Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Is he? What if we were at war?
Even then. The Speaker has no official view on policy, he is a functionary that chairs the meetings of the House and supervises the administration of its procedures.
Don't be a fucking idiot. If the UK is at war then every MP doing whatever job has an official view which is death to the enemy.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Realpolitik is based on mutual interests, not friendship. That was May's fundamental mistake in rushing to offer Trump a state visit without having considered the implications of his agenda.
We are where we are. Is the interest of the country best followed by further pissing off the most powerful man in the world ? No dont answer that, we know you dont have the best interests of this country at heart.
Bercow's behaviour is driven by his need to atone for once having been a leading light in the Monday Club. He's ashamed of his past views, so he overcompensates in the other direction.
Too late now really. A competent government would have closed down this avenue of embarrassment before Bercow drove down it.
Closed down, how? Should they, for instance, send Bercow a generic email every morning saying Hey, John, don't do anything so insanely and outlandishly twattish that no sane person could specifically foresee and countermand it?
Game set and match to Trump, unfortunately, and well done Bercow for needlessly embarrassing himself, the Commons and the country.
Quite. Thank god for a professional diplomatic service. If half the people in the Commons, or most of the people on here had to arrange visits and talks with powerful people around the world there would be a brief flurry of people flaunting their virtue, followed by at best a serious diplomatic incident if not a war!
It's not a binary choice: it's perfectly possible to say you dislike him and do not support him, and also not support and condemn some of the more egregious acts against him. "
Mr Jessop,
That's exactly the point. I think Jezza is a disaster overall, but he does make the odd good point. Rare, I grant you, but no one is all bad, even politicians. He does represent a viewpoint. Trump is honest, he says and tweets what he feels like. But there is a group who would criticise him even if he gave away his fortune to an LBGT charity and revealed himself as an angel from Heaven. For that group, it is was binary choice, and they made that choice on the basis of their version of Top Trumps.
If he's in any way racist or sexist, he loses on everything.
There's extremists on both sides: look at the way certain people on here laud *anything* he does. They would acclaim him even if he was to drop his pants in the palace and mooned the Queen. In the Throne Room, perhaps?
I'll criticise or praise Trump on his words and actions. Sadly he's giving me far too much ammunition to criticise him, and little, if any, to praise.
The only move I've supported has been his concentration on infrastructure, which is much-needed, long overdue and politically astute.
There really is hardly anyone who "lauds anything Trump does," there's at most two or three posters who do or did, and less so than they used to. And if they do, you should answer their Trump-lauding posts as and when they are posted rather than making broad and unprovable general statements. There is, I hope, a coalition of the more-or-less sane who recognise that Trump is dangerous and unstable and that the practical question is how best to limit his potential to damage us. The very worst possible answer to that question, is to do things which have 0% chance of damaging him and 100% chance of enraging him and making him hostile to us - which is exactly what Bercow has done.
To repeat what I said below, I don't necessarily support Bercow on this. It'll be interesting to read the statement from the Lord Speaker tomorrow.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
Don't be a drama queen.
The realpolitik is that regardless of Trump or Bercow the world will continue to spin faster that POTUS can tweet or Bercow pontifcate and we will trade, work, live, love and die and the world moves on and will be better for it.
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Is he? What if we were at war?
Even then. The Speaker has no official view on policy, he is a functionary that chairs the meetings of the House and supervises the administration of its procedures.
Don't be a fucking idiot. If the UK is at war then every MP doing whatever job has an official view which is death to the enemy.
Congratulations on being a "fucking idiot" as you put it in your refreshingly blunt and well informed way.
Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office as well as when leaving the office. The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule)
The speaker has no roll of official view on policy, he has no party affiliation, and when and if promoted to the Lords sits as a crossbencher.
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Is he? What if we were at war?
Even then. The Speaker has no official view on policy, he is a functionary that chairs the meetings of the House and supervises the administration of its procedures.
Don't be a fucking idiot. If the UK is at war then every MP doing whatever job has an official view which is death to the enemy.
Congratulations on being a "fucking idiot" as you put it in your refreshingly blunt and well informed way.
Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office as well as when leaving the office. The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule)
The speaker has no roll of official view on policy, he has no party affiliation, and when and if promoted to the Lords sits as a crossbencher.
Bercow's behaviour is driven by his need to atone for once having been a leading light in the Monday Club. He's ashamed of his past views, so he overcompensates in the other direction.
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Is he? What if we were at war?
Even then. The Speaker has no official view on policy, he is a functionary that chairs the meetings of the House and supervises the administration of its procedures.
Don't be a fucking idiot. If the UK is at war then every MP doing whatever job has an official view which is death to the enemy.
Congratulations on being a "fucking idiot" as you put it in your refreshingly blunt and well informed way.
Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office as well as when leaving the office. The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule)
The speaker has no roll of official view on policy, he has no party affiliation, and when and if promoted to the Lords sits as a crossbencher.
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Is he? What if we were at war?
Even then. The Speaker has no official view on policy, he is a functionary that chairs the meetings of the House and supervises the administration of its procedures.
Don't be a fucking idiot. If the UK is at war then every MP doing whatever job has an official view which is death to the enemy.
Congratulations on being a "fucking idiot" as you put it in your refreshingly blunt and well informed way.
Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office as well as when leaving the office. The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule)
The speaker has no roll of official view on policy, he has no party affiliation, and when and if promoted to the Lords sits as a crossbencher.
Surely that is one honour this pompous prat can be denied.
It's not a binary choice: it's perfectly possible to say you dislike him and do not support him, and also not support and condemn some of the more egregious acts against him. "
Mr Jessop,
That's exactly the point. I think Jezza is a disaster overall, but he does make the odd good point. Rare, I grant you, but no one is all bad, even politicians. He does represent a viewpoint. Trump is honest, he says and tweets what he feels like. But there is a group who would criticise him even if he gave away his fortune to an LBGT charity and revealed himself as an angel from Heaven. For that group, it is was binary choice, and they made that choice on the basis of their version of Top Trumps.
If he's in any way racist or sexist, he loses on everything.
There's extremists on both sides: look at the way certain people on here laud *anything* he does. They would acclaim him even if he was to drop his pants in the palace and mooned the Queen. In the Throne Room, perhaps?
I'll criticise or praise Trump on his words and actions. Sadly he's giving me far too much ammunition to criticise him, and little, if any, to praise.
The only move I've supported has been his concentration on infrastructure, which is much-needed, long overdue and politically astute.
There really is hardly anyone who "lauds anything Trump does," there's at most two or three posters who do or did, and less so than they used to. And if they do, you should answer their Trump-lauding posts as and when they are posted rather than making broad and unprovable general statements. There is, I hope, a coalition of the more-or-less sane who recognise that Trump is dangerous and unstable and that the practical question is how best to limit his potential to damage us. The very worst possible answer to that question, is to do things which have 0% chance of damaging him and 100% chance of enraging him and making him hostile to us - which is exactly what Bercow has done.
That was very much the argument used when Blair took on the mantle of Bush's poodle. 'Where the US went we HAD to follow otherwise our SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP was at risk.
I think there are very few now who think that was wise. The world is bigger than the US and sometimes it does no harm to show we are capable of independent thought and we're not prepared to rollover under any circumstances. Look at the respect the French earned internationally over IRAQ
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Is he? What if we were at war?
Even then. The Speaker has no official view on policy, he is a functionary that chairs the meetings of the House and supervises the administration of its procedures.
Don't be a fucking idiot. If the UK is at war then every MP doing whatever job has an official view which is death to the enemy.
Nope. An MP would be at liberty to think and say that a truce, an armistice or indeed surrender might be best for the country.
Much of this problem may be placed at the PM's door. The unseemly haste to fall over themselves to offer a full state visit within days of Trump taking office has come home to roost. It placed the Queen in a very ugly position and offered the governments opponents boundless opportunities.
Speaker Bercow has emphasized the independence of the Commons over the executive just as in the past his predecessors did over monarchy.
The key to why this is unacceptable behaviour by Bercow is contained in your phrase "offered the government's opponents boundless opportunities."
It's up to the government's opponents to avail themselves of such opportunities. Someone who is supposed to be neutral is, or should be, by definition not one of the government's opponents.
The Speaker may be the governments opponent if he/she feels it is in the interests of the Commons. Being impartial doesn't mean not making decisions that might be not favorable to HMG.
The Speaker is somewhat like an executive judge for the Commons. Verdicts are given.
He could have given his advice in private. That would have been the action of someone who wasn't chasing public recognition
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
Don't be a drama queen.
The realpolitik is that regardless of Trump or Bercow the world will continue to spin faster that POTUS can tweet or Bercow pontifcate and we will trade, work, live, love and die and the world moves on and will be better for it.
That's the line that Tolstoy keeps plugging in the unreadable bits of War and Peace. Sadly it's wrong, because Trump is POTUS and has the nuclear codes. He really does. You could have said the same about Hitler in 1925 - he can publish turgid propaganda till his eyes pop out, the world will continue to turn on its axis, etc etc etc.
Well done Speaker Bercow! Fuck Donald Trump and all he stands for. It makes me proud to be British. Yes, we have tolerated other despots in Parliament in the past but what makes Trump stick in the craw is that the US is one of the shining lights of democracy and the rule of law throughout the western world. Trump is a clear and present danger to that proud tradition and decent people who respect those values must take a stand. He has won the election (Fair and square? Possibly not depending on the Russian hacking allegations), and we must respect his office, but that doesn't mean we must respect the man. It is completely within Parliament's gift who addresses it or not. Absolutely the right thing to do.
Bercow's behaviour is driven by his need to atone for once having been a leading light in the Monday Club. He's ashamed of his past views, so he overcompensates in the other direction.
Much of this problem may be placed at the PM's door. The unseemly haste to fall over themselves to offer a full state visit within days of Trump taking office has come home to roost. It placed the Queen in a very ugly position and offered the governments opponents boundless opportunities.
Speaker Bercow has emphasized the independence of the Commons over the executive just as in the past his predecessors did over monarchy.
The key to why this is unacceptable behaviour by Bercow is contained in your phrase "offered the government's opponents boundless opportunities."
It's up to the government's opponents to avail themselves of such opportunities. Someone who is supposed to be neutral is, or should be, by definition not one of the government's opponents.
The Speaker may be the governments opponent if he/she feels it is in the interests of the Commons. Being impartial doesn't mean not making decisions that might be not favorable to HMG.
The Speaker is somewhat like an executive judge for the Commons. Verdicts are given.
He could have given his advice in private. That would have been the action of someone who wasn't chasing public recognition
A tad difficult to give "advice in private" when asked on the floor on the House of Commons.
Well done Speaker Bercow! Fuck Donald Trump and all he stands for. It makes me proud to be British. Yes, we have tolerated other despots in Parliament in the past but what makes Trump stick in the craw is that the US is one of the shining lights of democracy and the rule of law throughout the western world. Trump is a clear and present danger to that proud tradition and decent people who respect those values must take a stand. He has won the election (Fair and square? Possibly not depending on the Russian hacking allegations), and we must respect his office, but that doesn't mean we must respect the man. It is completely within Parliament's gift who addresses it or not. Absolutely the right thing to do.
Well done.
What I'm hoping expecting is that Trump will discover that it's a bit harder to bully the US constitution than it is other entrepreneurs.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
Don't be a drama queen.
The realpolitik is that regardless of Trump or Bercow the world will continue to spin faster that POTUS can tweet or Bercow pontifcate and we will trade, work, live, love and die and the world moves on and will be better for it.
That's the line that Tolstoy keeps plugging in the unreadable bits of War and Peace. Sadly it's wrong, because Trump is POTUS and has the nuclear codes. He really does. You could have said the same about Hitler in 1925 - he can publish turgid propaganda till his eyes pop out, the world will continue to turn on its axis, etc etc etc.
And yet strangely despite Hitler, Stalin, Mao and countless other despots the human race moves on. Not always learning the lessons of the past but enough of them to make progress.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
Don't be a drama queen.
The realpolitik is that regardless of Trump or Bercow the world will continue to spin faster that POTUS can tweet or Bercow pontifcate and we will trade, work, live, love and die and the world moves on and will be better for it.
That's the line that Tolstoy keeps plugging in the unreadable bits of War and Peace. Sadly it's wrong, because Trump is POTUS and has the nuclear codes. He really does. You could have said the same about Hitler in 1925 - he can publish turgid propaganda till his eyes pop out, the world will continue to turn on its axis, etc etc etc.
I loathe Trump, but Bercow should be stripped of the Speakership for this stunt.
Agreed. First order of business tomorrow should be a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.
Don't you think the Conservatives government has learnt the lesson of their last bungled attempt to eject Bercow?
The fact is Bercow enjoys huge cross party support including a significant minority of Conservative MP's.
He may have lost a bit of that support today!
Or gained some, although not really the point.
The Conservative government should not repeat their appalling misjudgement at the end of the last parliament that damaged William Hague's reputation,
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
Bercow has already humiliated himself quite enough with the hypocrisy of listening to the Emir of Kuwait and the President of China but not the President of the United States. The sheer sycophancy he gave the Obamas and the complete refusal to listen to his successor is a totally unwarranted interference in the domestic politics of our most significant ally, yes he may have preferred the Obamas personally but it is totally disrespectful of the office the American people have just elected Trump too
It may has escaped your notice that President Trump doesn't yet have full rein of the Palace of Westminster and that thanks to the independence of the Speaker.
You may argue the merits of it but I'm content that the most powerful man on earth should know he's subject to the the writ of others be they the MP for Buckingham or "so called judges".
Rather refreshing.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
The real problem is that Trump hasn't actually done anything yet to justify all these protests and this type of response. His executive order on immigration was a shambles, but the actual content was spun out of all proportion: there are lots of examples of unfair and unjust immigration policies pursued by western countries. I don't understand the argument about racism and sexism. What evidence is there that Trump is a racist? And is Bercows sexism objection to do with pussygate? Or what? Or is the problem the mexican wall? wanting to repatriate illegal immigrants? cutting the head off Isis and taking the oil? To me his policies seem like variants of policies that have been pursued for years by the US and other governments but he is just articulating them in a way that people find outrageous.
Most of the stuff coming from Trump I think we have seen before, many times, but never in such a chaotic and unpredictable and dangerous way. I'm no fan of Trump but any response should at least be proportionate.
Like Brexit, Trump has given a voice to people excluded from the political system. Isn't that actually good for democracy on some level? The last three decades have been a comatose democracy where the parameters of acceptable debate are so narrow that nearly everyone switched off.
It is an extraordinary intervention by Bercow and - it seems to me - wholly inconsistent with his role as speaker.
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Is he? What if we were at war?
Even then. The Speaker has no official view on policy, he is a functionary that chairs the meetings of the House and supervises the administration of its procedures.
Don't be a fucking idiot. If the UK is at war then every MP doing whatever job has an official view which is death to the enemy.
Congratulations on being a "fucking idiot" as you put it in your refreshingly blunt and well informed way.
Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office as well as when leaving the office. The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule)
The speaker has no roll of official view on policy, he has no party affiliation, and when and if promoted to the Lords sits as a crossbencher.
Fucking idiot x 1,000.
Grow up.
Topping has gone to shit post-Brexit. With some notable exceptions, Cameronite PBers' sane post creation is about the only industry that Brexit has really damaged.
I loathe Trump, but Bercow should be stripped of the Speakership for this stunt.
Agreed. First order of business tomorrow should be a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.
Don't you think the Conservatives government has learnt the lesson of their last bungled attempt to eject Bercow?
The fact is Bercow enjoys huge cross party support including a significant minority of Conservative MP's.
He may have lost a bit of that support today!
Or gained some, although not really the point.
The Conservative government should not repeat their appalling misjudgement at the end of the last parliament that damaged William Hague's reputation,
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
Bercow has already humiliated himself quite enough with the hypocrisy of listening to the Emir of Kuwait and the President of China but not the President of the United States. The sheer sycophancy he gave the Obamas and the complete refusal to listen to his successor is a totally unwarranted interference in the domestic politics of our most significant ally, yes he may have preferred the Obamas personally but it is totally disrespectful of the office the American people have just elected Trump too
It may has escaped your notice that President Trump doesn't yet have full rein of the Palace of Westminster and that thanks to the independence of the Speaker.
You may argue the merits of it but I'm content that the most powerful man on earth should know he's subject to the the writ of others be they the MP for Buckingham or "so called judges".
Rather refreshing.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
The real problem is that Trump hasn't actually done anything yet to justify all these protests and this type of response. His executive order on immigration was a shambles, but the actual content was spun out of all proportion: there are lots of examples of unfair and unjust immigration policies pursued by western countries. I don't understand the argument about racism and sexism. What evidence is there that Trump is a racist? And is Bercows sexism objection to do with pussygate? Or what? Or is the problem the mexican wall? wanting to repatriate illegal immigrants? cutting the head off Isis and taking the oil? To me his policies seem like variants of policies that have been pursued for years by the US and other governments but he is just articulating them in a way that people find outrageous.
Most of the stuff coming from Trump I think we have seen before, many times, but never in such a chaotic and unpredictable and dangerous way. I'm no fan of Trump but any response should at least be proportionate.
Like Brexit, Trump has given a voice to people excluded from the political system. Isn't that actually good for democracy on some level? The last three decades have been a comatose democracy where the parameters of acceptable debate are so narrow that nearly everyone switched off.
It is an extraordinary intervention by Bercow and - it seems to me - wholly inconsistent with his role as speaker.
He's trying to write a memoir chapter basically. 'When I stood up to Trump'. Daft jumped-up little twunt.
The Conservative government should not repeat their appalling misjudgement at the end of the last parliament that damaged William Hague's reputation,
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
Bercow has already humiliated himself quite enough with the hypocrisy of listening to the Emir of Kuwait and the President of China but not the President of the United States. The sheer sycophancy he gave the Obamas and the complete refusal to listen to his successor is a totally unwarranted interference in the domestic politics of our most significant ally, yes he may have preferred the Obamas personally but it is totally disrespectful of the office the American people have just elected Trump too
It may has escaped your notice that President Trump doesn't yet have full rein of the Palace of Westminster and that thanks to the independence of the Speaker.
You may argue the merits of it but I'm content that the most powerful man on earth should know he's subject to the the writ of others be they the MP for Buckingham or "so called judges".
Rather refreshing.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
Well said
Appeasement is always the easy option, and easy to argue for especially when one is desperate for a trading deal. There may be 65m Americans who voted for him, but in that case there are at least 67m who voted against. Trump's presidency will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Your willingness to be an apologist for him disgusts me.
It would be lovely to see how many that use the "Clinton won a majority of the vote" argument also used the "That's FPTP" defence when UKIP got 1 seat on 13% of the vote
It's not a binary choice: it's perfectly possible to say you dislike him and do not support him, and also not support and condemn some of the more egregious acts against him. "
Mr Jessop,
That's exactly the point. I think Jezza is a disaster overall, but he does make the odd good point. Rare, I grant you, but no one is all bad, even politicians. He does represent a viewpoint. Trump is honest, he says and tweets what he feels like. But there is a group who would criticise him even if he gave away his fortune to an LBGT charity and revealed himself as an angel from Heaven. For that group, it is was binary choice, and they made that choice on the basis of their version of Top Trumps.
If he's in any way racist or sexist, he loses on everything.
There's extremists on both sides: look at the way certain people on here laud *anything* he does. They would acclaim him even if he was to drop his pants in the palace and mooned the Queen. In the Throne Room, perhaps?
I'll criticise or praise Trump on his words and actions. Sadly he's giving me far too much ammunition to criticise him, and little, if any, to praise.
The only move I've supported has been his concentration on infrastructure, which is much-needed, long overdue and politically astute.
There really is hardly anyone who "lauds anything Trump does," there's at most two or three posters who do or did, and less so than they used to. And if they do, you should answer their Trump-lauding posts as and when they are posted rather than making broad and unprovable general statements. There is, I hope, a coalition of the more-or-less sane who recognise that Trump is dangerous and unstable and that the practical question is how best to limit his potential to damage us. The very worst possible answer to that question, is to do things which have 0% chance of damaging him and 100% chance of enraging him and making him hostile to us - which is exactly what Bercow has done.
That was very much the argument used when Blair took on the mantle of Bush's poodle. 'Where the US went we HAD to follow otherwise our SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP was at risk.
I think there are very few now who think that was wise. The world is bigger than the US and sometimes it does no harm to show we are capable of independent thought and we're not prepared to rollover under any circumstances. Look at the respect the French earned internationally over IRAQ
The real problem is that Trump hasn't actually done anything yet to justify all these protests and this type of response. His executive order on immigration was a shambles, but the actual content was spun out of all proportion: there are lots of examples of unfair and unjust immigration policies pursued by western countries. I don't understand the argument about racism and sexism. What evidence is there that Trump is a racist? And is Bercows sexism objection to do with pussygate? Or what? Or is the problem the mexican wall? wanting to repatriate illegal immigrants? cutting the head off Isis and taking the oil? To me his policies seem like variants of policies that have been pursued for years by the US and other governments but he is just articulating them in a way that people find outrageous.
Most of the stuff coming from Trump I think we have seen before, many times, but never in such a chaotic and unpredictable and dangerous way. I'm no fan of Trump but any response should at least be proportionate.
Like Brexit, Trump has given a voice to people excluded from the political system. Isn't that actually good for democracy on some level? The last three decades have been a comatose democracy where the parameters of acceptable debate are so narrow that nearly everyone switched off.
It is an extraordinary intervention by Bercow and - it seems to me - wholly inconsistent with his role as speaker.
Where was the outrage when Obama brought in a similar (but lesser) policy?
Oh, that's right no one batted an eyelid.
Obama on the other hand got a Nobel Peace Prize for what?
Surely being the first Black president is not worthy of the award?
The only "change you can believe in" is the level of hypocrisy on show.
The strangest part of Bercow's pronouncement for me was the assertion that an invitation to speak to the House be 'earned'. By what metric would one judge Xi to have earned the privilege (which does not also apply to Trump) ?
Much of this problem may be placed at the PM's door. The unseemly haste to fall over themselves to offer a full state visit within days of Trump taking office has come home to roost. It placed the Queen in a very ugly position and offered the governments opponents boundless opportunities.
Speaker Bercow has emphasized the independence of the Commons over the executive just as in the past his predecessors did over monarchy.
The key to why this is unacceptable behaviour by Bercow is contained in your phrase "offered the government's opponents boundless opportunities."
It's up to the government's opponents to avail themselves of such opportunities. Someone who is supposed to be neutral is, or should be, by definition not one of the government's opponents.
The Speaker may be the governments opponent if he/she feels it is in the interests of the Commons. Being impartial doesn't mean not making decisions that might be not favorable to HMG.
The Speaker is somewhat like an executive judge for the Commons. Verdicts are given.
He could have given his advice in private. That would have been the action of someone who wasn't chasing public recognition
A tad difficult to give "advice in private" when asked on the floor on the House of Commons.
That's right Jack, no politician has ever side stepped a difficult question.
This is of course ignoring the hypocrisy of the jumped up little twerp
Well done Speaker Bercow! Fuck Donald Trump and all he stands for. It makes me proud to be British. Yes, we have tolerated other despots in Parliament in the past but what makes Trump stick in the craw is that the US is one of the shining lights of democracy and the rule of law throughout the western world. Trump is a clear and present danger to that proud tradition and decent people who respect those values must take a stand. He has won the election (Fair and square? Possibly not depending on the Russian hacking allegations), and we must respect his office, but that doesn't mean we must respect the man. It is completely within Parliament's gift who addresses it or not. Absolutely the right thing to do.
Well done.
What we have are sections of society deciding what we will tolerate on our behalf and shouting down dissenting voices, based on their prejudices and ignoring those same "morals" at other times.
It would be lovely to see how many that use the "Clinton won a majority of the vote" argument also used the "That's FPTP" defence when UKIP got 1 seat on 13% of the vote
Not me. UKIP absolutely deserve 13% of the seats. 85 if my maths is correct. And I hate UKIP. If you believe in democracy, you believe in democracy.
Well done Speaker Bercow! Fuck Donald Trump and all he stands for. It makes me proud to be British. Yes, we have tolerated other despots in Parliament in the past but what makes Trump stick in the craw is that the US is one of the shining lights of democracy and the rule of law throughout the western world. Trump is a clear and present danger to that proud tradition and decent people who respect those values must take a stand. He has won the election (Fair and square? Possibly not depending on the Russian hacking allegations), and we must respect his office, but that doesn't mean we must respect the man. It is completely within Parliament's gift who addresses it or not. Absolutely the right thing to do.
Well done.
What we have are sections of society deciding what we will tolerate on our behalf and shouting down dissenting voices, based on their prejudices and ignoring those same "morals" at other times.
Not well done, far from it.
Sections of society, like "elected members of parliament"?
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Is he? What if we were at war?
Even then. The Speaker has no official view on policy, he is a functionary that chairs the meetings of the House and supervises the administration of its procedures.
Don't be a fucking idiot. If the UK is at war then every MP doing whatever job has an official view which is death to the enemy.
So, we are at war with the USA, they are the enemy and we wish them death?
It would be lovely to see how many that use the "Clinton won a majority of the vote" argument also used the "That's FPTP" defence when UKIP got 1 seat on 13% of the vote
Not me. UKIP absolutely deserve 13% of the seats. 85 if my maths is correct. And I hate UKIP. If you believe in democracy, you believe in democracy.
Seems to me there should be some plan for compromise in situations such as the Trump/Clinton outcome. Is a coalition possible in America?
It would be lovely to see how many that use the "Clinton won a majority of the vote" argument also used the "That's FPTP" defence when UKIP got 1 seat on 13% of the vote
Not me. UKIP absolutely deserve 13% of the seats. 85 if my maths is correct. And I hate UKIP. If you believe in democracy, you believe in democracy.
Seems to me there should be some plan for compromise in situations such as the Trump/Clinton outcome. Is a coalition possible in America?
Not with the current system and the gerrymandering of house seats which has led to such polarisation.
The strangest part of Bercow's pronouncement for me was the assertion that an invitation to speak to the House be 'earned'. By what metric would one judge Xi to have earned the privilege (which does not also apply to Trump) ?
I assume that was a strictly transactional thang. Trump's cashmoney value is yet to be determined.
Bercow's behaviour is driven by his need to atone for once having been a leading light in the Monday Club. He's ashamed of his past views, so he overcompensates in the other direction.
You know, Bercow's just not clubbable.
You just haven't found the right blackthorn shillelagh.....
Who is the woman reading out the results in the HoC?
She's dressed like she's just off to a party. And sounds like she's had a pre-party sherry whilst getting ready too.
Many of the Tories were at the Black and White Ball and just made it back
She seems to be a Deputy Speaker, Natascha Engel. They are now calling her by name rather than by title which I assume is "modern" But thanks anyway, appreciated.
Who is the woman reading out the results in the HoC?
She's dressed like she's just off to a party. And sounds like she's had a pre-party sherry whilst getting ready too.
Many of the Tories were at the Black and White Ball and just made it back
She seems to be a Deputy Speaker, Natascha Engel. They are now calling her by name rather than by title which I assume is "modern" But thanks anyway, appreciated.
@GeoffM If your tipsy party girl is Natascha she is Labour, not Tory (I haven't seen the live feed)
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
Don't be a drama queen.
The realpolitik is that regardless of Trump or Bercow the world will continue to spin faster that POTUS can tweet or Bercow pontifcate and we will trade, work, live, love and die and the world moves on and will be better for it.
That's the line that Tolstoy keeps plugging in the unreadable bits of War and Peace. Sadly it's wrong, because Trump is POTUS and has the nuclear codes. He really does. You could have said the same about Hitler in 1925 - he can publish turgid propaganda till his eyes pop out, the world will continue to turn on its axis, etc etc etc.
There are no unreadable bits of War and Peace.
Now I know you are drunk.
[and it is my favourite book, or rather favourite book written since 1AD.]
The Conservative government should not repeat their appalling misjudgement at the end of the last parliament that damaged William Hague's reputation,
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
Bercow has already humiliated himself quite enough with the hypocrisy of listening to the Emir of Kuwait and the President of China but not the President of the United States. The sheer sycophancy he gave the Obamas and the complete refusal to listen to his successor is a totally unwarranted interference in the domestic politics of our most significant ally, yes he may have preferred the Obamas personally but it is totally disrespectful of the office the American people have just elected Trump too
It may has escaped your notice that President Trump doesn't yet have full rein of the Palace of Westminster and that thanks to the independence of the Speaker.
You may argue the merits of it but I'm content that the most powerful man on earth should know he's subject to the the writ of others be they the MP for Buckingham or "so called judges".
Rather refreshing.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
Well said
Appeasement is always the easy option, and easy to argue for especially when one is desperate for a trading deal. There may be 65m Americans who voted for him, but in that case there are at least 67m who voted against. Trump's presidency will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Your willingness to be an apologist for him disgusts me.
Also worth thinking longer term. The UK's interest in America is not the Rust belt states, deep South etc. Both our imports and exports are disproportionally with the blue bits of America, the coasts and the big cities.
For once I have some sympathy with the Leavers. I can understand their fury. Bercow's grandstanding might have jeopardised their US trade deal (who knows how Trump will react) and with it a possible avenue towards a relatively sedate Brexit. That must be their biggest fear. It's a bummer. This is why it's not such good idea to have someone of Donald's temperament in these roles: you never know how things might unravel with events.
I'll happily wash my hands of all Anti-Semites like the Emir of Kuwait - a nation that blocks entry from nationals of any Jewish-majority nation - that Bercow fawned over when he addressed Parliament. Will you?
Bercow's behaviour is driven by his need to atone for once having been a leading light in the Monday Club. He's ashamed of his past views, so he overcompensates in the other direction.
I'll happily wash my hands of all Anti-Semites like the Emir of Kuwait - a nation that blocks entry from nationals of any Jewish-majority nation - that Bercow fawned over when he addressed Parliament. Will you?
I'll leave the selective virtue signalling to you, thanks anyway.
Who is the woman reading out the results in the HoC?
She's dressed like she's just off to a party. And sounds like she's had a pre-party sherry whilst getting ready too.
Many of the Tories were at the Black and White Ball and just made it back
She seems to be a Deputy Speaker, Natascha Engel. They are now calling her by name rather than by title which I assume is "modern" But thanks anyway, appreciated.
When the Commons is in Committee of the Whole House (and at Report sage too) the person in chair has always been referred to by their name. Age-old convention.
Things I never thought I would say: Well done Bercow.
Have you not left yet? I thought we were well rid of you to Ireland.
I can post from anywhere Richard. That is how this internet-thingie works. The internet does not stop at the UK coastline, shocking I know...
UKIPnet will operate differently.
Hadrian's Firewall will keep out any unwanted celtic views.
... and will be built with 1957 technology from the golden days of England's glory. Household routers will have a slot to put a shilling in to allow access.
Also worth thinking longer term. The UK's interest in America is not the Rust belt states, deep South etc. Both our imports and exports are disproportionally with the blue bits of America, the coasts and the big cities.
A trade deal will apply to the whole nation not just the bits of it that voted for the President that signed the deal. We can quite happily sign a deal with Trump then sign trade deals with blue state businesses.
Who is the woman reading out the results in the HoC?
She's dressed like she's just off to a party. And sounds like she's had a pre-party sherry whilst getting ready too.
Many of the Tories were at the Black and White Ball and just made it back
She seems to be a Deputy Speaker, Natascha Engel. They are now calling her by name rather than by title which I assume is "modern" But thanks anyway, appreciated.
When the Commons is in Committee of the Full House the person in chair has always been referred to their name. Age-old convention.
Mark Harper, on his feet right now, is referring to her as Madam Deputy Speaker.
So it doesn't seem like much of a convention. Ho hum, not bothered either way.
Bercow's behaviour is driven by his need to atone for once having been a leading light in the Monday Club. He's ashamed of his past views, so he overcompensates in the other direction.
You know, Bercow's just not clubbable.
Bercow's simply a jerk.
I'm not sure if Weatherill was clubbable but he made a very good speaker and had the respect of parliament, though not of Thatcher. That was three speakers ago.
Bercow seems totally divisive, which a speaker shouldn't be.
I'll happily wash my hands of all Anti-Semites like the Emir of Kuwait - a nation that blocks entry from nationals of any Jewish-majority nation - that Bercow fawned over when he addressed Parliament. Will you?
I'll leave the selective virtue signalling to you, thanks anyway.
You're the one selectively virtue signalling by codemning someone attacking a hypocrite for what someone completely different said. I'm criticising the hypocrite for what he himself did.
Bercow is a hypocrite unworthy of his office. "Fashy Chippy" is a moron unworthy of leaving his mum's basement or the bridge he lives under. There we go, unashamed and consistent criticism. Shame you can't bring yourself to leave selective virtue signalling behind to be consistent.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
Don't be a drama queen.
The realpolitik is that regardless of Trump or Bercow the world will continue to spin faster that POTUS can tweet or Bercow pontifcate and we will trade, work, live, love and die and the world moves on and will be better for it.
That's the line that Tolstoy keeps plugging in the unreadable bits of War and Peace. Sadly it's wrong, because Trump is POTUS and has the nuclear codes. He really does. You could have said the same about Hitler in 1925 - he can publish turgid propaganda till his eyes pop out, the world will continue to turn on its axis, etc etc etc.
There are no unreadable bits of War and Peace.
Now I know you are drunk.
[and it is my favourite book, or rather favourite book written since 1AD.]
I enjoyed it all but then it was in translation.
As to the various others pushing from the back on my various comments I suppose it's too much to expect enough application from you intellectual midgets to read the exchange in full.
I would've let Trump speak in parliament. He's a first class bellend but I don't like any sort of censorship or bannings. It plays into his hands - he'll just cry foul and claim the establishment is against him.... and his supportera - great seekers of confirmation bias - will worship him even more.
Better to let these people speak and challenge them. We all saw what the oxygen of publicity did for Nick Griffin after he went on Question Time. He's seen more of us out of his left eye than we've seen of him since.
Comments
Those in his administration may well have noticed Bercow's slight whether Trump intended to make a speech there or not.
Amateur grandstanding.
Game set and match to Trump, unfortunately, and well done Bercow for needlessly embarrassing himself, the Commons and the country.
The realpolitik is that regardless of Trump or Bercow the world will continue to spin faster that POTUS can tweet or Bercow pontifcate and we will trade, work, live, love and die and the world moves on and will be better for it.
Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office as well as when leaving the office. The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule)
The speaker has no roll of official view on policy, he has no party affiliation, and when and if promoted to the Lords sits as a crossbencher.
I think there are very few now who think that was wise. The world is bigger than the US and sometimes it does no harm to show we are capable of independent thought and we're not prepared to rollover under any circumstances. Look at the respect the French earned internationally over IRAQ
https://twitter.com/neutralnews/status/811754193744633856
A double Diane for mind bogglement max.
Fuck Donald Trump and all he stands for. It makes me proud to be British.
Yes, we have tolerated other despots in Parliament in the past but what makes Trump stick in the craw is that the US is one of the shining lights of democracy and the rule of law throughout the western world. Trump is a clear and present danger to that proud tradition and decent people who respect those values must take a stand.
He has won the election (Fair and square? Possibly not depending on the Russian hacking allegations), and we must respect his office, but that doesn't mean we must respect the man. It is completely within Parliament's gift who addresses it or not.
Absolutely the right thing to do.
Well done.
Too funny for words.
Most of the stuff coming from Trump I think we have seen before, many times, but never in such a chaotic and unpredictable and dangerous way. I'm no fan of Trump but any response should at least be proportionate.
Like Brexit, Trump has given a voice to people excluded from the political system. Isn't that actually good for democracy on some level? The last three decades have been a comatose democracy where the parameters of acceptable debate are so narrow that nearly everyone switched off.
It is an extraordinary intervention by Bercow and - it seems to me - wholly inconsistent with his role as speaker.
Trump's presidency will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Your willingness to be an apologist for him disgusts me.
Oh, that's right no one batted an eyelid.
Obama on the other hand got a Nobel Peace Prize for what?
Surely being the first Black president is not worthy of the award?
The only "change you can believe in" is the level of hypocrisy on show.
She's dressed like she's just off to a party. And sounds like she's had a pre-party sherry whilst getting ready too.
By what metric would one judge Xi to have earned the privilege (which does not also apply to Trump) ?
This is of course ignoring the hypocrisy of the jumped up little twerp
Not well done, far from it.
And I hate UKIP.
If you believe in democracy, you believe in democracy.
I can live with that.
oh, just more stupid crap from you.
Charming.
But thanks anyway, appreciated.
https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/828713731764912128
[and it is my favourite book, or rather favourite book written since 1AD.]
For the record, I disagree. I think we have him for four years at least.
Unfortunately.
So it doesn't seem like much of a convention. Ho hum, not bothered either way.
Thanks, too, for the feedback.
Bercow seems totally divisive, which a speaker shouldn't be.
With Brexit and Trump I haven't been happier for years!
Bercow is a hypocrite unworthy of his office. "Fashy Chippy" is a moron unworthy of leaving his mum's basement or the bridge he lives under. There we go, unashamed and consistent criticism. Shame you can't bring yourself to leave selective virtue signalling behind to be consistent.
As to the various others pushing from the back on my various comments I suppose it's too much to expect enough application from you intellectual midgets to read the exchange in full.
Seems like a surprisingly wide margin?
Better to let these people speak and challenge them. We all saw what the oxygen of publicity did for Nick Griffin after he went on Question Time. He's seen more of us out of his left eye than we've seen of him since.