|
Post by Mendicant on Feb 7, 2017 9:18:46 GMT
An enduring alliance was established between the two nations subsequent to the War of Independence, and that eventually led to fighting on the same side at critical moments in the last century. But the Americans took advantage of our problems with Napoleon Bonaparte to try and invade and take over British Canada 1812-14. But, why let the facts get in the way? I have let facts get in the way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 9:28:07 GMT
Bercow is playing a rather foolish and somewhat dangerous game in my opinion.
With Brexit, and whether you support it or oppose it, get used to it, we have to get a head start on forging alliances, both diplomatic, and economic, with the powerful nations outside of Europe.
Personally I think Brexit could well lead to a break up of the EU, and whilst it is important to keep close ties with the important players in Europe, either individually or as a whole ( for now ) it is equally, if not more, important to make a start negotiating with the likes of USA, China, Russia, Australia, Canada , Japan etc etc etc, otherwise we will just become also rans now that we have left The EU.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Feb 7, 2017 10:24:34 GMT
Bercow is playing a rather foolish and somewhat dangerous game in my opinion. With Brexit, and whether you support it or oppose it, get used to it, we have to get a head start on forging alliances, both diplomatic, and economic, with the powerful nations outside of Europe. Personally I think Brexit could well lead to a break up of the EU, and whilst it is important to keep close ties with the important players in Europe, either individually or as a whole ( for now ) it is equally, if not more, important to make a start negotiating with the likes of USA, China, Russia, Australia, Canada , Japan etc etc etc, otherwise we will just become also rans now that we have left The EU. Whoring ourselves to the highest bidder...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 10:36:54 GMT
Bercow is playing a rather foolish and somewhat dangerous game in my opinion. With Brexit, and whether you support it or oppose it, get used to it, we have to get a head start on forging alliances, both diplomatic, and economic, with the powerful nations outside of Europe. Personally I think Brexit could well lead to a break up of the EU, and whilst it is important to keep close ties with the important players in Europe, either individually or as a whole ( for now ) it is equally, if not more, important to make a start negotiating with the likes of USA, China, Russia, Australia, Canada , Japan etc etc etc, otherwise we will just become also rans now that we have left The EU. Whoring ourselves to the highest bidder... Keep the red flag flying eh... Fuck the world, we are self sufficient...BASTARDS.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 7, 2017 10:39:45 GMT
I think you need to check the facts before replying, check the snivelling and arse licking out on this video China's leader had received a state visit and he was invited to speak to both houses by bercow who shook his hand when he got up to speak in 2003 H.M. Queen invited Vladimir Putin for a state visit. If the organ grinder has already been, do we need to invite his monkey, Trumpski, as well? It's a new monkey now, it needs to be house trained. And I'll accept your apology that I was jumping on a bandwagon
|
|
|
Post by bigvigs on Feb 7, 2017 10:44:54 GMT
Quarter of MPs backed him I like what one mp had to say about him Armchair politics It's Not goggle box john A quarter of the MP's backed him. Or put another way 3/4's didn't. And at the last General Election less than 25% of the Electorate voted for the Conservative party!!!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 7, 2017 11:09:09 GMT
I think you need to check the facts before replying, check the snivelling and arse licking out on this video China's leader had received a state visit and he was invited to speak to both houses by bercow who shook his hand when he got up to speak Maybe Bercow should should have re-used the words from that speech........ "In all this, we can usefully reflect on the wise Chinese words that, it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 11:37:51 GMT
John Berkow used to be extremely racist and right wing, and was an outspoken advocate of forced repatriations of non-whites in his uni days. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Feb 7, 2017 14:49:45 GMT
No, the two world wars alone don't justify the visit! In fact, the two American presidents who fought those wars were liberal, Democrat presidents! He's not an "imaginary villain". He's a proven serial lying, sexual predator who is undermining the American constitution! That is the most ludicrous and shameful comment I have heard for a long time, obviously designed to be confrontational at the basest level. Tell me just how exactly it is "unconstitutional" to impose a 90 day temporary restriction on visitors from 7 countries while the United States immigration policy is being revised? Trump is delivering on his election promises to the American people - and that must be a first for any politician anywhere! As for Bercow, he should remain neutral at all times. He should apologise unreservedly to parliament for bringing his position into question. Maybe it's "unconstitutional" because it goes against the first amendment of the constitution... As for Bercow remaining neutral at all times, I dont recall hearing he was a member of either the Republican or Democratic parties... Other than that, i salute your faux outrage wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 7, 2017 15:04:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Feb 7, 2017 15:45:21 GMT
I think you need to check the facts before replying, check the snivelling and arse licking out on this video China's leader had received a state visit and he was invited to speak to both houses by bercow who shook his hand when he got up to speak Maybe Bercow should should have re-used the words from that speech........ "In all this, we can usefully reflect on the wise Chinese words that, it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." "In all this, we can usefully reflect on the wise Osborne words that, it is better to light a bulb with nuclear power built with China's monies than to curse the darkness."
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 7, 2017 16:52:06 GMT
The reason is that those foreign guests did not receive the level of House of Commons hospitality that Trump was going to receive! So, the only person jumping on the bandwagon is your good self! I think you need to check the facts before replying, check the snivelling and arse licking out on this video China's leader had received a state visit and he was invited to speak to both houses by bercow who shook his hand when he got up to speak you should also brush up on your facts northwich that speech was in the Royal Gallery (where MPs are invited to voluntarily attend if they wish to do so), which is also where the Saudi representative was relgated to when he visited. That is different to speaking in Westminster Hall where the MPs are pretty much instructed to all be present out of courtesy (which is what Bercow has said he deems unacceptable for Trump and is what is causing the whole furore). Bercow has said he personally isn't in favour of him speaking the Royal Gallery either admittedly, but has been nowhere near as adamant about that as he has about him not speaking in Westminster Hall. Important thing to also note re: impartiality.....the Speaker has to remain politically impartial regarding the British political parties who take the floor in Parliament (hence the speaker having to resign their post in whatever party they represent when appointed Speaker). In terms of saying whether or not a foreign dignitary should or shouldn't be invited to speak in Westminster Hall, it's actually part of his job description to do just that as it's him, together with the Speaker of the Lords and the Lord Great Chamberlain who decide between them. I think the main issue is that for a foreign leader to be granted a state visit and the honour of speaking in Westminster Hall this early in their tenure is completely unprecedented, as virtually every other foreign leader granted those honours has been in office for a fair while before receiving those invitations, and that smacks of "Sucking up" more than anything else at a time where his policies are proving to be massively divisive. If it was left a year or 2 (as it is with most other foreign leaders), when things may well have died down quite a bit as Trump is gradually taught how to act with any kind of decorum or dignity, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. Having said all of that however........i am NO fan of Trump or any of his policies in general but i do think the media (and world in general) are being a bit daft in the way they're approaching the entire Trump situation. Protest, have marches etc. all you want guys fine by me (if they're peaceful and don't descend into petty violence) but to be so outraged by someone and think "Hmmm he's an arse and won't allow various people the freedoms we hold so dear in a democratic country...i know let's ban him from entering our country and from speaking his mind in public, that'll teach him" how can they not see their own massive hypocrisy there???? It's bizarre really. Whether i like him or not, he was elected by the people of the US to lead them (and whether the voting system is flawed or not is a moot point that is only ever trotted out when it's someone we dislike that wins..the system is what it is and that's how they choose their President's in that country so we have to accept that judgment and outcome) and has as much of a right to free speech and free, unrestricted travel to our country as any other citizen of that country. If we start deciding on who we will or won't let in simply because we disagree with their rhetoric and ideals, then we're on a slippery slope to doing the exact same things that we're apparently opposing Trump for in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 16:44:22 GMT
Never mind him. Where's his wife?
|
|
|
Post by auntiegeorge on Feb 9, 2017 5:36:53 GMT
In some people's rush to criticize Trump it's worth noting that The Terrorist Travel Prevention Act identifying seven of the most dangerous countries in the world was signed into law by Obama in 2015. But almost no one critiqued it in 2015 because it was Obama’s administration overseeing it.
The corrupt media has fed us lies pretending that this list was invented in 2017 by Trump!
Trump’s executive order said “countries of concern,” it didn’t make a list. That list was already made as far back as 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Feb 9, 2017 6:11:14 GMT
In some people's rush to criticize Trump it's worth noting that The Terrorist Travel Prevention Act identifying seven of the most dangerous countries in the world was signed into law by Obama in 2015. But almost no one critiqued it in 2015 because it was Obama’s administration overseeing it. The corrupt media has fed us lies pretending that this list was invented in 2017 by Trump! Trump’s executive order said “countries of concern,” it didn’t make a list. That list was already made as far back as 2011. King Coke Head got in on the act too in the 90's, no hoo ha, just an ovation from Congress:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 7:14:51 GMT
I can honestly say that this is the first time in his life that John Bercow has done something demonstrably correct.
It sickens me that our politicians are pandering to a neo-fascist for a trade deal. It'll be all for nothing as he'll be in jail by the time we actually leave the EU.
|
|
|
Post by auntiegeorge on Feb 9, 2017 10:07:43 GMT
I can honestly say that this is the first time in his life that John Bercow has done something demonstrably correct. It sickens me that our politicians are pandering to a neo-fascist for a trade deal. It'll be all for nothing as he'll be in jail by the time we actually leave the EU. You are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. He should be 100% neutral. And actually, there is no precedent to what Bercow has done. He has overstepped the mark by taking a clear position in a political controversy. His job is to chair debates in the House of Commons so his impartiality should be beyond question. Imagine you are an MP who supports Trump but the Speaker decides not to chose you for the debate because he takes the opposing view. Eventually you and other MPs are going to question decisions the Speaker makes. The Speaker's position is impartial from government. That's why an incoming government cannot remove him. Bercow should do the honourable thing and resign immediately.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 9, 2017 10:12:27 GMT
I can honestly say that this is the first time in his life that John Bercow has done something demonstrably correct. It sickens me that our politicians are pandering to a neo-fascist for a trade deal. It'll be all for nothing as he'll be in jail by the time we actually leave the EU. You are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. He should be 100% neutral. And actually, there is no precedent to what Bercow has done. He has overstepped the mark by taking a clear position in a political controversy. His job is to chair debates in the House of Commons so his impartiality should be beyond question. Imagine you are an MP who supports Trump but the Speaker decides not to chose you for the debate because he takes the opposing view. Eventually you and other MPs are going to question decisions the Speaker makes. The Speaker's position is impartial from government. That's why an incoming government cannot remove him. Bercow should do the honourable thing and resign immediately. it is down to Bercow and the Speaker of the Lords and the Lord Great Chamberlain to decide who is or isn't given an invite to speak in the Houses of Parliament!!!! It's those 3 that make the decision!!! It's his fucking job and forms part of his duties and job description!!!! His impartiality extends to remaining impartial and showing no political bias towards the BRITISH MPs that take the floor in the Commons!!!! They are the rules, full stop!!!! Regardless of what utter factless shit Farage and his ilk like to trot out to the Daily fucking Mail (not that he should be even fucking consulted for his usual self-serving "Keep me in the papers" soundbites..he isn't and never bloody has been an MP in the first place. It's none of his bloody business) He IS allowed an opinion on this and actually needs to have one as HE is one of the people that decides!!!!!! Why do people keep ignoring actual facts on this thread?????? It's also NOT unprecedented at all to refuse an invite to speak in Westminster Hall (which i what this is about, it;s not a total ban on speaking in Parliament at all) as the Chinese President and Saudi delegates were refused the honour and spoke form the Royal Gallery as well. The only thing that IS unprecedented is extending an invite to ANY foreign leader this early in their tenure.
|
|
|
Post by auntiegeorge on Feb 9, 2017 10:18:29 GMT
Why are you getting so excited? Calm down Mavis.
You are also completely, totally and utterly wrong. It's astonishing (and saddening) how many people know so little about our parliamentary system.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 9, 2017 10:54:51 GMT
Why are you getting so excited? Calm down Mavis. You are also completely, totally and utterly wrong. It's astonishing (and saddening) how many people know so little about our parliamentary system. what part is wrong exactly? the invitation to speak IS decided upon by the Speaker of the Commons, the Speaker of the Lords and the Lord Great Chamberlain!!! That's a fact (and part of the Parliamentary system you claim to know so much about). Whilst i agree he shouldn't have publicly come out and said what he did (as it's discourteous to have done so without consulting the other 2 mentioned first of all) he DOES have a right to an opinion on the matter simply because HE forms part of the group who fucking decide on it!!!!!!!!! The Chinese and Saudis were only allowed to speak from the Royal Gallery...it IS unprecedented to invite a foreign leader to speak in Westminster Hall this early in their tenure. They are simply facts whether you agree or not (yet conveniently give nothing of substance to indicate what you're actually disagreeing with) You're simply turning to patronising people now in the hope it will deflect from the obvious that you're factually incorrect! Astonishing how you can patronise when you clearly know so little about our parliamentary system.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 13:47:44 GMT
I can honestly say that this is the first time in his life that John Bercow has done something demonstrably correct. It sickens me that our politicians are pandering to a neo-fascist for a trade deal. It'll be all for nothing as he'll be in jail by the time we actually leave the EU. You are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. He should be 100% neutral. And actually, there is no precedent to what Bercow has done. He has overstepped the mark by taking a clear position in a political controversy. His job is to chair debates in the House of Commons so his impartiality should be beyond question. Imagine you are an MP who supports Trump but the Speaker decides not to chose you for the debate because he takes the opposing view. Eventually you and other MPs are going to question decisions the Speaker makes. The Speaker's position is impartial from government. That's why an incoming government cannot remove him. Bercow should do the honourable thing and resign immediately. I won't repeat what mickmills has said but will add that just because Trump is a politician, it does not make this a political decision. Would you advocate Le Pen, Wilders or Jong Il being invited. The man is a shithouse of the highest order and every day he's revelling in the disgrace he brings to his position. He has done nothing to deserve an invitation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 16:16:27 GMT
No mention of Sally then?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 23:13:43 GMT
Bercow is playing a rather foolish and somewhat dangerous game in my opinion. With Brexit, and whether you support it or oppose it, get used to it, we have to get a head start on forging alliances, both diplomatic, and economic, with the powerful nations outside of Europe. Personally I think Brexit could well lead to a break up of the EU, and whilst it is important to keep close ties with the important players in Europe, either individually or as a whole ( for now ) it is equally, if not more, important to make a start negotiating with the likes of USA, China, Russia, Australia, Canada , Japan etc etc etc, otherwise we will just become also rans now that we have left The EU. There is much unrest across Europe, even if we had remained within the EU it would still struggle to survive. I will be very surprised if france stay in the EU after all the terror attacks they have had over the last few years. With referendums coming up in the EU, it will be interesting to see where other countries stand but getting a head start on them could give us a stronger hand when/if it collapses with those single countries. It's always about being 1 step ahead and maybe one day we can look back and see it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Feb 9, 2017 23:49:47 GMT
You are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. He should be 100% neutral. And actually, there is no precedent to what Bercow has done. He has overstepped the mark by taking a clear position in a political controversy. His job is to chair debates in the House of Commons so his impartiality should be beyond question. Imagine you are an MP who supports Trump but the Speaker decides not to chose you for the debate because he takes the opposing view. Eventually you and other MPs are going to question decisions the Speaker makes. The Speaker's position is impartial from government. That's why an incoming government cannot remove him. Bercow should do the honourable thing and resign immediately. I won't repeat what mickmills has said but will add that just because Trump is a politician, it does not make this a political decision. Would you advocate Le Pen, Wilders or Jong Il being invited. The man is a shithouse of the highest order and every day he's revelling in the disgrace he brings to his position. He has done nothing to deserve an invitation. HGB, Wilders and Le Pen would be welcome as democratically elected heads of government/state. Likewise Hillary Clinton had she won. I find her objectionable but as US President I'd roll out the red carpet. Moral judgements on the person or their policy don't come into it, so the virtue signalling from Bercow with his "opposition to racism and sexism" is wrong. Also Kim Jong Un... come on down youth! He tried repeatedly to negotiate with the Obama administration but they weren't interested. Any chance to build relations with him should be taken.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 10, 2017 10:11:15 GMT
Has Trump actually been invited to address the Commons, Lords or both? As far as I'm aware (and I'll admit I could be wrong) the only invitation he has had is for a State Visit isn't it? That doesn't naturally extend to addresing Parliament, it usually just involves a banquet with Liz and and a meeting/photo op' with the PM in Downing Street.
And, if he hasn't actually been invited to address both houses this is just a bit of self-publicity for Bercow isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Feb 10, 2017 10:13:18 GMT
Has Trump actually been invited to address the Commons, Lords or both. As far as I'm aware (and I'll admit I could be wrong) the only invitation he has had is for a State Visit isn't it? That doesn't naturally extend to addresing Parliament, it usually just involves a banquet with Liz and and a meeting/photo op' with the PM in Downing Street. And, if he hasn't actually been invited to address both houses this is just a bit of self-publicity for Bercow isn't it? I think he gets 'The Guards' band playing the American national anthem thrown in at no extra cost?
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 10, 2017 10:41:12 GMT
Has Trump actually been invited to address the Commons, Lords or both? As far as I'm aware (and I'll admit I could be wrong) the only invitation he has had is for a State Visit isn't it? That doesn't naturally extend to addresing Parliament, it usually just involves a banquet with Liz and and a meeting/photo op' with the PM in Downing Street. And, if he hasn't actually been invited to address both houses this is just a bit of self-publicity for Bercow isn't it? The invitation to speak in Westminster Hall can only be given IF the three (of which he is one) decide he is allowed an invite. At that point, the PM is then given permission to extend that invite to Trump. That's why he's come out and said what he did as a State visit usually includes addressing Parliament. He is saying that he doesn't believe that invite should be given. In other words, he wouldn't have said this if Trump had already had the invite as he's one of the people that decides if that invite happens in the first place. State visits and invitations to address Parliament usually happen a couple of years into a leader's term rather than immediately. That's why some people are annoyed at Trump being allowed a State visit so soon (as well as those people disagreeing with his policies obviously), as it's completely out of the ordinary this soon so appears to be sucking up to the US. Obama was in office for 3 years before his first official State visit was granted for instance. Now, whilst i appreciate we're kinda in no position to pick and choose and get pinickity with other countries, as we're desperately trying to forge alliances for trade purposes with the upcoming Brexit, personally i don't think that necessitates rolling out the red carpet for people with such immediacy...especially when the person involved is proving to be so divisive. Allow him to speak from the Royal Gallery by all means (which is what we usually allow for new leaders or reps from States who have questionable foreign policy/human rights records etc. as he has just as much right to his opinion and freedom of speech as anyone else, regardless as to whether i agree with him or not) but extending him every honour Parliament can give? Not yet for me, in a couple of years (as it is with everyone else) when everything has calmed down then fair enough but not straight away or it gives the impression we're 100% fully behind everything he's already trying to implement. We can already see this country is having quite vicious vocal (and at times physical) internals battles between it's own citizens re: Brexit as it is, there's no need to antagonise the electorate even further by sanctioning this when the nation are equally as divided on Trump.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 10, 2017 10:53:58 GMT
Has Trump actually been invited to address the Commons, Lords or both? As far as I'm aware (and I'll admit I could be wrong) the only invitation he has had is for a State Visit isn't it? That doesn't naturally extend to addresing Parliament, it usually just involves a banquet with Liz and and a meeting/photo op' with the PM in Downing Street. And, if he hasn't actually been invited to address both houses this is just a bit of self-publicity for Bercow isn't it? The invitation to speak in Westminster Hall can only be given IF the three (of which he is one) decide he is allowed an invite. At that point, the PM is then given permission to extend that invite to Trump. That's why he's come out and said what he did as a State visit usually includes addressing Parliament. He is saying that he doesn't believe that invite should be given. In other words, he wouldn't have said this if Trump had already had the invite as he's one of the people that decides if that invite happens in the first place. State visits and invitations to address Parliament usually happen a couple of years into a leader's term rather than immediately. That's why some people are annoyed at Trump being allowed a State visit so soon (as well as those people disagreeing with his policies obviously), as it's completely out of the ordinary this soon so appears to be sucking up to the US. Obama was in office for 3 years before his first official State visit was granted for instance. Now, whilst i appreciate we're kinda in no position to pick and choose and get pinickity with other countries, as we're desperately trying to forge alliances for trade purposes with the upcoming Brexit, personally i don't think that necessitates rolling out the red carpet for people with such immediacy...especially when the person involved is proving to be so divisive. ".....as a State visit usually includes addressing Parliament" No, you're wrong. A state visit does not automatically include an invitation to Westminster hall to address both houses of parliament. In fact, only FOUR have since 1952. Take a look. blog.hansardsociety.org.uk/president-trumps-state-visit/This is just Bercow stepping well out of line and making himself look a twat. I agree, the invitation for a full "State Visit" rather than just holding a few meetings between PM & Pres' does seem a bit premature. That said, it's important that we tie up some trade deals with the US and others quickly. Trump won't always be there, but the US probably will and we need some friends at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 10, 2017 10:57:20 GMT
The invitation to speak in Westminster Hall can only be given IF the three (of which he is one) decide he is allowed an invite. At that point, the PM is then given permission to extend that invite to Trump. That's why he's come out and said what he did as a State visit usually includes addressing Parliament. He is saying that he doesn't believe that invite should be given. In other words, he wouldn't have said this if Trump had already had the invite as he's one of the people that decides if that invite happens in the first place. State visits and invitations to address Parliament usually happen a couple of years into a leader's term rather than immediately. That's why some people are annoyed at Trump being allowed a State visit so soon (as well as those people disagreeing with his policies obviously), as it's completely out of the ordinary this soon so appears to be sucking up to the US. Obama was in office for 3 years before his first official State visit was granted for instance. Now, whilst i appreciate we're kinda in no position to pick and choose and get pinickity with other countries, as we're desperately trying to forge alliances for trade purposes with the upcoming Brexit, personally i don't think that necessitates rolling out the red carpet for people with such immediacy...especially when the person involved is proving to be so divisive. ".....as a State visit usually includes addressing Parliament" No, you're wrong. A state visit does not automatically include an invitation to Westminster hall to address both houses of parliament. In fact, only FOUR have since 1952. Take a look. blog.hansardsociety.org.uk/president-trumps-state-visit/This is just Bercow stepping well out of line and making himself look a twat. I agree, the invitation for a full "State Visit" rather than just holding a few meetings between PM & Pres' does seem a bit premature. That said, it's important that we tie up some trade deals with the US and others quickly. Trump won't always be there, but the US probably will and we need some friends at the moment. in which case if it's as rare as that (cheers for finding that by the way), then it's certainly even more out of the ordinary than i already realised. I agree, concentrate our time on tieing up trade deals first and foremost but that shouldn't necessitate ticker tape parades, open top buses and 7 course banquets (i know those things don't actually happen, just being glib). Amended my post by the way and, as i mention, my main issue is the antagonism this may well cause to our own citizens in a time where the UK itself seems on the brink with issues at boiling point. No surprise that Bercow said what he did though, he's always loved his own celebrity.
|
|
|
Post by Old School Stokie on Feb 10, 2017 12:47:36 GMT
Ignore Trump at your peril UK
|
|