Wow, No 10 are determined to make this even worse aren't they? Own the decision.
The worst of both worlds. The petition guarantees it will be covered by the US media and Trump follows this kind of minutiae about who offended him and how. The message will go out that we don't really want to host Trump but we have to suck it up because we need a trade deal and don't want to 'undo everything'.
Worst of all worlds pretty much covers it: we will end up loathed both by whatever sane adult succeeds Trump for being nice to him, and by Trump for not being nice enough. But judgment on May's handling should be suspended - she is in an impossible position.
Cyclefree and rcs1000 seem to be having second thoughts. Are they good enough for you?
With all respect to Cyclefree and rcs1000 (and I've yet to see the latter express definite Bremorse? Has he?) I'll go with the British public - who are MORE supportive of Leave than before - and, if I have to pick an individual, Niall Ferguson, the one man I've met in my life and thought WHOAH this guy is way smarter than me. He was Remain, now he's Leave.
And besides, I have also predicted all this regret and recantation. in my Brexit is Like Having a Baby piece.
To wit:
"at one point [during Brexit] you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
So we see that Trump's domestic immigration policy is the last hurrah of Remain.
Grey in the Speccie puts forward the view that Trump meddling with America's borders is rather safer all around than Bush meddling in the middle east.
I was far more concerned with Trump's views on torture, Putin and NATO than this.
But i didn't throw my toys out of the pram on that either.
Trump's problem is that he's poked the identity politics hornets nest with a very big and blunt stick.
He doesn't care. Nial Ferguson seems to have the measure of all this, explaining in Sunday Times how Trump is basically just continuing to communicate with his base as if still campaigning.
The base will love all this I suspect.
He is implementing his platform exactly as promised.
In that respect, his base would have reason to be pleased with him and he's being true to his mandate.
May is desperate for a deal. Trump holds grudges. It would be tempting to inflict him with Prince Charles. And I don't really like denying anyone of freedom of expression. But I have, however, signed the petition because Trump instructs me that we should fight fire with fire.
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I disagree with them - I think that at this point it's unwise to embrace Trump too enthusiastically. May's visit was OK, having him here for a discussion is OK, but rolling out the red carpet is premature and could be very embarrassing if he turns out a real disaster. But it's interesting that parts of the public that you might expect to agree have doubts.
That said, the gyrations of Downing Street are embarrassing. There is no way that May can reasonably say that the Visits Committee Made Me Do It. That's Just Silly.
One could argue on a purely practical level, a State visit is a mistake: the security involved will be horrendous and there will be protest.
A state visit is an admission of weakness: Trump has an ego that has to be pandered to and it is only by pandering to him that we stand any chance of getting anything that we want. Other US presidents o f both parties - rational men who could see beyond themselves - were fine with official visits on their first trips over here. Trump wanted to meet the Queen and the other royals (except prince Charles) and we felt could not afford to turn him down, even though he has only been in office a week. And the rest of the world will note this and see we realise just how weak a spot we are in.
The next four years will show how wise it was to meet and acknowledge the latest holder of the post of President of the United States. Not someone to piss off, whoever it is in that office. The State visit is the greatest diplomatic courtesy we can extend. As has been pointed out, when you look at the list of those this "honour" has been bestowed upon, Trump wouldn't make the top ten of most questionable recipients.
Sorry, but talk of it being down to the inherent "weakness" of a post-Brexit UK is just so much bollocks.
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I disagree with them - I think that at this point it's unwise to embrace Trump too enthusiastically. May's visit was OK, having him here for a discussion is OK, but rolling out the red carpet is premature and could be very embarrassing if he turns out a real disaster. But it's interesting that parts of the public that you might expect to agree have doubts.
That said, the gyrations of Downing Street are embarrassing. There is no way that May can reasonably say that the Visits Committee Made Me Do It. That's Just Silly.
One could argue on a purely practical level, a State visit is a mistake: the security involved will be horrendous and there will be protest.
A state visit is an admission of weakness: Trump has an ego that has to be pandered to and it is only by pandering to him that we stand any chance of getting anything that we want. Other US presidents o f both parties - rational men who could see beyond themselves - were fine with official visits on their first trips over here. Trump wanted to meet the Queen and the other royals (except prince Charles) and we felt could not afford to turn him down, even though he has only been in office a week. And the rest of the world will note this and see we realise just how weak a spot we are in.
Why do you think sidelining the officeholder of the President of the United States is in our national interest?
Edit: I see you've admitted signing the petition. What a stupid thing to do.
Wow, No 10 are determined to make this even worse aren't they? Own the decision.
The worst of both worlds. The petition guarantees it will be covered by the US media and Trump follows this kind of minutiae about who offended him and how. The message will go out that we don't really want to host Trump but we have to suck it up because we need a trade deal and don't want to 'undo everything'.
Worst of all worlds pretty much covers it: we will end up loathed both by whatever sane adult succeeds Trump for being nice to him, and by Trump for not being nice enough. But judgment on May's handling should be suspended - she is in an impossible position.
I doubt it, May is not amongst Trump's die-hard allies internationally like Farage and Netanyahu but the outer tier like Malcolm Turnbull and Trump knows she is not hostile to him like Trudeau or Merkel. Unless Elizabeth Warren beats Trump in 2020 the next U.S. president will still not be hostile to the UK and indeed if Trump is re elected the next U.S. president will probably be arriving shortly before May departs anyway
"and the sail blithely on with his plans leaving them to froth in their impotence."
That's what's annoying them the most. The fact that the plebs aren't obeying orders. Don't these Neanderthals realise that the Establishment are superior beings?
Sign a petition, kapow! That will bring them to their senses. Get a luvvie to lecture them Biff! Take that, you cretins.
It's not fair, these fools have the same number of votes as us! Something is seriously wrong -. it must be democracy.
Cyclefree and rcs1000 seem to be having second thoughts. Are they good enough for you?
With all respect to Cyclefree and rcs1000 (and I've yet to see the latter express definite Bremorse? Has he?) I'll go with the British public - who are MORE supportive of Leave than before - and, if I have to pick an individual, Niall Ferguson, the one man I've met in my life and thought WHOAH this guy is way smarter than me. He was Remain, now he's Leave.
And besides, I have also predicted all this regret and recantation. in my Brexit is Like Having a Baby piece.
To wit:
"at one point [during Brexit] you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
If Hillary Clinton had won the US election, and then continued to make clear we were 'at the back of the queue', with TTIP and the EU coming first, I wonder what line Remainers would have taken on that?
I'd suggest "globally isolated", "pariah state", and "friendless" would have been top of the list.
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I disagree with them - I think that at this point it's unwise to embrace Trump too enthusiastically. May's visit was OK, having him here for a discussion is OK, but rolling out the red carpet is premature and could be very embarrassing if he turns out a real disaster. But it's interesting that parts of the public that you might expect to agree have doubts.
That said, the gyrations of Downing Street are embarrassing. There is no way that May can reasonably say that the Visits Committee Made Me Do It. That's Just Silly.
It was a mistake to offer the Visit so quickly after he took office but having offered it, it would be a bigger mistake to withdraw it. State Visits by US presidents in their first term are hardly unprecedented: the last three all received such invites (albeit in their second or third year), as did Reagan (also in his second year).
Better to go ahead and champion the First Amendment.
A sensible opinion which I agree with, despite despising Trump.
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I disagree with them - I think that at this point it's unwise to embrace Trump too enthusiastically. May's visit was OK, having him here for a discussion is OK, but rolling out the red carpet is premature and could be very embarrassing if he turns out a real disaster. But it's interesting that parts of the public that you might expect to agree have doubts.
That said, the gyrations of Downing Street are embarrassing. There is no way that May can reasonably say that the Visits Committee Made Me Do It. That's Just Silly.
One could argue on a purely practical level, a State visit is a mistake: the security involved will be horrendous and there will be protest.
A state visit is an admission of weakness: Trump has an ego that has to be pandered to and it is only by pandering to him that we stand any chance of getting anything that we want. Other US presidents o f both parties - rational men who could see beyond themselves - were fine with official visits on their first trips over here. Trump wanted to meet the Queen and the other royals (except prince Charles) and we felt could not afford to turn him down, even though he has only been in office a week. And the rest of the world will note this and see we realise just how weak a spot we are in.
The next four years will show how wise it was to meet and acknowledge the latest holder of the post of President of the United States. Not someone to piss off, whoever it is in that office. The State visit is the greatest diplomatic courtesy we can extend. As has been pointed out, when you look at the list of those this "honour" has been bestowed upon, Trump wouldn't make the top ten of most questionable recipients.
Sorry, but talk of it being down to the inherent "weakness" of a post-Brexit UK is just so much bollocks.
We are giving Trump an honour never before bestowed on a US president - an official state visit on his first trip over here, with the invitation made a week after he has taken office. That is weakness. Sorry.
A lot of people voted to leave the EU last year in good faith. Now the world has changed. Now we have a choice to make. Europe or Trump?
And many others.
Whilst I wouldn't countenance a rerun of the vote (the people have spoken and all that), I've said previously that Dave was unlucky with his timing. Had the referendum been conducted post-Trump, the EU would have looked more wholesome and benevolent to many - probably enough a to swing it to Remain. All hypothetical of course, but I bet Dave kicks himself for not following Ozzy and Crosby's advice and delaying things. Another example of pressure from Farage addling a Tory leader's brain.
Arguably Trump only won because of Brexit, it led his camp to focus heavily on the industrial Midwest which mirrored the industrial north and Midlands where Brexit won a landslide
Good point. If we're both right, then had Dave delayed neither Brexit nor Trump would have happened.
Yes Cameron's haste and failure to take longer over negotiations had huge global implications
Although I think Trump's barmy edict and some of his other policies are potentially catastrophic, the reaction of the Guardianistas is hilarious:
The British state reserves its pomp and pageantry for those with shared values. To do this for Trump is not simply appeasing, but legitimising his regime. This is not just embarrassing for the Queen but for every decent citizen. The vicar’s daughter may have lost her moral compass somewhere over the Atlantic, but this petition and the debate it prompts shows more than a million of us are clinging on to ours. It is not in the national interest to bend a knee to hate.
Let's see those shared values in action, shall we?
12–15 June 1973 General Yakubu Gowon and Mrs. Gowon of Nigeria 13–16 June 1978 President Nicolae Ceaușescu and Madame Ceausescu of Romania 17–20 May 1994 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe 19–22 October 1999 President Jiang Zemin and Mrs. Wang Yeping of China 24–27 June 2003 President Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Lyudmila Putina of Russia
Actually, it was the 'legitimising his regime' comment that struck me as most odd (though I'd grant that there's plenty to choose from.
Trump was elected according to the rules of the game; rules that all his opponents were happily signed up to (though he, amusingly, wasn't). There are many valid criticisms of his regime but its legitimacy isn't one of them.
If Hillary Clinton had won the US election, and then continued to make clear we were 'at the back of the queue', with TTIP and the EU coming first, I wonder what line Remainers would have taken on that?
I'd suggest "globally isolated", "pariah state", and "friendless" would have been top of the list.
If Hillary Clinton had won the US election, and then continued to make clear we were 'at the back of the queue', with TTIP and the EU coming first, I wonder what line Remainers would have taken on that?
I'd suggest "globally isolated", "pariah state", and "friendless" would have been top of the list.
So either way, post Brexit our position in the world depends on who holds the office of POTUS? That doesn't sound like the 'control' we were promised.
Although I think Trump's barmy edict and some of his other policies are potentially catastrophic, the reaction of the Guardianistas is hilarious:
The British state reserves its pomp and pageantry for those with shared values. To do this for Trump is not simply appeasing, but legitimising his regime. This is not just embarrassing for the Queen but for every decent citizen. The vicar’s daughter may have lost her moral compass somewhere over the Atlantic, but this petition and the debate it prompts shows more than a million of us are clinging on to ours. It is not in the national interest to bend a knee to hate.
Let's see those shared values in action, shall we?
12–15 June 1973 General Yakubu Gowon and Mrs. Gowon of Nigeria 13–16 June 1978 President Nicolae Ceaușescu and Madame Ceausescu of Romania 17–20 May 1994 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe 19–22 October 1999 President Jiang Zemin and Mrs. Wang Yeping of China 24–27 June 2003 President Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Lyudmila Putina of Russia
Mobutu in 1973 Hu Jintao in 2005 Emperor Hirohito in 1971 isnt exactly an uncontroversial choice either!
If you look at the BBC website the highest number of signatures come from Remoaner Labour seats in inner London, Bristol and Green Brighton areas which in the US also voted Hillary by a landslide. In areas like Wolverhampton and Walsall barely anyone has signed and that was peak Brexit territory and would have been peak Trump territory in the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38796357
So our divided nation continues to be divided. Great. How is that helpful? There was absolutely no need to offer Trump a state visit.
At some stage it was necessary, the Bushes, Reagan, Obama and Clinton had one
@theobertram: I can't remember Blair or Brown ever discussing a State Visits Committee. I checked Hansard. It has never been mentioned. By any MP. Ever.
@IanDunt: They've had three positions so far today: That invitation came from PM, from 'government', and from committee. It's 1pm. twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes…
A lot of people voted to leave the EU last year in good faith. Now the world has changed. Now we have a choice to make. Europe or Trump?
And many others.
Which is exactly the SNP pitch. Funny that...
Yes and EU looks much more inviting than the butt licking UK
Morning Malc - how much does Scotland export to the EU and how much to England.
And surprised a Scotsman wants to be ruled by Brussels
Indeed. And this time the question shouldn't be the vague but loaded "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
Given that Brexit is being used explicitly by the SNP to roll the dice again, I would suggest:
"Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom in order to remain part of the EU?"
That would ensure that all the consequences as explicitly on the table - trade tariffs with England, border controls, joining Schengen, adoption of the Euro.
Remember that the wording has to be agreed and thus isn't just up to the SNP nor the Scottish Government. The UK Government is a player too with the Electoral Commission acting as referee. Last time Cameron pretty well rolled over and agreed to a wording referencing "independence" that clearly affected the outcome compared to more neutral alternatives that referred to leaving the UK.
Whether or not a new Scottish referendum referred to the EU, if there is to be a next time the bottom line for the UK government should be that the word "independence" should be no-where on the ballot paper.
LOL, Yes lord and Master, we will do exactly as you command.
SNIP
SNIP
LOL. Yes, quite. It's an utterly absurd position and Nicola will enjoy destroying it. By the way, best of luck with independence. I was (as you know) a staunch unionist last time. Now I am a pragmatic supporter of independence for Scotland. I have no doubt we will strike a decent trade deal despite the ludicrous hyperbole.
At some stage it was necessary, the Bushes, Reagan, Obama and Clinton had one
At one point I'm sure it was even suggested that it was one of the cards we could play in trade negotiations. "If we get a good deal you'll get a state visit and it will be the grandest ever."
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I disagree with them - I think that at this point it's unwise to embrace Trump too enthusiastically. May's visit was OK, having him here for a discussion is OK, but rolling out the red carpet is premature and could be very embarrassing if he turns out a real disaster. But it's interesting that parts of the public that you might expect to agree have doubts.
That said, the gyrations of Downing Street are embarrassing. There is no way that May can reasonably say that the Visits Committee Made Me Do It. That's Just Silly.
I signed the petition. I will not be going on any marches or demos. These are likely to be hijacked by the usual anti-Israel, anti-West far left suspects, and will be entirely self-defeating.
did you sign the Jeremy Clarkson petition too? it's pretty sad that people thing signing a meaningless petition or posting outrage on social media will have any effect.
No, this is the first one I have signed. I do not think it will have any effect. I fully expect the UK's great and good to be prostrating themselves in front of a smirking Trump some time this year. But the number will be meaningful, if only as a hook for questions to the Prime Minister and the President from now until the visit and maybe beyond. It's not much, but it is something.
I also vote in general elections in constituencies in which the candidate I support has absolutely no chance of winning. I do not consider that to be sad either.
Cyclefree and rcs1000 seem to be having second thoughts. Are they good enough for you?
With all respect to Cyclefree and rcs1000 (and I've yet to see the latter express definite Bremorse? Has he?) I'll go with the British public - who are MORE supportive of Leave than before - and, if I have to pick an individual, Niall Ferguson, the one man I've met in my life and thought WHOAH this guy is way smarter than me. He was Remain, now he's Leave.
And besides, I have also predicted all this regret and recantation. in my Brexit is Like Having a Baby piece.
To wit:
"at one point [during Brexit] you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Except for around half of the UK it's an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
Sean acknowledges this issue in his article. It is a very decent analogy.
Well if he really thinks it's a great explanatory metaphor, then those who didn't want a referendum in the first place are in the situation of a pre Roe v Wade mother being forced to carry to term the result of nonconsensual sex. Which from my POV makes it a dubious metaphor.
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I .
One cou
A state visit is an admission of weakness: Trump has an ego that has to be pandered to and it is only by pandering to him that we stand any chance of getting anything that we want. Other US presidents o f both parties - rational men who could see beyond themselves - were fine with official visits on their first trips over here. Trump wanted to meet the Queen and the other royals (except prince Charles) and we felt could not afford to turn him down, even though he has only been in office a week. And the rest of the world will note this and see we realise just how weak a spot we are in.
The next four years will show how wise it was to meet and acknowledge the latest holder of the post of President of the United States. Not someone to piss off, whoever it is in that office. The State visit is the greatest diplomatic courtesy we can extend. As has been pointed out, when you look at the list of those this "honour" has been bestowed upon, Trump wouldn't make the top ten of most questionable recipients.
Sorry, but talk of it being down to the inherent "weakness" of a post-Brexit UK is just so much bollocks.
We are giving Trump an honour never before bestowed on a US president - an official state visit on his first trip over here, with the invitation made a week after he has taken office. That is weakness. Sorry.
Rubbish. Get a grip.
The EU apparatchiks intend to roger us good and hard over the Brexit negotiations. Trump's election is an opportunity, as well as a threat, and one which we are very well advised to make full use of. He likes Britain, has family roots here, supported Brexit when nobody else did, and he dislikes the EU - let's make use of that. Let's exploit it.
If I were May I'd be using every possibly weapon in our arsenal to strengthen our hand in the negotiations to come. Creating fear of a strategic alternative for the UK is one such ruse.
Sean acknowledges this issue in his article. It is a very decent analogy.
In which case abortion (not triggering article 50) should be valid and respectable choice?
Unless you are a pro-life Brexiteer nutter
Not that anyone cares, but I have no issue with any of those campaigning to avert, undermine or divert the A50 invocation.
I might not like those shenanigans, but they're legal and democratic. Most moderate Leavers can empathize with the difficulties many of the 48% are having in reconciling themselves to the result.
The issue is that moderate voices on either side are drowned out by the extremes; it garners more attention to froth and rage about "quislings" and, as you put it, nutters. That's far more entertaining, granted, but it's not exactly healing.
Although I think Trump's barmy edict and some of his other policies are potentially catastrophic, the reaction of the Guardianistas is hilarious:
The British state reserves its pomp and pageantry for those with shared values. To do this for Trump is not simply appeasing, but legitimising his regime. This is not just embarrassing for the Queen but for every decent citizen. The vicar’s daughter may have lost her moral compass somewhere over the Atlantic, but this petition and the debate it prompts shows more than a million of us are clinging on to ours. It is not in the national interest to bend a knee to hate.
Let's see those shared values in action, shall we?
12–15 June 1973 General Yakubu Gowon and Mrs. Gowon of Nigeria 13–16 June 1978 President Nicolae Ceaușescu and Madame Ceausescu of Romania 17–20 May 1994 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe 19–22 October 1999 President Jiang Zemin and Mrs. Wang Yeping of China 24–27 June 2003 President Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Lyudmila Putina of Russia
Mobutu in 1973 Hu Jintao in 2005 Emperor Hirohito in 1971 isnt exactly an uncontroversial choice either!
If you look at the BBC website the highest number of signatures come from Remoaner Labour seats in inner London, Bristol and Green Brighton areas which in the US also voted Hillary by a landslide. In areas like Wolverhampton and Walsall barely anyone has signed and that was peak Brexit territory and would have been peak Trump territory in the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38796357
So our divided nation continues to be divided. Great. How is that helpful? There was absolutely no need to offer Trump a state visit.
At some stage it was necessary, the Bushes, Reagan, Obama and Clinton had one
Yes, after they had been on official visits and been in power for a couple of years.
Although I think Trump's barmy edict and some of his other policies are potentially catastrophic, the reaction of the Guardianistas is hilarious:
The British state reserves its pomp and pageantry for those with shared values. To do this for Trump is not simply appeasing, but legitimising his regime. This is not just embarrassing for the Queen but for every decent citizen. The vicar’s daughter may have lost her moral compass somewhere over the Atlantic, but this petition and the debate it prompts shows more than a million of us are clinging on to ours. It is not in the national interest to bend a knee to hate.
Let's see those shared values in action, shall we?
12–15 June 1973 General Yakubu Gowon and Mrs. Gowon of Nigeria 13–16 June 1978 President Nicolae Ceaușescu and Madame Ceausescu of Romania 17–20 May 1994 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe 19–22 October 1999 President Jiang Zemin and Mrs. Wang Yeping of China 24–27 June 2003 President Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Lyudmila Putina of Russia
Mobutu in 1973 Hu Jintao in 2005 Emperor Hirohito in 1971 isnt exactly an uncontroversial choice either!
If you look at the BBC website the highest number of signatures come from Remoaner Labour seats in inner London, Bristol and Green Brighton areas which in the US also voted Hillary by a landslide. In areas like Wolverhampton and Walsall barely anyone has signed and that was peak Brexit territory and would have been peak Trump territory in the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38796357
So our divided nation continues to be divided. Great. How is that helpful? There was absolutely no need to offer Trump a state visit.
At some stage it was necessary, the Bushes, Reagan, Obama and Clinton had one
1.2 million signatures up on the petition. It'll be interesting to see the final total.
No, I'm not signing it.
Still well short of the 4 million even who wanted EU ref 2
It's got to second ranked by numbers of signatories in a day. That's quite impressive for an aim (withdrawing a state visit invitation) that's essentially quite trivial.
A lot of people voted to leave the EU last year in good faith. Now the world has changed. Now we have a choice to make. Europe or Trump?
And many others.
Which is exactly the SNP pitch. Funny that...
Yes and EU looks much more inviting than the butt licking UK
Morning Malc - how much does Scotland export to the EU and how much to England.
And surprised a Scotsman wants to be ruled by Brussels
SNIP
LOL, Yes lord and Master, we will do exactly as you command.
SNIP
SNIP
SNIP
Panel base today has it 54% still for No
Decent starting point for Nicola.
Nope exactly the same point as final 2014 polls
Not the point I was making. Salmond started his indy campaign in the 20s or 30s as I recall – way below this level. He made up a huge amount of ground in the campaign. I suspect Nicola would take being four points short at the start of the campaign, given that.
If Hillary Clinton had won the US election, and then continued to make clear we were 'at the back of the queue', with TTIP and the EU coming first, I wonder what line Remainers would have taken on that?
I'd suggest "globally isolated", "pariah state", and "friendless" would have been top of the list.
So either way, post Brexit our position in the world depends on who holds the office of POTUS? That doesn't sound like the 'control' we were promised.
It matters *for the EU negotiations only*.
The plethora of morons out there don't seem to understand this is about the EU, not Trump.
Once we have a stable post-Brexit relationship in place with the EU, we can be much more patient and discerning about who we strike trade deals with, and on what terms.
But we have a challenging few years ahead of us first.
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I .
One cou
A state visit is an admission of weakness: Trump has an ego that has to be pandered to and it is only by pandering to him that we stand any chance of getting anything that we want. Other US presidents o f both parties - rational men who could see beyond themselves - were fine with official visits on their first trips over here. Trump wanted to meet the Queen and the other royals (except prince Charles) and we felt could not afford to turn him down, even though he has only been in office a week. And the rest of the world will note this and see we realise just how weak a spot we are in.
The next four years will show how wise it was to meet and acknowledge the latest holder of the post of President of the United States. Not someone to piss off, whoever it is in that office. The State visit is the greatest diplomatic courtesy we can extend. As has been pointed out, when you look at the list of those this "honour" has been bestowed upon, Trump wouldn't make the top ten of most questionable recipients.
Sorry, but talk of it being down to the inherent "weakness" of a post-Brexit UK is just so much bollocks.
We are giving Trump an honour never before bestowed on a US president - an official state visit on his first trip over here, with the invitation made a week after he has taken office. That is weakness. Sorry.
Rubbish. Get a grip.
The EU apparatchiks intend to roger us good and hard over the Brexit negotiations. Trump's election is an opportunity, as well as a threat, and one which we are very well advised to make full use of. He likes Britain, has family roots here, supported Brexit when nobody else did, and he dislikes the EU - let's make use of that. Let's exploit it.
If I were May I'd be using every possibly weapon in our arsenal to strengthen our hand in the negotiations to come. Creating fear of a strategic alternative for the UK is one such ruse.
We need every card in our pocket there is.
True. Perhaps the real complaint of those opposing Trump, which mostly seems to be coming from Remainers, is not that it legitimises Trump, but that it legitimises and confirms Brexit.
Although I think Trump's barmy edict and some of his other policies are potentially catastrophic, the reaction of the Guardianistas is hilarious:
The British state reserves its pomp and pageantry for those with shared values. To do this for Trump is not simply appeasing, but legitimising his regime. This is not just embarrassing for the Queen but for every decent citizen. The vicar’s daughter may have lost her moral compass somewhere over the Atlantic, but this petition and the debate it prompts shows more than a million of us are clinging on to ours. It is not in the national interest to bend a knee to hate.
Let's see those shared values in action, shall we?
12–15 June 1973 General Yakubu Gowon and Mrs. Gowon of Nigeria 13–16 June 1978 President Nicolae Ceaușescu and Madame Ceausescu of Romania 17–20 May 1994 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe 19–22 October 1999 President Jiang Zemin and Mrs. Wang Yeping of China 24–27 June 2003 President Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Lyudmila Putina of Russia
Actually, it was the 'legitimising his regime' comment that struck me as most odd (though I'd grant that there's plenty to choose from.
Trump was elected according to the rules of the game; rules that all his opponents were happily signed up to (though he, amusingly, wasn't). There are many valid criticisms of his regime but its legitimacy isn't one of them.
Creating fear of a strategic alternative for the UK is one such ruse.
We're creating laughter, not fear.
If we wanted to create fear May should have immediately dropped the anti-Putin stuff and made a beeline for Moscow instead of Washington, but what's left of her principles prevents her.
Creating fear of a strategic alternative for the UK is one such ruse.
We're creating laughter, not fear.
If we wanted to create fear May should have immediately dropped the anti-Putin stuff and made a beeline for Moscow instead of Washington, but what's left of her principles prevents her.
I disagree. The Barnier leaks show that fear of a US-UK axis is real, and the French have a deep-seated paranoia about Les Anglo Saxons anyway.
In the meantime, May is showing that the UK can be a useful bridge for the EU into Washington, and help promote our common UK-EU interests.
A lot of people voted to leave the EU last year in good faith. Now the world has changed. Now we have a choice to make. Europe or Trump?
And many others.
Which is exactly the SNP pitch. Funny that...
Yes and EU looks much more inviting than the butt licking UK
Morning Malc - how much does Scotland export to the EU and how much to England.
And surprised a Scotsman wants to be ruled by Brussels
SNIP
LOL, Yes lord and Master, we will do exactly as you command.
SNIP
SNIP
SNIP
Panel base today has it 54% still for No
Decent starting point for Nicola.
Nope exactly the same point as final 2014 polls
Not the point I was making. Salmond started his indy campaign in the 20s or 30s as I recall – way below this level. He made up a huge amount of ground in the campaign. I suspect Nicola would take being four points short at the start of the campaign, given that.
Cyclefree and rcs1000 seem to be having second thoughts. Are they good enough for you?
With all respect to Cyclefree and rcs1000 (and I've yet to see the latter express definite Bremorse? Has he?) I'll go with the British public - who are MORE supportive of Leave than before - and, if I have to pick an individual, Niall Ferguson, the one man I've met in my life and thought WHOAH this guy is way smarter than me. He was Remain, now he's Leave.
And besides, I have also predicted all this regret and recantation. in my Brexit is Like Having a Baby piece.
To wit:
"at one point [during Brexit] you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Except for around half of the UK it's an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
Sean acknowledges this issue in his article. It is a very decent analogy.
Well if he really thinks it's a great explanatory metaphor, then those who didn't want a referendum in the first place are in the situation of a pre Roe v Wade mother being forced to carry to term the result of nonconsensual sex. Which from my POV makes it a dubious metaphor.
Fair enough. All analogies are but imperfect reflections of a more complex reality and liable to break down when pressed hard.
"Bush visit set to paralyse London Itinerary details remain secret in record security operation as thousands plan street protests during first state visit by an American President London will be brought to a standstill in 10 days' time when the visit of US President George W. Bush will take place under the highest security ever reserved for a foreign head of state. A combination of last-minute road closures and a rally at Trafalgar Square by an estimated 100,000 anti-war protesters will paralyse the capital when Bush arrives on 19 November for a three-day stay in Britain. It will be the first ever state visit by an American President, who will be the guest of the Queen for the duration of his stay."
For Labour the old ways are gradually changing. In the sixties, the contract with the working class voters was - we'll look after you, as long as you let us pander to our internationalist and diversity leanings sometimes. And in general, that worked fine, There was the odd "Dockers for Enoch" march but that was all.
Some of those MPs may have been middle-class but they were patriotic and there were many who had proper jobs before becoming MPs. Now, the axis of influence is posh, London-based sophisticates with PPE degrees. That contract is a distant memory with only a few exceptions. Labour is all about diversity and equality. A noble ambition, but those voters, especially the older ones have long memories of what used to be.
Labour has changed. The working class have yet to catch up.
This may all be bollocks but it's a view I'm familiar with.
A lot of people voted to leave the EU last year in good faith. Now the world has changed. Now we have a choice to make. Europe or Trump?
And many others.
Which is exactly the SNP pitch. Funny that...
Yes and EU looks much more inviting than the butt licking UK
Morning Malc - how much does Scotland export to the EU and how much to England.
And surprised a Scotsman wants to be ruled by Brussels
SNIP
LOL, Yes lord and Master, we will do exactly as you command.
SNIP
SNIP
SNIP
Panel base today has it 54% still for No
Decent starting point for Nicola.
Nope exactly the same point as final 2014 polls
Not the point I was making. Salmond started his indy campaign in the 20s or 30s as I recall – way below this level. He made up a huge amount of ground in the campaign. I suspect Nicola would take being four points short at the start of the campaign, given that.
Almost all the people who voted No are sticking with No, the SNP had already won a majority in 2011 on over 40% which they got out for Yes, in 2016 the SNP did no better
Mr. P, if the US embassy here is contradicting the official line then that either needs to be set right in short order *or* a stronger statement needs to be made.
Boris talking garbage as usual. Only a fool would fly based on the witterings of that buffoon.
Although I think Trump's barmy edict and some of his other policies are potentially catastrophic, the reaction of the Guardianistas is hilarious:
The British state reserves its pomp and pageantry for those with shared values. To do this for Trump is not simply appeasing, but legitimising his regime. This is not just embarrassing for the Queen but for every decent citizen. The vicar’s daughter may have lost her moral compass somewhere over the Atlantic, but this petition and the debate it prompts shows more than a million of us are clinging on to ours. It is not in the national interest to bend a knee to hate.
Let's see those shared values in action, shall we?
12–15 June 1973 General Yakubu Gowon and Mrs. Gowon of Nigeria 13–16 June 1978 President Nicolae Ceaușescu and Madame Ceausescu of Romania 17–20 May 1994 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe 19–22 October 1999 President Jiang Zemin and Mrs. Wang Yeping of China 24–27 June 2003 President Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Lyudmila Putina of Russia
Mobutu in 1973 Hu Jintao in 2005 Emperor Hirohito in 1971 isnt exactly an uncontroversial choice either!
If you look at the BBC website the highest number of signatures come from Remoaner Labour seats in inner London, Bristol and Green Brighton areas which in the US also voted Hillary by a landslide. In areas like Wolverhampton and Walsall barely anyone has signed and that was peak Brexit territory and would have been peak Trump territory in the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38796357
So our divided nation continues to be divided. Great. How is that helpful? There was absolutely no need to offer Trump a state visit.
At some stage it was necessary, the Bushes, Reagan, Obama and Clinton had one
GHW Bush didn't, despite Major's close working relationship with him.
We are giving Trump an honour never before bestowed on a US president - an official state visit on his first trip over here, with the invitation made a week after he has taken office. That is weakness. Sorry.
Of all the US Presidents in our lifetimes, Trump is unquestionably the most unfathomable, the most bizarre, the least understood. And yes, quite possibly the most unpleasant, the guy with the most despicable personal attitudes, the most likely to go off on one. On that basis, we should get him out of his White House comfort zone and over here, to better understand what really lies behind the man. I trust HM the Q to be able to tease that out of him, as he looks at the REAL thing bling. "Betcha ain't got a gold carriage like this, eh, Mister President?"
So either way, post Brexit our position in the world depends on who holds the office of POTUS? That doesn't sound like the 'control' we were promised.
I (still) love playing Hearts of Iron 2 still 12 years after first release.
Despite being a leaver, I always thought we'd simply go from being 'Puppet of the EU' to being 'Puppet of the USA' in this instance.
I don't think any state is truly independent anymore (except maybe the big players of China and the US).
But, what's the sell-out?
May has gone over there, told him we'd like a deal (no heads of terms yet) and to behave on Putin, NATO and torture. He listened as well as Trump ever could. We offered a state visit in return.
Um. That's it. Unless you think failing to tell him to go f*ck himself is a sell-out. Personally, I think diplomacy operates at slightly subtler levels.
There could be a sell-out later on. Or, more likely, a trade away of something we'd rather not trade in exchange for a bigger economic prize. But, so far, there is no evidence of one.
1.2 million signatures up on the petition. It'll be interesting to see the final total.
No, I'm not signing it.
Still well short of the 4 million even who wanted EU ref 2
It's got to second ranked by numbers of signatories in a day. That's quite impressive for an aim (withdrawing a state visit invitation) that's essentially quite trivial.
It is just the latest cause for Remain diehards as evidenced by where the signatures come from
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I disagree with them - I think that at this point it's unwise to embrace Trump too enthusiastically. May's visit was OK, having him here for a discussion is OK, but rolling out the red carpet is premature and could be very embarrassing if he turns out a real disaster. But it's interesting that parts of the public that you might expect to agree have doubts.
That said, the gyrations of Downing Street are embarrassing. There is no way that May can reasonably say that the Visits Committee Made Me Do It. That's Just Silly.
I signed the petition. I will not be going on any marches or demos. These are likely to be hijacked by the usual anti-Israel, anti-West far left suspects, and will be entirely self-defeating.
did you sign the Jeremy Clarkson petition too? it's pretty sad that people thing signing a meaningless petition or posting outrage on social media will have any effect.
No, this is the first one I have signed. I do not think it will have any effect. I fully expect the UK's great and good to be prostrating themselves in front of a smirking Trump some time this year. But the number will be meaningful, if only as a hook for questions to the Prime Minister and the President from now until the visit and maybe beyond. It's not much, but it is something.
I also vote in general elections in constituencies in which the candidate I support has absolutely no chance of winning. I do not consider that to be sad either.
Yes, there's been an odd recent tendency on PB for right-wingers to attack arguments that I (and others) make because they are "in the minority", which I/we already know to be the case. What this has to do with the merits of said arguments I have absolutely no idea. Much of what the majority believes is utter tosh.Being of a minority view is not in and of itself an argument against holding it, or advocating it.
Although I think Trump's barmy edict and some of his other policies are potentially catastrophic, the reaction of the Guardianistas is hilarious:
The British state reserves its pomp and pageantry for those with shared values. To do this for Trump is not simply appeasing, but legitimising his regime. This is not just embarrassing for the Queen but for every decent citizen. The vicar’s daughter may have lost her moral compass somewhere over the Atlantic, but this petition and the debate it prompts shows more than a million of us are clinging on to ours. It is not in the national interest to bend a knee to hate.
Let's see those shared values in action, shall we?
12–15 June 1973 General Yakubu Gowon and Mrs. Gowon of Nigeria 13–16 June 1978 President Nicolae Ceaușescu and Madame Ceausescu of Romania 17–20 May 1994 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe 19–22 October 1999 President Jiang Zemin and Mrs. Wang Yeping of China 24–27 June 2003 President Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Lyudmila Putina of Russia
Mobutu in 1973 Hu Jintao in 2005 Emperor Hirohito in 1971 isnt exactly an uncontroversial choice either!
Private Eye Cover 256 was unusually vicious re Hirohito.
However The Guards Division might enjoy the challenge of making Trump look small.
Overlooked the top left corner - Ingrams was not a fan of Hirohito. Wonder if Prince Philip sat next to the old boy at dinner, as both would have been able to reminisce about the protocols of a surrender in Tokyo Bay.
Although I think Trump's barmy edict and some of his other policies are potentially catastrophic, the reaction of the Guardianistas is hilarious:
The British state reserves its pomp and pageantry for those with shared values. To do this for Trump is not simply appeasing, but legitimising his regime. This is not just embarrassing for the Queen but for every decent citizen. The vicar’s daughter may have lost her moral compass somewhere over the Atlantic, but this petition and the debate it prompts shows more than a million of us are clinging on to ours. It is not in the national interest to bend a knee to hate.
Let's see those shared values in action, shall we?
12–15 June 1973 General Yakubu Gowon and Mrs. Gowon of Nigeria 13–16 June 1978 President Nicolae Ceaușescu and Madame Ceausescu of Romania 17–20 May 1994 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe 19–22 October 1999 President Jiang Zemin and Mrs. Wang Yeping of China 24–27 June 2003 President Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Lyudmila Putina of Russia
Mobutu in 1973 Hu Jintao in 2005 Emperor Hirohito in 1971 isnt exactly an uncontroversial choice either!
If you look at the BBC website the highest number of signatures come from Remoaner Labour seats in inner London, Bristol and Green Brighton areas which in the US also voted Hillary by a landslide. In areas like Wolverhampton and Walsall barely anyone has signed and that was peak Brexit territory and would have been peak Trump territory in the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38796357
So our divided nation continues to be divided. Great. How is that helpful? There was absolutely no need to offer Trump a state visit.
At some stage it was necessary, the Bushes, Reagan, Obama and Clinton had one
Yes, after they had been on official visits and been in power for a couple of years.
We shouldn't be having state visits for anyone, least of all Trump. They are pathetic bowing and scraping. If there is business to be done, do it, have dinner, go home. Don't expect golden carriages and tea with Liz.
I wonder how many of the people keen on immediately honouring Donald Trump with a state visit were incandescent when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
It is not close, even with Schulz the SPD are on 23%, 41% is his personal rating and the AfD would actually be the best bet for the UK rather than Merkel
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I .
One cou
A in.
The next four years will show how wise it was to meet and acknowledge the latest holder of the post of President of the United States. Not someone to piss off, whoever it is in that office. The State visit is the greatest diplomatic courtesy we can extend. As has been pointed out, when you look at the list of those this "honour" has been bestowed upon, Trump wouldn't make the top ten of most questionable recipients.
Sorry, but talk of it being down to the inherent "weakness" of a post-Brexit UK is just so much bollocks.
We are giving Trump an honour never before bestowed on a US president - an official state visit on his first trip over here, with the invitation made a week after he has taken office. That is weakness. Sorry.
Rubbish. Get a grip.
The EU apparatchiks intend to roger us good and hard over the Brexit negotiations. Trump's election is an opportunity, as well as a threat, and one which we are very well advised to make full use of. He likes Britain, has family roots here, supported Brexit when nobody else did, and he dislikes the EU - let's make use of that. Let's exploit it.
If I were May I'd be using every possibly weapon in our arsenal to strengthen our hand in the negotiations to come. Creating fear of a strategic alternative for the UK is one such ruse.
We need every card in our pocket there is.
Offering a state visit to a US president who has only been in office a week is not a weapon, it is an admission of weakness. The Brexit negotiations will be done with the Germans and the French, not with the Commission. What EU bureaucrats have to say is basically irrelevant. There is no conceivable deal that we can do with the US that will make up for leaving the single market. Again, all sides realise this.
We shouldn't be having state visits for anyone, least of all Trump. They are pathetic bowing and scraping. If there is business to be done, do it, have dinner, go home. Don't expect golden carriages and tea with Liz.
So foreign heads of states should never expect hospitality from our head of state?
If Hillary Clinton had won the US election, and then continued to make clear we were 'at the back of the queue', with TTIP and the EU coming first, I wonder what line Remainers would have taken on that?
I'd suggest "globally isolated", "pariah state", and "friendless" would have been top of the list.
Yep, it would be "because of Clinton's victory we can't leave the EU" instead of "because of Trump's victory we can't leave the EU".
Cyclefree and rcs1000 seem to be having second thoughts. Are they good enough for you?
With all respect to Cyclefree and rcs1000 (and I've yet to see the latter express definite Bremorse? Has he?) I'll go with the British public - who are MORE supportive of Leave than before - and, if I have to pick an individual, Niall Ferguson, the one man I've met in my life and thought WHOAH this guy is way smarter than me. He was Remain, now he's Leave.
And besides, I have also predicted all this regret and recantation. in my Brexit is Like Having a Baby piece.
To wit:
"at one point [during Brexit] you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Except for around half of the UK it's an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
Sean acknowledges this issue in his article. It is a very decent analogy.
Well if he really thinks it's a great explanatory metaphor, then those who didn't want a referendum in the first place are in the situation of a pre Roe v Wade mother being forced to carry to term the result of nonconsensual sex. Which from my POV makes it a dubious metaphor.
Fair enough. All analogies are but imperfect reflections of a more complex reality and liable to break down when pressed hard.
More to it than that, I think - Sean seems to want the warm glow associated with the nice bits of his analogy, without the rather unpleasant downside.
A lot of people voted to leave the EU last year in good faith. Now the world has changed. Now we have a choice to make. Europe or Trump?
And many others.
Which is exactly the SNP pitch. Funny that...
Yes and EU looks much more inviting than the butt licking UK
Morning Malc - how much does Scotland export to the EU and how much to England.
And surprised a Scotsman wants to be ruled by Brussels
Indeed. And this time the question shouldn't be the vague but loaded "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
Given that Brexit is being used explicitly by the SNP to roll the dice again, I would suggest:
"Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom in order to remain part of the EU?"
That would ensure that all the consequences as explicitly on the table - trade tariffs with England, border controls, joining Schengen, adoption of the Euro.
Remember that the wording has to be agreed and thus isn't just up to the SNP nor the Scottish Government. The UK Government is a player too with the Electoral Commission acting as referee. Last time Cameron pretty well rolled over and agreed to a wording referencing "independence" that clearly affected the outcome compared to more neutral alternatives that referred to leaving the UK.
Whether or not a new Scottish referendum referred to the EU, if there is to be a next time the bottom line for the UK government should be that the word "independence" should be no-where on the ballot paper.
LOL, Yes lord and Master, we will do exactly as you command.
LOL. Those would be the very same trade tariffs and border controls that the Government assures us will NOT apply to Ireland. The fundamental weakness in the proposition – why would border patrol boats be needed on the Tweed but not on the Foyle?
A lot of people voted to leave the EU last year in good faith. Now the world has changed. Now we have a choice to make. Europe or Trump?
And many others.
Which is exactly the SNP pitch. Funny that...
Yes and EU looks much more inviting than the butt licking UK
Morning Malc - how much does Scotland export to the EU and how much to England.
And surprised a Scotsman wants to be ruled by Brussels
SNIP
LOL, Yes lord and Master, we will do exactly as you command.
SNIP
SNIP
SNIP
Panel base today has it 54% still for No
Decent starting point for Nicola.
Nope exactly the same point as final 2014 polls
Not the point I was making. Salmond started his indy campaign in the 20s or 30s as I recall – way below this level. He made up a huge amount of ground in the campaign. I suspect Nicola would take being four points short at the start of the campaign, given that.
Winning over the rest will be much harder.
Undoubtably, but she only needs 4 in 100 to turn to her view, and she wins (assuming that poll is right).
Although I think Trump's barmy edict and some of his other policies are potentially catastrophic, the reaction of the Guardianistas is hilarious:
The British state reserves its pomp and pageantry for those with shared values. To do this for Trump is not simply appeasing, but legitimising his regime. This is not just embarrassing for the Queen but for every decent citizen. The vicar’s daughter may have lost her moral compass somewhere over the Atlantic, but this petition and the debate it prompts shows more than a million of us are clinging on to ours. It is not in the national interest to bend a knee to hate.
Let's see those shared values in action, shall we?
12–15 June 1973 General Yakubu Gowon and Mrs. Gowon of Nigeria 13–16 June 1978 President Nicolae Ceaușescu and Madame Ceausescu of Romania 17–20 May 1994 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe 19–22 October 1999 President Jiang Zemin and Mrs. Wang Yeping of China 24–27 June 2003 President Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Lyudmila Putina of Russia
Mobutu in 1973 Hu Jintao in 2005 Emperor Hirohito in 1971 isnt exactly an uncontroversial choice either!
If you look at the BBC website the highest number of signatures come from Remoaner Labour seats in inner London, Bristol and Green Brighton areas which in the US also voted Hillary by a landslide. In areas like Wolverhampton and Walsall barely anyone has signed and that was peak Brexit territory and would have been peak Trump territory in the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38796357
So our divided nation continues to be divided. Great. How is that helpful? There was absolutely no need to offer Trump a state visit.
At some stage it was necessary, the Bushes, Reagan, Obama and Clinton had one
Yes, after they had been on official visits and been in power for a couple of years.
Obama and W Bush had one in their first term
Yes, but they made official visits first. The state visits cam after a couple of years. Trump will not countenance an official visit. He wants the Queen. We had to give him what he wanted.
A lot of people voted to leave the EU last year in good faith. Now the world has changed. Now we have a choice to make. Europe or Trump?
And many others.
Which is exactly the SNP pitch. Funny that...
Yes and EU looks much more inviting than the butt licking UK
Morning Malc - how much does Scotland export to the EU and how much to England.
And surprised a Scotsman wants to be ruled by Brussels
Indeed. And this time the question shouldn't be the vague but loaded "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
Given that Brexit is being used explicitly by the SNP to roll the dice again, I would suggest:
"Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom in order to remain part of the EU?"
That would ensure that all the consequences as explicitly on the table - trade tariffs with England, border controls, joining Schengen, adoption of the Euro.
Remember that the wording has to be agreed and thus isn't just up to the SNP nor the Scottish Government. The UK Government is a player too with the Electoral Commission acting as referee. Last time Cameron pretty well rolled over and agreed to a wording referencing "independence" that clearly affected the outcome compared to more neutral alternatives that referred to leaving the UK.
Whether or not a new Scottish referendum referred to the EU, if there is to be a next time the bottom line for the UK government should be that the word "independence" should be no-where on the ballot paper.
LOL, Yes lord and Master, we will do exactly as you command.
LOL. Those would be the very same trade tariffs and border controls that the Government assures us will NOT apply to Ireland. The fundamental weakness in the proposition – why would border patrol boats be needed on the Tweed but not on the Foyle?
If Hillary Clinton had won the US election, and then continued to make clear we were 'at the back of the queue', with TTIP and the EU coming first, I wonder what line Remainers would have taken on that?
I'd suggest "globally isolated", "pariah state", and "friendless" would have been top of the list.
Yep, it would be "because of Clinton's victory we can't leave the EU" instead of "because of Trump's victory we can't leave the EU".
Hmmm - Clinton winning would not have changed the referendum vote.
Update-10:43PM CST: Syrian Refugees Bashir al-Taweed & Hassan Matti have killed 8 in Quebec City Mosque. Yelled "Allah Akbar" & used AK47s 0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
HOWEVER it is being spread by Trumpsters and alt-right accounts, and the only source seems to be "Canadian police radio", so treat with EXTREME caution.
That is the problem - if you believe the MSM are totally honest only reporting facts then you dismiss it. If you distrust MSM because they seem habitually to be underestimating Islamic terrorism threats then you welcome it with open arms.
On balance it seems that more terrorist attacks initially blamed on the far right turn out to be Islamic attacks than vice versa.
I agree. And increasingly I mistrust the MSM to give us the facts about Islamic terror, unless it is gouged out of them, or they have no choice. This is especially true in places like Germany, where I know from close friends that the media has been TOLD to keep migrant crime/terror attacks out of the public eye as much as poss.
Esteban Santiago springs to mind. Who knows who did this latest attack? Best to just wait and see
Wait and see? WAIT AND SEE? What is this guff. PB (and the internet) lives off rapid, overhasty judgements, premature ejaculations, precocious misperceptions, and general minute by minute real time errors, howlers and miscalls. And the odd brilliant ahead-of-the-curve news prediction.
It's what makes it fun. The alternative you suggest, sitting here in polite silence until the Mounties maybe give us the answer next Wednesday, is just too ridiculous for words.
Your breathless frothing about human tragedy adds nothing to the site. Stick to your strengths.
Your London centric, sneering superiority gets on my tits, but I don't call on you to zip it. Have a bit of self awareness!
Creating fear of a strategic alternative for the UK is one such ruse.
We're creating laughter, not fear.
If we wanted to create fear May should have immediately dropped the anti-Putin stuff and made a beeline for Moscow instead of Washington, but what's left of her principles prevents her.
I disagree. The Barnier leaks show that fear of a US-UK axis is real, and the French have a deep-seated paranoia about Les Anglo Saxons anyway.
In the meantime, May is showing that the UK can be a useful bridge for the EU into Washington, and help promote our common UK-EU interests.
If the EU are reasonable..
The fear for the EU is that the UK could temporarily hitch itself to the monster that is the US economy, be very successful in the short term after Brexit and diminish the value of the single market.
Trump has created a huge opportunity for the government in our EU negotiations, I'm glad to see the PM is using it. If the chattering classes are upset about it then let them sign petitions and let their military wing trash London for a few days later this year when Trump comes. His policy seems insane to me, but it's just temporary and as with everything "this too shall pass".
Cyclefree and rcs1000 seem to be having second thoughts. Are they good enough for you?
With all respect to Cyclefree and rcs1000 (and I've yet to see the latter express definite Bremorse? Has he?) I'll go with the British public - who are MORE supportive of Leave than before - and, if I have to pick an individual, Niall Ferguson, the one man I've met in my life and thought WHOAH this guy is way smarter than me. He was Remain, now he's Leave.
And besides, I have also predicted all this regret and recantation. in my Brexit is Like Having a Baby piece.
To wit:
"at one point [during Brexit] you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Except for around half of the UK it's an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
In my original article, amended by a wincing Spectator editor, I described the referendum as being a "one time pity-fuck with plebiscitary democracy, meant to shut up that needy slut, the British electorate; and besides, the Remainers thought the old tart was on the pill and the chances of conception were nil..."
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I .
One cou
A state visit is an admission of weakness: Trump has an ego that has to be pandered to and it is only by pandering to him that we stand any chance of getting anything that we want. Other US presidents o f both parties - rational men who could see beyond themselves - were fine with official visits on their first trips over here. Trump wanted to meet the Queen and the other royals (except prince Charles) and we felt could not afford to turn him down, even though he has only been in office a week. And the rest of the world will note this and see we realise just how weak a spot we are in.
The next four years will show how wise it was to meet and acknowledge the latest holder of the post of President of the United States. Not someone to piss off, whoever it is in that office. The State visit is the greatest diplomatic courtesy we can extend. As has been pointed out, when you look at the list of those this "honour" has been bestowed upon, Trump wouldn't make the top ten of most questionable recipients.
Sorry, but talk of it being down to the inherent "weakness" of a post-Brexit UK is just so much bollocks.
We are giving Trump an honour never before bestowed on a US president - an official state visit on his first trip over here, with the invitation made a week after he has taken office. That is weakness. Sorry.
Rubbish. Get a grip.
The EU apparatchiks intend to roger us good and hard over the Brexit negotiations. Trump's election is an opportunity, as well as a threat, and one which we are very well advised to make full use of. He likes Britain, has family roots here, supported Brexit when nobody else did, and he dislikes the EU - let's make use of that. Let's exploit it.
If I were May I'd be using every possibly weapon in our arsenal to strengthen our hand in the negotiations to come. Creating fear of a strategic alternative for the UK is one such ruse.
Cyclefree and rcs1000 seem to be having second thoughts. Are they good enough for you?
With all respect to Cyclefree and rcs1000 (and I've yet to see the latter express definite Bremorse? Has he?) I'll go with the British public - who are MORE supportive of Leave than before - and, if I have to pick an individual, Niall Ferguson, the one man I've met in my life and thought WHOAH this guy is way smarter than me. He was Remain, now he's Leave.
And besides, I have also predicted all this regret and recantation. in my Brexit is Like Having a Baby piece.
To wit:
"at one point [during Brexit] you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Except for around half of the UK it's an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
In my original article, amended by a wincing Spectator editor, I described the referendum as being a "one time pity-fuck with plebiscitary democracy, meant to shut up that needy slut, the British electorate; and besides, the Remainers thought the old tart was on the pill and the chances of conception were nil..."
Which makes the analogy even less persuasive. The ones who were gagging for it are those who are happy with the outcome.
I wonder how many of the people keen on immediately honouring Donald Trump with a state visit were incandescent when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not as incandescent as those signing the Petition will be when Trump gets his Nobel Peace Prize....
If Hillary Clinton had won the US election, and then continued to make clear we were 'at the back of the queue', with TTIP and the EU coming first, I wonder what line Remainers would have taken on that?
I'd suggest "globally isolated", "pariah state", and "friendless" would have been top of the list.
Yep, it would be "because of Clinton's victory we can't leave the EU" instead of "because of Trump's victory we can't leave the EU".
Hmmm - Clinton winning would not have changed the referendum vote.
Yes but we'd be "at the back of the queue" and therefore Remainers would be arguing that it would be a particularly bad time to leave the EU.
I wonder how many of the people keen on immediately honouring Donald Trump with a state visit were incandescent when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not as incandescent as those signing the Petition will be when Trump gets his Nobel Peace Prize....
I'd expect you'd get good odds on that possibility if you asked around the bookies.
I wonder how many of the people keen on immediately honouring Donald Trump with a state visit were incandescent when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not as incandescent as those signing the Petition will be when Trump gets his Nobel Peace Prize....
I'd expect you'd get good odds on that possibility if you asked around the bookies.
Nailed on. All he has to do is not nuke the planet in his first 100 days....
I wonder how many of the people keen on immediately honouring Donald Trump with a state visit were incandescent when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not as incandescent as those signing the Petition will be when Trump gets his Nobel Peace Prize....
I'd expect you'd get good odds on that possibility if you asked around the bookies.
I wonder how many of the people keen on immediately honouring Donald Trump with a state visit were incandescent when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not as incandescent as those signing the Petition will be when Trump gets his Nobel Peace Prize....
I'd expect you'd get good odds on that possibility if you asked around the bookies.
Nailed on. All he has to do is not nuke the planet in his first 100 days....
Cyclefree and rcs1000 seem to be having second thoughts. Are they good enough for you?
With all respect to Cyclefree and rcs1000 (and I've yet to see the latter express definite Bremorse? Has he?) I'll go with the British public - who are MORE supportive of Leave than before - and, if I have to pick an individual, Niall Ferguson, the one man I've met in my life and thought WHOAH this guy is way smarter than me. He was Remain, now he's Leave.
And besides, I have also predicted all this regret and recantation. in my Brexit is Like Having a Baby piece.
To wit:
"at one point [during Brexit] you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Except for around half of the UK it's an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
In my original article, amended by a wincing Spectator editor, I described the referendum as being a "one time pity-fuck with plebiscitary democracy, meant to shut up that needy slut, the British electorate; and besides, the Remainers thought the old tart was on the pill and the chances of conception were nil..."
Which makes the analogy even less persuasive. The ones who were gagging for it are those who are happy with the outcome.
Um, you clearly don't understand what a pity fuck is. But then, I doubt you've ever had a woman desperate for you to fuck her, so fair play.
You clearly haven't thought through your analogy. But you do think that Niall Ferguson is smart, so fair play back at you.
I am sure I can't remember a snowflake drift and deluge of Hitler comparisons when European countries closed their borders and kept refugees/economic migrants from Syria Afghanistan etc behind fences in the last couple of years.
Rachel Shabbi was talking about the US actions being 'straight from the Nazi playbook' (paraphrase) on the Daily Politics last week. Did she say the same about the Europeans?
I would say that the anti-trumpers are starting off with the occasional good point, then descending into self-parody and undermining themselves.
As a matter of interest, I've had quite strong pushback from constituents over the petition - a dozen or so emails from across the political spectrum saying hey, he's the President, we need to get on with him. Most have in common that they think the petition actually calls for him to be banned from coming - the nuances about state visits vs working visits have passed them by.
I .
One cou
A in.
The next four years will show how wise it was to meet and acknowledge the latest holder of the post of President of the United States. Not someone to piss off, whoever it is in that office. The State visit is the greatest diplomatic courtesy we can extend. As has been pointed out, when you look at the list of those this "honour" has been bestowed upon, Trump wouldn't make the top ten of most questionable recipients.
Sorry, but talk of it being down to the inherent "weakness" of a post-Brexit UK is just so much bollocks.
We are giving Trump an honour never before bestowed on a US president - an official state visit on his first trip over here, with the invitation made a week after he has taken office. That is weakness. Sorry.
Offering a state visit to a US president who has only been in office a week is not a weapon, it is an admission of weakness. The Brexit negotiations will be done with the Germans and the French, not with the Commission. What EU bureaucrats have to say is basically irrelevant. There is no conceivable deal that we can do with the US that will make up for leaving the single market. Again, all sides realise this.
It is taking advantage of an opportunity. Glitz and bling mean a lot to Trump: it's good diplomacy to leverage our assets on that.
The US will be one of many deals. Even in the medium term the non-EU countries will be 85% of the world's economy, so striking new deals and adjusting our trade patterns will more than make up any new obstacles viz-a-viz the EU.
Think outside the box.
Also, you are not quite right on the Brexit negotiations. The Chief Negotiator is an ex-Commissioner, appointed by the Commission, and the Commission will be submitting recommendations to the European Council. The European Council will finally vote on it by QMV. But it needs the consent of the European Parliament first (and probably the recommendation of EU fundamentalists like Verhofstadht) and that's very much the wildcard in this pack.
Excellent comment on CiF, surprisingly, plus plenty of recommends:
"However many zeros you put, the signatories are all wrong.
To cancel Trumps state visit to Britain would be a slap in the face to the American people and to the US democratic process. It would also be an important step towards removing the US umbrella which we have in effect opted to stand under by leaving the EU.
Whatever one might think of Trump’s actions in his first week as president – and I largely disapprove - he is putting into practice his clearly stated intentions and what his electors democratically elected him to do.
This sheer lack of hypocrisy is one reason why Trump is making Ms May, other foreign leaders and some US politicians feel uncomfortable.
In so boldly and directly fulfilling election pledges and translating words into actions, it is as though Trump had unbluffed the conventional game of bluff commonly carried out at the people’s expense… by governments aided and abetted by a compliant MSM.
It is as though Trump has joined a game of pingpong with a tennis racket.
Here, from the US press, is another way of being pragmatics – and truthful…
‘Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President’ (ABS NEWS Aug 29 2016)… “Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).”"
Update-10:43PM CST: Syrian Refugees Bashir al-Taweed & Hassan Matti have killed 8 in Quebec City Mosque. Yelled "Allah Akbar" & used AK47s 0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
HOWEVER it is being spread by Trumpsters and alt-right accounts, and the only source seems to be "Canadian police radio", so treat with EXTREME caution.
That is the problem - if you believe the MSM are totally honest only reporting facts then you dismiss it. If you distrust MSM because they seem habitually to be underestimating Islamic terrorism threats then you welcome it with open arms.
On balance it seems that more terrorist attacks initially blamed on the far right turn out to be Islamic attacks than vice versa.
I agree. And increasingly I mistrust the MSM to give us the facts about Islamic terror, unless it is gouged out of them, or they have no choice. This is especially true in places like Germany, where I know from close friends that the media has been TOLD to keep migrant crime/terror attacks out of the public eye as much as poss.
Esteban Santiago springs to mind. Who knows who did this latest attack? Best to just wait and see
Wait and see? WAIT AND SEE? What is this guff. PB (and the internet) lives off rapid, overhasty judgements, premature ejaculations, precocious misperceptions, and general minute by minute real time errors, howlers and miscalls. And the odd brilliant ahead-of-the-curve news prediction.
It's what makes it fun. The alternative you suggest, sitting here in polite silence until the Mounties maybe give us the answer next Wednesday, is just too ridiculous for words.
Your breathless frothing about human tragedy adds nothing to the site. Stick to your strengths.
Your London centric, sneering superiority gets on my tits, but I don't call on you to zip it. Have a bit of self awareness!
What he said
For a woman who claims to be an Oxford graduate in her sixties your use of millennial internet phraseology is rather weird.
If Hillary Clinton had won the US election, and then continued to make clear we were 'at the back of the queue', with TTIP and the EU coming first, I wonder what line Remainers would have taken on that?
I'd suggest "globally isolated", "pariah state", and "friendless" would have been top of the list.
Yep, it would be "because of Clinton's victory we can't leave the EU" instead of "because of Trump's victory we can't leave the EU".
May has gone over there, told him we'd like a deal (no heads of terms yet) and to behave on Putin, NATO and torture. He listened as well as Trump ever could. We offered a state visit in return.
Um. That's it. Unless you think failing to tell him to go f*ck himself is a sell-out. Personally, I think diplomacy operates at slightly subtler levels.
There could be a sell-out later on. Or, more likely, a trade away of something we'd rather not trade in exchange for a bigger economic prize. But, so far, there is no evidence of one.
I agree - I'm moderately in favour of Trump being in the White House and if we play things right, BrExit could be better than I hoped.
@SkyRhiannon: .@ActionAidUK which has Prince Charles as its patron,has told me the charity is signing the petition against state visit for President Trump
Cyclefree and rcs1000 seem to be having second thoughts. Are they good enough for you?
With all respect to Cyclefree and rcs1000 (and I've yet to see the latter express definite Bremorse? Has he?) I'll go with the British public - who are MORE supportive of Leave than before - and, if I have to pick an individual, Niall Ferguson, the one man I've met in my life and thought WHOAH this guy is way smarter than me. He was Remain, now he's Leave.
And besides, I have also predicted all this regret and recantation. in my Brexit is Like Having a Baby piece.
To wit:
"at one point [during Brexit] you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Except for around half of the UK it's an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
In my original article, amended by a wincing Spectator editor, I described the referendum as being a "one time pity-fuck with plebiscitary democracy, meant to shut up that needy slut, the British electorate; and besides, the Remainers thought the old tart was on the pill and the chances of conception were nil..."
Which makes the analogy even less persuasive. The ones who were gagging for it are those who are happy with the outcome.
Isn't that the point of the analogy? Those who weren't gagging for it and for whom it is an "unplanned pregancy" are the ones who in ten years time be happy it happened anyway?
Comments
In that respect, his base would have reason to be pleased with him and he's being true to his mandate.
Sorry, but talk of it being down to the inherent "weakness" of a post-Brexit UK is just so much bollocks.
Edit: I see you've admitted signing the petition. What a stupid thing to do.
"and the sail blithely on with his plans leaving them to froth in their impotence."
That's what's annoying them the most. The fact that the plebs aren't obeying orders.
Don't these Neanderthals realise that the Establishment are superior beings?
Sign a petition, kapow! That will bring them to their senses. Get a luvvie to lecture them Biff! Take that, you cretins.
It's not fair, these fools have the same number of votes as us! Something is seriously wrong -. it must be democracy.
I'd suggest "globally isolated", "pariah state", and "friendless" would have been top of the list.
Trump was elected according to the rules of the game; rules that all his opponents were happily signed up to (though he, amusingly, wasn't). There are many valid criticisms of his regime but its legitimacy isn't one of them.
Unless you are a pro-life
Brexiteernutter@IanDunt: They've had three positions so far today: That invitation came from PM, from 'government', and from committee. It's 1pm. twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes…
What cards we had, May is throwing away.
I also vote in general elections in constituencies in which the candidate I support has absolutely no chance of winning. I do not consider that to be sad either.
Which from my POV makes it a dubious metaphor.
The EU apparatchiks intend to roger us good and hard over the Brexit negotiations. Trump's election is an opportunity, as well as a threat, and one which we are very well advised to make full use of. He likes Britain, has family roots here, supported Brexit when nobody else did, and he dislikes the EU - let's make use of that. Let's exploit it.
If I were May I'd be using every possibly weapon in our arsenal to strengthen our hand in the negotiations to come. Creating fear of a strategic alternative for the UK is one such ruse.
We need every card in our pocket there is.
I might not like those shenanigans, but they're legal and democratic. Most moderate Leavers can empathize with the difficulties many of the 48% are having in reconciling themselves to the result.
The issue is that moderate voices on either side are drowned out by the extremes; it garners more attention to froth and rage about "quislings" and, as you put it, nutters. That's far more entertaining, granted, but it's not exactly healing.
Bush Snr never had a state visit to the UK.
Joined at the hip...
The plethora of morons out there don't seem to understand this is about the EU, not Trump.
Once we have a stable post-Brexit relationship in place with the EU, we can be much more patient and discerning about who we strike trade deals with, and on what terms.
But we have a challenging few years ahead of us first.
Despite being a leaver, I always thought we'd simply go from being 'Puppet of the EU' to being 'Puppet of the USA' in this instance.
I don't think any state is truly independent anymore (except maybe the big players of China and the US).
True. Perhaps the real complaint of those opposing Trump, which mostly seems to be coming from Remainers, is not that it legitimises Trump, but that it legitimises and confirms Brexit.
Richmond Park has no Momentum Group (surprise) but about 1 in 25 of ALL constituents have already signed the petition.
If we wanted to create fear May should have immediately dropped the anti-Putin stuff and made a beeline for Moscow instead of Washington, but what's left of her principles prevents her.
In the meantime, May is showing that the UK can be a useful bridge for the EU into Washington, and help promote our common UK-EU interests.
If the EU are reasonable..
"Bush visit set to paralyse London
Itinerary details remain secret in record security operation as thousands plan street protests during first state visit by an American President
London will be brought to a standstill in 10 days' time when the visit of US President George W. Bush will take place under the highest security ever reserved for a foreign head of state.
A combination of last-minute road closures and a rally at Trafalgar Square by an estimated 100,000 anti-war protesters will paralyse the capital when Bush arrives on 19 November for a three-day stay in Britain. It will be the first ever state visit by an American President, who will be the guest of the Queen for the duration of his stay."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/09/london.georgebush
Some of those MPs may have been middle-class but they were patriotic and there were many who had proper jobs before becoming MPs. Now, the axis of influence is posh, London-based sophisticates with PPE degrees. That contract is a distant memory with only a few exceptions. Labour is all about diversity and equality. A noble ambition, but those voters, especially the older ones have long memories of what used to be.
Labour has changed. The working class have yet to catch up.
This may all be bollocks but it's a view I'm familiar with.
May has gone over there, told him we'd like a deal (no heads of terms yet) and to behave on Putin, NATO and torture. He listened as well as Trump ever could. We offered a state visit in return.
Um. That's it. Unless you think failing to tell him to go f*ck himself is a sell-out. Personally, I think diplomacy operates at slightly subtler levels.
There could be a sell-out later on. Or, more likely, a trade away of something we'd rather not trade in exchange for a bigger economic prize. But, so far, there is no evidence of one.
Yes indeed but the book-burners don't like educated types.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Official_Visit
Trump has created a huge opportunity for the government in our EU negotiations, I'm glad to see the PM is using it. If the chattering classes are upset about it then let them sign petitions and let their military wing trash London for a few days later this year when Trump comes. His policy seems insane to me, but it's just temporary and as with everything "this too shall pass".
The ones who were gagging for it are those who are happy with the outcome.
Rachel Shabbi was talking about the US actions being 'straight from the Nazi playbook' (paraphrase) on the Daily Politics last week. Did she say the same about the Europeans?
I would say that the anti-trumpers are starting off with the occasional good point, then descending into self-parody and undermining themselves.
The US will be one of many deals. Even in the medium term the non-EU countries will be 85% of the world's economy, so striking new deals and adjusting our trade patterns will more than make up any new obstacles viz-a-viz the EU.
Think outside the box.
Also, you are not quite right on the Brexit negotiations. The Chief Negotiator is an ex-Commissioner, appointed by the Commission, and the Commission will be submitting recommendations to the European Council. The European Council will finally vote on it by QMV. But it needs the consent of the European Parliament first (and probably the recommendation of EU fundamentalists like Verhofstadht) and that's very much the wildcard in this pack.
"However many zeros you put, the signatories are all wrong.
To cancel Trumps state visit to Britain would be a slap in the face to the American people and to the US democratic process. It would also be an important step towards removing the US umbrella which we have in effect opted to stand under by leaving the EU.
Whatever one might think of Trump’s actions in his first week as president – and I largely disapprove - he is putting into practice his clearly stated intentions and what his electors democratically elected him to do.
This sheer lack of hypocrisy is one reason why Trump is making Ms May, other foreign leaders and some US politicians feel uncomfortable.
In so boldly and directly fulfilling election pledges and translating words into actions, it is as though Trump had unbluffed the conventional game of bluff commonly carried out at the people’s expense… by governments aided and abetted by a compliant MSM.
It is as though Trump has joined a game of pingpong with a tennis racket.
Here, from the US press, is another way of being pragmatics – and truthful…
‘Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President’ (ABS NEWS Aug 29 2016)… “Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).”"
Awesome job by The Donald.
"Great Scottish Run half-marathon course found to be short"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38798775
ISTR a similar thing happened in ?Newcastle? a couple of years ago.
You have to feel sorry for the runners: "I just did my first half marathon!"
(a few months later)
"No you didn't!"