British Parliament will not invite Trump to speak; breaks with custom.

In an unprecedented move today the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has told Parliament that he would not be extending an invitation to President Trump to speak before members of Parliament. He made his reasons, quoted in my link, quite clear and they were warmly welcomed by both sides of the chamber.
This is a good day for those who put their values and principles of decency before political ego-massaging, and a tacit approval of a deeply loathed man.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/donald-trump-banned-giving-historic-9768931

 

See what happens when you let those common people hang out with the lords?

 

good. I'm sure he'd be banned from all european countries too. If even brexit britian doesn't want him, EU europe sure won't. I don't want trump polluting our continent: his stench is strong enough even when he is on the other side of the atlantic.

 

No big deal, America is not losing sleep over it.

 

Yes, there's an outbreak of common sense.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a huge, painful slap in the face for your Dear Leader.

 

yeah, that's what you say when you have literally no friends.

"I don't even want friends!"

 

Haha, as a jew, Bercow must be upset because Don recently spoke out against Israeli settlement-building on the West Bank..
Wiki-"Bercow is the first Speaker who is Jewish.."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bercow

 

If there was "common" sense would there be lords? Or would the House of Thieves be called the misnomer of "Common"?

 

They are two separate houses, but I agree that the House of Lords-an unelected body-should have no say in a democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

I see, so this is because Bercow is a Jew? That isn't the sort of suggestion a grown-up would make, frankly.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Not only has Teresa May broken with Brit tradition by inviting a US president to the UK without grounds for doing so- but she is currently wining and dining the neoZionist fascist, Netanyahu, in London.

May- believe it or not- hasn't even been elected.

 

Yet, they have allowed Daniel Ortega to speak. They have allowed Xi Jinping the Communist leader of China to speak. They have allowed Clinton the womanizer accused of rape and who was impeached to speak. None of these seemed to ruffle their "morals" and "decency." Perhaps they should allow Prince Charles to speak since he wished to be Camilla's tampon. It reaks of hypocriisy, but that's how the Brits are. Jolly bad show...a bunch of stupid clowns...

 

LOL, don't invite him to speak where he wasn't planning on speaking. Brilliant!

 

He has certainly come under some criticism from the right - as well as massive approval from those in the House. It is not true that all Presidents talk to the Commons - Regan and Bush did not. Here are his reasons

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...wed-to-speak-in-westminster-hall-says-speaker

He said Trumps attempted 'Muslim Ban' was the final straw - that and his seeming disrespect for your judiciary - respect for an Independent Judiciary is essential to democracy.

 

Let me clarify for you. It is NOT a Muslim ban. There were 7 countries that OBAMA deemed dangerous because of poor vetting and their situations. Obama was lax and since there is a new administration in place, Trump wants to set up his own vetting system as he promised the American people. He would not allow people in for 90 days while they work out the system for vetting. No one comes in from those countries. It is not just Muslims. If it were a MUSLIM ban, then ALL predominately Muslim countries would be excluded too. So Britain is wrong. Anyway, I was under the impression that Reagan, Clinton and Obama spoke. I guess Obama was right about one thing. Maybe Britain should be at the end of the queue...

 

I hope you speak for all of Europe. Maybe that will heavily in this country.

 

I'm sure Trump has more pressing matters than talking to a room full of blue blood stuffed shirts.

 

Don't kid yourself. It will be as much of a ban as he can get away with. His right-hand man is Steve Bannon, the founder of Breitbart News - the voice of bigots in the US.

 

He called it a Muslim Ban when he asked Giuliani how he could make his 'Muslim Ban' legal and when he was going for the vote he said that was what he was doing. This however has been well discussed in other places.

Your vetting is the most stringent in the world. It usually takes two years of the most extensive searches of not just the individual but families and friends as well. In Syria that was often 3 years. This is just hogwash.

That is not necessarily true. It is a Muslim Ban and with all the talk going on in the US like his talk when electioneering it is to acknowledge and encourage xenophobia. It certainly is not a ban concerning terrorists as no one from those countries has committed a terrorist act in your country and he has not banned the countries which have. It seems to have three points. One to increase fear of Muslims and terrorism, two to make those who voted for him believe he keeps his word and three to appease Saudi Arabia in her quarrel over power in the ME - something which very possibly is going to lead to a very big war with US involvement. However these things are well carried in other threads.

You believe he has the authority to speak for the whole of Britain. No but in this instance quite a lot agree and no he is not wrong.

The BBC were saying earlier they did not. It seems though to be something of a norm though I understand a decision had not been made on this. Here is how this happened

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...wed-to-speak-in-westminster-hall-says-speaker

 

For a group of people who do not care about what the UK does there are some dreadfully fragile ego's being shown!

 

We've cared from the creation of this country.

 

Not when it practices judicial supremacy as the Seattle judge did and as Scalia warned against.

 

Of course they are in a sense, but are they really in another? But why shouldn't they have a say in a demo crazy?

But how uncouth of me to forget etymology:

"Everybody knows that the word democracy is derived from Greek and means the rule of people. If we go to the Etymology Online we find almost no surprises there:

democracy (n.)
1570s, from Middle French démocratie (14c.), from Medieval Latin democratia (13c.), from Greek demokratia “popular government,” from demos “common people,” originally “district” (see demotic), + kratos “rule, strength” (see -cracy)."

But I like this one much better: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Now perhaps if those lords would ask King Donald for his presence....

 

Trump has shown unusual disrespect to the independence of your judiciary first of all calling your acting Attorney General a Traitor and what is it he is calling the Seattle Judge, supposed Judge or something. He is showing himself to have disrespect for your system of law. Regarding the Seattle Judge, Juan Cole explains with the situation well.

http://www.juancole.com/2017/02/shocker-federal-seattle.html

Trump has the ability to continue with appeals but his disrespect towards your Judiciary has been noticed.

 

If Trump is not allowed to speak in person before members of the British Parliament, he can request to speak to them via Skype.

 

Why else would he want to ban Trump? He's therefore not only insulting the President of America and the American people, but he's also insulting PM Theresa May and the Queen who've both invited Don over, and also insulted the millions of Brits who lurv Don to bits..
PS- although Bercow calls himself a jew, he also calls himself a "humanist", so he's obvious got godless lefty mushbrain tendencies, he sounds like one crazy mixed up mofo to me..