Should President Trump address the House of Commons?

[peterb]

John Bercow, Speaker in the House of Commons is minded not to allow the President of the United States to address the house during the proposed state visit because of his stated views.

This seems perverse to me in that the UK parliament is upheld as the bastion of free speech, yet the speaker is applying arbitrary censorship because he doesn't like his views.

The speaker is supposed to be politically neutral, so while he may have a private view, this should not colour the way he carries out his duties.

I tend to go with Voltaire's view "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it"

Unless these views are heard, they cannot be challenged. Does the speaker think that MPs and the p lice cannot make up their own minds?

Any thoughts?

[Macman]

The speaker is supposed to be politically neutral, so while he may have a private view, this should not colour the way he carries out his duties.

I tend to go with Voltaire's view "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it"

Half of the crap that politicians say, we don't like it, but we gotta listen to it and accept it should it be enforced.

Trump, who some may or may not like. He won the election, and as it stands, he won it fair and square until proven otherwise.

So the Speaker just needs to get on with it, if Trump is required to speak in the house of commons because he is newly elected then so be it. (I don't know the ins and outs of politics so not sure if this is what happens with newly elected US President?)

[DanceswithUnix]

So Trump would be allowed to speak, just not in the rather prestigious location that Obama was allowed to use?

[scaryjim]

Personally I'm of the mind that there's a level of discourse I'd expect to be maintained within the Commons, and that Trump is unlikely to reach it at any point! I suppose the question is whether Parliament should be open to hearing all views, or if there are certain things that one would expect to be kept out of the Houses.

I quite like that Bercow has actually been brave enough to make a potentially controversial comment, as it opens the topic up for debate. Also my reading of his comments was that he was making a personal opinion - albeit one informed by his political position - public, rather than trying to suggest this was an official policy.

Of recent Presidents only Obama has spoken to both houses in Westminster Hall, and neither Bush gave a speech to both houses simultaneously at all. Both Clinton and Reagan did, in the Royal Gallery. All those speeches took place 18 months - 2 years after inauguration; Clinton and Obama's speeches were on their third official visit to the UK (Reagan's was on his second). So to be talking about Trump addressing parliament on a first official visit to the UK, within a month of him taking office, is somewhat unprecedented...

[Ttaskmaster]

If he'd actually done anything really bad, then sure... but for views alone, he cannot reasonably be banned.
Give it time and see what he actually does. Then ban him.

[Corky34]

AFAIK Bercow is one of three people who get to decide and even then he only has a say on two possible locations, i think it's the royal something or other and another location.

Personally I'm strongly in favor of free speech no matter how objectionable those words maybe and i find all this talk of restrictions a bit contradictory, I'd even go as far to say it's the height of hypocrisy when people exercise their freedoms to restrict someone else's, however i don't see what Bercow said as being partisan or political as even though he's welcomed far worse people to address parliament those people often represent countries that have showed signs of moving away from past "bad" behaviors and actions towards ones more aligned with what we find acceptable, Trump on the other hand is seen as moving America away from "British values".

If it was me I'd let him come and allow individual MPs decide if they want to come, what they want to say, etc, etc.

[Saracen]

Seems to me there's several issues :-

1) Should Trump address the Houses of Parliament? As I understand it, and it's also the Whitehouse's view, that "honour" is invitation-only, often following a request for one. And no such invite has been issued, nor been requested So it's academic at this point.

2) Should he be invited? That, I believe, is the joint decision of both Speakers and the Lord Chamberlain. My opinion is ... certainly not yet. It's too soon.

3) Should he be allowed to? Yes .... if invited.

4) Shoild he be banned? No.

5) Were Bercow's comments acceptable? Given the effusive welcome Bercow has personally extended to the Presidents of China snd Indonesia, neither of which are exactly democratically-elected heads of nations with sttong commitment to human rights, etc, and the Emir of Kuwait, Bercow's comments were, IMHO, politically hypocrisy and personal grandstanding of the first order, so no.

[Corky34]

5) Were Bercow's comments acceptable? Given the effusive welcome Bercow has personally extended to the Presidents of China snd Indonesia, neither of which are exactly democratically-elected heads of nations with sttong commitment to human rights, etc, and the Emir of Kuwait, Bercow's comments were, IMHO, politically hypocrisy and personal grandstanding of the first order, so no.

All of whom (afaik) where showing signs of moving away from those bad practices, whereas Trump is showing signs of moving away from previously good behavior.
It's like the way some people raise children, reward good behavior and ignore bad.

[peterb]

it seems that the protocol is that the proposed guest is sounded out to see if the would wish to address the house, and then an invitation may (or may not) be extended. And according to this source https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...uk-state-visit

he is more interested in having his ego massaged by the pomp and ceremony than the statesmanship aspects of a State visit. I guess he sees it more as a holiday than a working trip abroad!

[scaryjim]

... I guess he sees it more as a holiday than a working trip abroad!

Sounds about right and fits his public persona.

As I said earlier, it'd be unusual for a US President to be invited to address Parliament, or even for a state visit, this early in their tenure. Then again, pretty much everything about Trump's presidency has been unusual so far...

[TheAnimus]

You might find this interesting Jim:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/0...-strategy.html

[Saracen]

All of whom (afaik) where showing signs of moving away from those bad practices, whereas Trump is showing signs of moving away from previously good behavior.

....

Really? Making noises to be interpreted by liberal-minded Western leaders as "moving away", maybe, but actual significant steps?

Trump, on the the other hand, does at least seem to be doing what he said he'd do .... which is what got him elected as the leader of what is, however we feel about it, one of if not the most important ally we have, and at a time of considerable uncertsinty when we need to be deriving maximum national interest benefit.

Context = Brexit. No matter whether you, or I, or anyone else, is ideologically leave or remain, it appears the die is actually cast and leave, it is. So, in terms of just about every major aspect of governmental foreign relations, we have two main focuses :-

1) Get the best post-Brexit deal we can with the EU, which means trying to promote a deal that works best for BOTH sides, and especially for hardcore "Le Project" members of the commission for whom Euro integration is and always has been priority #1, us leaving is a severe kick in the teeth and economic mutual interest be damned, they aren't going to make it easy.

2) At all times, remember that we are refocusing our national endeavours far more on "rest of World" and less on EU than we have in recent decades, and be seeking to buold and strengthen bridges with potential major partners, including China but, yes, most emphatically the US.

Speaker Bercow needs to remember that as a major figure in our Parliamentary system, his comments WILL echo round the world and WILL be noticed, because of his role.

Put it this way :-

- John Bercow, individual .... can say what he likes and foreign leaders, Trump or otherwise, will pay it about as much attention as if you or I had said it, which us to say, they won't notice, and wouldn't care if someone showed him. On a scale of 1 to 1000, it'd rate <1.

-John Bercow, backbench MP .... slightly more significant than remarks you or I might make, but barely so. On that scale of 1 to 1000, maybe 10. At a push.

- John Bercow, Speaker of the Commons .... when he makes a remark as Speaker then he is speaking with the authority of that office. It matters.


There are, apparently, long-established diplomatic protocols for how things like this are handled. For example, if our PM wants an official visit to the White House, the government doesn't ask for it on the BBC. A quiet request is made, through diplomatic channels, and if the answer is no, the request will never be made public. Whatever the reason for the "no", and any President's time is accounted for to the minute, and even that takes incredible restraint and discipline, so the "no" may just be about timetabling, doing it quietly saves public embarrassment.

I speak from experience, believe it or not, having negotiated with the White House trying to fix a few minutes for something the then Pres, Clinton, actually wanted, but which wasn't important enough to be able to schedule. It is extremely difficult to get such things to happen.

So what Bercow did, by so publicly using his office to insult the leader of our most important ally, on a matter which, having not even been requested, was to stick his nose into sensitive international relations, and ignoring the usual diplomatic backchannels, was to publicly grandstand, primping himself and poking at an ally that self-evidently is distinctly thin-skinned and egomaniacal himself, thereby risking damaging future relations with Trump and therefore our national interest.

Bercow is a snall-minded, egotistical little twerp and he needs to keep his oversized gob shut, outside of doing his official duties. God knows, he's patronising and insufferable enough even then.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Really? Making noises to be interpreted by liberal-minded Western leaders as "moving away", maybe, but actual significant steps?

Trump, on the the other hand, does at least seem to be doing what he said he'd do .... which is what got him elected as the leader of what is, however we feel about it, one of if not the most important ally we have, and at a time of considerable uncertsinty when we need to be deriving maximum national interest benefit.

Context = Brexit. No matter whether you, or I, or anyone else, is ideologically leave or remain, it appears the die is actually cast and leave, it is. So, in terms of just about every major aspect of governmental foreign relations, we have two main focuses :-

1) Get the best post-Brexit deal we can with the EU, which means trying to promote a deal that works best for BOTH sides, and especially for hardcore "Le Project" members of the commission for whom Euro integration is and always has been priority #1, us leaving is a severe kick in the teeth and economic mutual interest be damned, they aren't going to make it easy.

2) At all times, remember that we are refocusing our national endeavours far more on "rest of World" and less on EU than we have in recent decades, and be seeking to buold and strengthen bridges with potential major partners, including China but, yes, most emphatically the US.

Speaker Bercow needs to remember that as a major figure in our Parliamentary system, his comments WILL echo round the world and WILL be noticed, because of his role.

Put it this way :-

- John Bercow, individual .... can say what he likes and foreign leaders, Trump or otherwise, will pay it about as much attention as if you or I had said it, which us to say, they won't notice, and wouldn't care if someone showed him. On a scale of 1 to 1000, it'd rate <1.

-John Bercow, backbench MP .... slightly more significant than remarks you or I might make, but barely so. On that scale of 1 to 1000, maybe 10. At a push.

- John Bercow, Speaker of the Commons .... when he makes a remark as Speaker then he is speaking with the authority of that office. It matters.


There are, apparently, long-established diplomatic protocols for how things like this are handled. For example, if our PM wants an official visit to the White House, the government doesn't ask for it on the BBC. A quiet request is made, through diplomatic channels, and if the answer is no, the request will never be made public. Whatever the reason for the "no", and any President's time is accounted for to the minute, and even that takes incredible restraint and discipline, so the "no" may just be about timetabling, doing it quietly saves public embarrassment.

I speak from experience, believe it or not, having negotiated with the White House trying to fix a few minutes for something the then Pres, Clinton, actually wanted, but which wasn't important enough to be able to schedule. It is extremely difficult to get such things to happen.

So what Bercow did, by so publicly using his office to insult the leader of our most important ally, on a matter which, having not even been requested, was to stick his nose into sensitive international relations, and ignoring the usual diplomatic backchannels, was to publicly grandstand, primping himself and poking at an ally that self-evidently is distinctly thin-skinned and egomaniacal himself, thereby risking damaging future relations with Trump and therefore our national interest.

Bercow is a snall-minded, egotistical little twerp and he needs to keep his oversized gob shut, outside of doing his official duties. God knows, he's patronising and insufferable enough even then.

You could argue some of our own lot are doing the same by trying to insult the EU at every step,meaning the like minded lot in the EU get more say.

[Saracen]

You could argue some of our own lot are doing the same by trying to insult the EU at every step,meaning the like minded lot in the EU get more say.

You could indeed.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You could indeed.

The worst thing it would not surprise me if the whole lot of them(from either side) probably have enough pennies in their bank accounts,to not give a flying toss either way as long as their collective egos are soothed. Personally I think social media has ruined politics and its enabled another means for some of these politicians to vent their narcissism with no downside,as it becomes stupid one-upmanship.

[Jowsey]

You might find this interesting Jim:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/0...-strategy.html

Doesn't fit the agenda. Fake news. SAD!