't agree to it, it doesn't happen. Has fuck all to do with law making and everything to do with Parliamentary process.

Never give succour to fascists and tyrants. To many have been allowed to speak there, finally someone has the bottle to say 'fuck off, you are a racist, a misogynist, a tyrant in the making and you think you are above the law, well here chum, you ain't'.

Every time I think I might start posting again I realise what an appeaser to fascists this place has become (apart from one or two who keep flying the flag for decency).

Yawn !

I'm not quite sure how my pointing out the facts - notably that (a) Bercow is not, as erroneously described in the OP, a "top ranking British lawmaker"; (b)that such invitations are subject to tripartite agreement and are not the sole preserve of the Speaker of the House of Commons and that (c) the present Speaker Bercow has a well documented history of treating in a somewhat cavalier (with a small letter 'c' for the benefit of the literary 'puritans' here) manner the principle of office laid down by William Lenthall nearly four centuries ago - makes me an "appeaser to fascists..."

I'm not sure why only certain people are allowed free speech.

eddie wrote:I'm not sure why only certain people are allowed free speech.

I have to agree with you. Voltaire's great and famous maxim “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it...” does appear to be one that is regarded without favour in many forums such as this.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

eddie wrote:I'm not sure why only certain people are allowed free speech.

I have to agree with you. Voltaire's great and famous maxim  “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it...” does appear to be one that is regarded without favour in many forums such as this.

I absolutely defend everyone's right to speak as freely as they wish. I think free speech is one of the things which make the world a better place yet those who want to speak it, seem to think it's okay to shut other people up!

Let Trump come here and spout forth his nonsense. He's free to do so and we are free to pull him to pieces over it.

Not being British, how does this work? Could anybody address Parliament? Is denying the opportunity to address Parliament a violation of free speech regardless of who it is?

Is that what Parliament does all day; sit around listening to anyone who wishes to to speak?

Has Trump actually asked?

Ben Reilly wrote:Not being British, how does this work? Could anybody address Parliament? Is denying the opportunity to address Parliament a violation of free speech regardless of who it is?

Is that what Parliament does all day; sit around listening to anyone who wishes to to speak?

Has Trump actually asked?

Erm no to most of those questions I'd say. I'd still like him to come over here and make a twat of himself though. Perhaps he will ask to see the Queen's puppies?

I'm just saying, this is not depriving Trump of his freedom of speech, is it?

Denying him freedom of speech would be to take away his Twitter account, for example. All the lofty quotations can't quite mask the fact that Parliament is simply considering denying him the opportunity to walk into their building and speak to them face-to-face.

Ben Reilly wrote:Not being British, how does this work? Could anybody address Parliament? Is denying the opportunity to address Parliament a violation of free speech regardless of who it is?

Is that what Parliament does all day; sit around listening to anyone who wishes to to speak?

Has Trump actually asked?

The UK Parliament comprises two distinct Houses - the House of Commons, which is our lower house and comprises around 650 elected Members, and the House of Lords, our upper house which is I suppose broadly equivalent to your Senate and which comprises a mixture of appointed, or "Life" Peers, and hereditary Peers such as Dukes and Earls who sit by right of their inherited family titles. Our two Anglican Archbishops (Canterbury and York) together with senior Anglican diocesan bishops also have seats in the Lords.

All members of the Lords, whether hereditary and holders of titles that can date back centuries, or commoners who have been "elevated" in recognition of their service to the country, are entitled to be addressed as "My Lord" or "My Lady." Members of Parliament are granted the courtesy title of Honourable.

The division of responsibilities is, roughly, that the government makes laws, but these cannot be enacted without the consent of Parliament, notably The Commons. The Lords cannot make or approve laws but have the power to review Bills and suggest amendments...which must then go back to the Commons for a final decision before a new law is presented to the Queen for formal assent.

Members of the public have no right to address either House because in the case of the Commons members are elected by parliamentary constituencies to represent them and their interests. MPs are, however, representatives and not delegates; there's a subtle difference.

The public can, of course, contact and lobby both MPs and Peers either individually or collectively. It they do get to address them it would probably be in the form of an appearance before a parliamentary committee, though in such cases it is more likely they would have been formally summoned to respond to specific questions.

Addressing either or both houses is by formal invitation only and is considered a very great diplomatic honour extended principally to the Heads of State of friendly nations, hence the current controversial invitation to Trump in a form of quid quo pro for his recognition of Theresa May as his first invitee to the White House.

Fred M. wrote:He may, or may not, have sole jurisdiction over who shall be invited to address the House of Commons, but he certainly does not have the power to overrule an invitation to address Parliament, which is "the Lords and Commons together" - in other words the House of Lords and the House of Commons sitting jointly.

Well, so there you are.  Invite Trump to address the Lords and leave the House of Commons out of it.  Commons…don’t participate.  Leave the Lords to have their own party.  It'll be like letting Rodney Dangerfield dance with Judge Smails' wife in Caddyshack.

Frankly, I applaud Bercow for one thing in particular.  He is not succumbing to this tendency to normalize Trump values, which one sees as almost common in America.  Bercow speaks in opposition to racism, sexism, and speaks in favor of equality before the law and an independent judiciary.  He puts his foot down.  In America, the press is tacitly accepting of Trump values as inevitable.  Pussy-grabbing and golden showers...normal??  Lying and insulting... acceptable??

At least Bercow knows right from wrong.

Quill, you don't have the faintest idea what a prick Bercow is.Sorry mate but you don't know the full story about this odious little man [and his slut of a wife]

nicko wrote:Quill, you don't have the faintest idea what a prick Bercow is.Sorry mate but you don't know the full story about this odious little man [and his slut of a wife]

Yes...what little I know is out of this press story. But I certainly applaud his motives.

sassy wrote:Bercow is one of three parliamentary officials who must approve any invitation for someone to speak in Westminster Hall, if all three don't agree to it, it doesn't happen.   Has fuck all to do with law making and everything to do with Parliamentary process.

Never give succour to fascists and tyrants.   To many have been allowed to speak there, finally someone has the bottle to say 'fuck off, you are a racist, a misogynist, a tyrant in the making and you think you are above the law, well here chum, you ain't'.

Every time I think I might start posting again I realise what an appeaser to fascists this place has become (apart from one or two who keep flying the flag for decency).

So you would agree whole heartedly that the subject of this thread http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19572-board-of-deputies-statement-on-combating-anti-Muslim-hatred

the redoubtable mr Haitham al Haddad should be silenced then....for his views that stand against everything OUR views stand for...

or perhaps not....

now before you run around accusing me of being a fascist.....

which seems to now be the L/W "default insult"

I'd bar Trump and silence Haddad, since neither one is desirable...

well Trump may as well tell the brits he owns them in their own parliament.
the Uk really has no choice now but to bend over for trumps dominion, it only right that the vassal state accepts it's place under the trump-tyrant.

Pfffft....we have an answer to Trump..

we will just lock him in a room with Corbyn

Corbyn will just bore him stiff and brain dead...with 20 mins.....

Lord Foul wrote:Pfffft....we have an answer to Trump..

we will just lock him in a room with Corbyn

Corbyn will just bore him stiff and brain dead...with 20 mins.....

THAT long, eh?

"Vassal state" Veya, in your dreams matey.

veya_victaous wrote:well Trump may as well tell the brits he owns them in their own parliament.
the Uk really has no choice now but to bend over for trumps dominion, it only right that the vassal state accepts it's place under the trump-tyrant.

Why?  I think it's the perfect time for someone with some separation to tell him:

'You may fool your dumb-shit rednecks and 'alternate facts' Republicans, but it doesn't fly over here.'  

In fact, I was expecting that behavior out of Blair 12-years ago, and was disappointed.  BTW, you saw what the lapdog strategy got you with Tony, why not take the opportunity to try the fook-you strategy this time?  Back-benchers talking over his speech and clattering, cat-calling, Liar...embarrass the shit outta the asshole.