John Bercow - right or wrong?

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Those 2 may rule over countries with appalling human rights records, but there is hope (and occasionally actual progress!) of reform.

In Trump's case, he is introducing/has introduced legislation that reduces/restricts 'human rights' and is arguably (currently deemed to be) unconstitutional!

So while China and Kuwait may be progress forwards, Trump's action is definitely a retrograde step!

As Speaker, Bercow is quite entitled to express his opinion/decision on this particular matter! The actual State Visit is a completely separate matter, not any real business of The Speaker - though there are Commons debates, both for and against it, scheduled!

Agree on all of this - and it's a good point made here

 

[Foxholer]

It has achieved 1 distinctly unusual (maybe even unique!) thing!

Dennis Skinner actually agreed with - and congratulated Bercow!

 

[IanM]

While I may have sympathy with the sentiment, I thought the Speaker was meant to remain impartial.....

 

[Sweep]

Democracy certainly didn't shine last night.
The devolved nations were unable to put there case across in the Brexit debate.

Speaker allowed SNP MP's 3 minutes in a 7 hour debate. One Tory MP allowed more time to state his case than the combined group of NI, Wales and Scotland.
Salmond had a right go at the Speaker and got 'slapped down'.

That is quite amusing as on Radio 5 Live at 5pm Salmond was singing his praises of Bercow to the rafters following the Speakers announcement on Trump.
I quote "4 more years for Speaker Bercow!"

 

[Doon frae Troon]

That is quite amusing as on Radio 5 Live at 5pm Salmond was singing his praises of Bercow to the rafters following the Speakers announcement on Trump.
I quote "4 more years for Speaker Bercow!"

You can understand see why William Hague tried to do the dirty on Bercow for not towing the Tory line.

 

[Sweep]

Those 2 may rule over countries with appalling human rights records, but there is hope (and occasionally actual progress!) of reform.

In Trump's case, he is introducing/has introduced legislation that reduces/restricts 'human rights' and is arguably (currently deemed to be) unconstitutional!

So while China and Kuwait may be progress forwards, Trump's action is definitely a retrograde step!

As Speaker, Bercow is quite entitled to express his opinion/decision on this particular matter! The actual State Visit is a completely separate matter, not any real business of The Speaker - though there are Commons debates, both for and against it, scheduled!

Do you really believe there is more hope of reform in China and Kuwait than in one of the worlds greatest democracies? Really? Are you actually comparing the human rights records of China and Kuwait to that of the US and coming out in favour of China and Kuwait? Seriously? For a start, Trump was democratically elected.

Do you actually think that any of these countries will change anything because they were allowed to speak to U.K. MP's and Lords?

An address to both Houses was not even requested. This is grandstanding by the Speaker and an attempt to affect government policy and sway public opinion. Therefore as no request was made he is not entitled to express his opinion as he has a duty to remain impartial.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Wondering how many leave voters are agreeing with Bercow...

 

[Sweep]

Wondering how many leave voters are agreeing with Bercow...

Sorry, I don't see the connection.
To me this is about whether the Speaker was right or wrong to say what he did in the place where he said it and whether he overstepped his duties.
The fact that you attach this to the EU issue speaks volumes on your views that Brexit detrimentally affects every facet of your life.
I voted leave. I don't like Trump. The fact that he agrees with me on Brexit is one tiny, tiny part of a huge issue and nothing to do with whether he should address both Houses or not.

 

[Fish]

Wondering how many leave voters are agreeing with Bercow...

You want to drag Brexit into this thread now, lower than a snakes belly, as they say.

 

[User62651]

While I may have sympathy with the sentiment, I thought the Speaker was meant to remain impartial.....

Thats correct, he's the referee in there. Embarassed the Government, think he's just looking for attention, not a patch on Betty Boothroyd, she had more class.

 

[Sweep]

Interesting article on State Visits and addressing Parliament...
http://blog.hansardsociety.org.uk/president-trumps-state-visit/

 

[Foxholer]

Do you really believe there is more hope of reform in China and Kuwait than in one of the worlds greatest democracies? Really? Are you actually comparing the human rights records of China and Kuwait to that of the US and coming out in favour of China and Kuwait? Seriously? For a start, Trump was democratically elected.

Do you actually think that any of these countries will change anything because they were allowed to speak to U.K. MP's and Lords?

An address to both Houses was not even requested. This is grandstanding by the Speaker and an attempt to affect government policy and sway public opinion. Therefore as no request was made he is not entitled to express his opinion as he has a duty to remain impartial.

I suggest you read my post again! You seem to have misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, EXACTLY what I posted - and what I DID NOT post!

In answer to the question in your second paragraph....No, that's unlikely! But the gesture of denying Trump, albeit before it has been requested, certainly indicates reasonable opinion/interpretation of his policy. Sure, he was democratically elected. But that doesn't mean UK should approve everything he does! There are plenty of other leaders who have been 'democratically elected' where UK most certainly doesn't approve everything they do!

 

[drdel]

I thoughts the Uk was a bastion of free speech, denying the elected leader of a democractic USA the same rights we have given to other non-elected leaders insults the citizens of the USA.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I thoughts the Uk was a bastion of free speech, denying the elected leader of a democractic USA the same rights we have given to other non-elected leaders insults the citizens of the USA.

Nobody is stopping him from visiting the UK and speaking freely, provided he does not infringe our laws.

He is just a totally unsuitable person to address the HoC

 

[Beezerk]

I thoughts the Uk was a bastion of free speech.

Sorry to digress but really?
The pc brigade put paid to free speech and honest/open debate years ago. The Twatter crew just take being pc to a whole new level these days.

 

[Sweep]

I suggest you read my post again! You seem to have misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, EXACTLY what I posted - and what I DID NOT post!

In answer to the question in your second paragraph....No, that's unlikely! But the gesture of denying Trump, albeit before it has been requested, certainly indicates reasonable opinion/interpretation of his policy. Sure, he was democratically elected. But that doesn't mean UK should approve everything he does! There are plenty of other leaders who have been 'democratically elected' where UK most certainly doesn't approve everything they do!

If I misinterpreted anything, it certainly wasn't deliberate.
I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of inviting someone to speak to both Houses. You cannot expect everyone in the room to agree with everything the guest says. If that were true, no-one would ever speak in either House. Inviting him to speak does not mean that the UK approves of everything he does.
I am not saying the President should be invited to address both Houses. Many Presidents have visited the UK and not addressed in this way. No invitation to do so has been extended. No request has been made. However, not wanting to hear what he has to say is not in my view a good reason to decide against inviting him.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Interesting article on State Visits and addressing Parliament...
http://blog.hansardsociety.org.uk/president-trumps-state-visit/

Mexico has had twice as many state visits than the USA.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I thoughts the Uk was a bastion of free speech, denying the elected leader of a democractic USA the same rights we have given to other non-elected leaders insults the citizens of the USA.

Nobody is stopping him from speaking in the UK, nobody. They are simply stopping him from speaking in a particular location where you can only speak if invited.

 

[IanM]

These days, "offence taken" is indirectly proportional to the probability of getting killed as a result of expressing the view.... ....make of that what you will.

 

[Foxholer]

...
I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of inviting someone to speak to both Houses....

Wrong - at least in this case!
This is not about inviting him to speak! It's about NOT inviting him to speak!

I suggest you look elsewhere for any 'misinterpretation'!