Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John Bercow says he will block Trump from addressing the House
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John Bercow says he will block Trump from addressing the House of Commons
Speaker Bercow says he will block @realDonaldTrump from addressing Parliament on State visit : Commons opposes "racism and sexism". Wow
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I get that an invitation to address the House of Commons is, by definition, one for the House of Commons (and that an invitation to address both Houses is by extension partly one for the House of Commons and one that it can withdraw from unilaterally). I get that the Speaker speaks for the House of Commons and so can refuse the invitation on the House of Commons' behalf.
But can't he be overridden by a vote among MPs if they so choose?
Could some constitutional expert opine?
But, in any event, this just shows the idiocy of politicians. If the assorted people opposed to Trump hadn't demanded he wasn't invited then he probably wouldn't have been invited. Now that they've screamed about it they've made it a "thing".
Whereas previously hardly anyone was invited to speak there. Am I right in remembering that Mandela was the first?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2P3ww6Fk6k
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not supporting Trump. This shouldn't need saying, but a lot of people, even here, don't seem to understand the concept that a judge or a Speaker shouldn't express political views or make political decisions).
'In a few years' time we will find out that Napoleon has a Bercow complex'
But....Alistair Meeks and others have a point. Is he sure that he speaks for a majority of the house? He probably does but to come out against the Government position so strongly leaves him very vulnerable if he doesn't.
Berk.
UKIP are 2.23 to win Stoke
That double is 3.59
You can lay 2.88... is the related contingency factor that big?
But he is also only Speaker for the Commons. I assume his power doesn't extend to the whole of Parliament. Moreover whilst I detest Trump I would be concerned about the Speaker denying the right to address British MPs to the position of the President. It is rather like the old adage that you salute the rank not the person.
But he has to be very sure that he is speaking for the House as a whole before doing so. If it is even slightly doubtful that he's speaking for a majority of the House, he should have subsided.
Perhaps he's made the appropriate soundings.
The Speaker isn't there to parrot the position of the government but to be the Commons man/woman and to uphold the rights, duties and responsibilities of the role developed down the centuries and that includes invitations within the remit of The Palace of Westminster authorities.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/828653271082528768
Many were unhappy with Bercow campaigning for the job and getting it largely due to Labour votes*. He's now politicised the position beyond all measure of doubt. So, when the next vote for a new Speaker comes around, MPs may start thinking about how their choice might help them or hinder their opponents (or vice versa).
Still, it got him some applause and gave him an opportunity to annoy the democratically elected government.
Edited extra bit: so who cares if he throws out the neutrality along with the wigs, right?
Edited extra bit 2: *with concerns he's been rather more helpful to red than blue, and won those votes because the PLP wanted to irritate the Conservatives, rather than on merit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvSTUuqc9WM
EDIT - in front of a million people with their backs turned.
He says himself there are three keyholders, and that he is opposed. Not that the office of speaker will block Trump ?
The speaker of the house is supposedly impartial, is it really his place to voice an opinion in this way? - Also the story is a little vague, has Trump even been invited to address parliment?
Bill Clinton has also addressed the joint Houses but his was not a State visit.
Friend has a date this evening, friend is also editing a website about betting on politics, and then John Bercow does this, should my friend leave his phone at home tonight?
I'm surprised, and somewhat shocked, that you, and Nick P, aren't amongst them.
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/828655395103059968
When Carthage suffered a comparable blow at Zama, it couldn't recover because it lacked that resilience.
This, more than anything else, emphasises that the brilliance of an individual is outweighed by the stability and strength of political institutions.
I think Trump's an oaf. I wouldn't have voted for him. I wouldn't've offered him a state visit either (official, perhaps). However, that is the business of the Government.
The Speaker's role is be a neutral, objective umpire. He is not there to play the game but to officiate. Now he's stuck his leg out, put the ball in the net, and is running around with his shirt over his head whilst half the players applaud him.
But for that cheap shot, leaving aside the considerable difficulty this may well cause the Government, it may change, and weaken, the function of the Speaker forever. How can he be seen as neutral after this? Diplomatic and foreign affairs are not his business. But he has waded in anyway.
Before Flavius Phocas in the 7th century, Byzantium had no history of mutilation [emperors had to be perfect - that is to say, physically whole and without deformity]. Phocas was a sadist and mutilated the former emperor Maurice, as well as others. After him, for about eight centuries, mutilation was common practice for imperial rivals who lost.
One man's bad practice became a template for his successors and a habit for his people. Maybe this will be a one off. I hope so. But from now on every MP will need to consider the party political angle very carefully when voting for a new Speaker. Because the modernising supply teacher has decided he can ignore common sense and convention and start playing the game, as well as being the referee.
I think people sometimes underestimate the importance of institutions. It's why Blair was idiotic to think Holyrood would slay the SNP. It's why those who want to carve England up into petty fiefdoms are wrong. And it's why the Speaker should long ago have taken a leaf out of Her Majesty's book, and learned the art of being silent on controversial political matters.
Does you think:
a) Trump is more sexist than Islam?
b) Islam is more sexist than Trump?
c) Trump and Islam are just as sexist as each other?
Speaker Bercow has emphasized the independence of the Commons over the executive just as in the past his predecessors did over monarchy.
Xi Jinping's busy building up China's already gargantuan military forces and has committed a massive land grab in the South China Sea. There's no political freedom, those who speak up often disappear. China is less free and fair than America in just about every way.
But there we are.
Is Carter a closet "republican"?
And why's Xi Jinping alright but not Trump?
Would the Sergeant At Arms take him down?
It's up to the government's opponents to avail themselves of such opportunities. Someone who is supposed to be neutral is, or should be, by definition not one of the government's opponents.
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/why-does-latin-america-have-the-world-s-highest-female-murder-rates
Here's a warning to delete your email archive from others in a similar position:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/trumps-enemies-list/513449/