Freedom of speech

Yes, it is his job but he has jumped the gun so to speak because a date has not yet been set for the visit. Surely he should have got the views of MPs and Lords on this before making a decision?

The MPs seem, on the whole, to have approved when he announced it, from the bits I've read about it.

I don't know if he's obliged to consult the other Speaker.

I have no idea if he's jumped the gun or not. He's certainly not going to let May bounce him into anything like she has the poor old Queen.

I applaud his decision.

Sounds to me like Bercow is simply being divisive and trying to sabotage the good reelationship may has worked to stablish with Trump.

I suspect Bercow is a rabid Remainer and part of the treacherous
faction who would see Britains economy wrecked if it meant we were trapped in the EU.

Of course none of you here would wish that, would you?

I agree that the treatment of the Muslims in Burma appears to attract very little media criticism and no action, even though people like Desmond Tutu have tried to draw the world's attention to what is happening.

The representative from Burma wasn't given an opportunity to speak in the Houses of Parliament. To allow this for Trump, on top of Theresa May's visit, would no doubt reinforce the world's impression that the people of the UK are united in welcoming him, and support his words and actions.

Burma is a country with a turbulent past and I think it is the case that the military junta still retains ultimate control. Burma's influence cannot be compared to that of the US and, at least in its relatively recent past, it hasn't had the sort of humane and democratic values that the words on the statue of liberty imply and which the idea of American exceptionalism reinforces.

Having said that, I agree that there should be more coverage of the situation in Burma so that people become aware of what is happening there.

The Speaker is one of three people whose approval is required if a "stranger" is to be invited to speak in the Commons. I have no idea whether the idea of inviting President Trump to speak there has been discussed; even if it has, Bercow is given to grandstanding. He does rather relish the privileges of his position.

Presumably those requested to speak at Westminster, usually have something worth saying and listening to.

I do not see why DT should be invited to address Parliament.
He is more interested in visiting the Queen with all its attendant pomp and in playing golf. Balmoral would please him, given his Scottish heritage.

Speaker gets a bee in his bonnet

February 7 2017, 12:01am,
Patrick Kidd

Donald Trump has only been in his job a fortnight and already he has earned the right to join one of the most esteemed, if not particularly exclusive, clubs in Westminster. Its members display their fellowship by wearing a badge depicting three bumble bees, code for the society’s motto: “Bollocked by Bercow.”

I trust a badge is buzzing its way to Washington after the Speaker’s extraordinary outburst yesterday afternoon. Mr Bercow gave the president the full Peggy Mitchell, or at least an Erskine May-approved version of it. “Oi, Trump, yer barred! Giddouda’ere! Nah!”

Stephen Doughty (Lab, Cardiff South & Penarth) had started it by drawing attention to a motion against Mr Trump addressing parliament during a state visit. Mr Bercow, emboldened by slapping down a Tory backbench rebellion over wigs, steeled himself and then let rip. “An address by a foreign leader to both houses of parliament is not an automatic right, it is an earned honour,” he said.

A speech in Westminster Hall, the oldest, most venerable room, is extremely rare. Only the Queen, the Pope, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Barack Obama have spoken there in the past 50 years and all but Mandela came while Mr Bercow was Speaker. As one of the three keyholders for the hall, he had no intention of opening up for this president. “My gaff, my rules.”

Mr Trump does not appear to have demanded that he be given the use of Westminster Hall, nor do we know that he was offered it by the government. All we’ve had is MPs saying that something that probably wouldn’t have happened shouldn’t happen but that’s politics for you.

The Speaker did not just bar Mr Trump from there; he said he would not add his name to any invitation to speak in the Royal Gallery either. He conceded that inviting heads of state was “above the pay grade of the Speaker” — the Queen will be relieved — but went on to say that Westminster was no place for sexists and racists. He has clearly not been on the terrace after last orders.

This performance earned him a smattering of applause from the SNP and a few Labourites. Such noise is technically against the rules and plenty of MPs have won their three bees badge for doing so, but the Speaker was prepared to turn a deaf ear this once. “We should not have clapping but sometimes it is easier to let it go,” he said. I suspect that he was offering signatures later outside the stage door.

A ban on applause is one of the quaint traditions in parliament, like the one that required members to wear a top hat when raising a point of order. That was rescinded only in 1998 after MPs admitted that it was silly. Some feel the same about making people wear wigs to work but Mr Bercow’s ruling that the Commons clerks will no longer do so went down badly in some quarters. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (C, The Cotswolds) was the first to raise a point of order on this, demanding to know why MPs had not been asked to approve it. “Do you really want to use parliamentary time on this?” an exasperated Mr Bercow wondered.

Then up popped Sir Gerald Howarth (C, Aldershot), the sort of man you would expect to wear a top hat for old times’ sake, to suggest naughtily that Mr Bercow was firing off “executive orders” like some American tyrant. The clerks asked me to do this, the Speaker replied.

Maybe the wig ban and the Trump ban are connected. Mr Bercow may just dislike people with unnatural hair. As Sir Gerald spoke about the dignity of wigs, an SNP member was concerned about the MP for Lichfield. “What about Michael Fabricant?” he shouted. That exotic coiffure remains safe for now but is anything sacred these days?

I like Patrick Kidd's take on the episode. Gives a sense of proportion. There's nothing lke a good piss-take for levelling stuff

Bercow's sexist and racist tags on Trump show how cool and with it he is. Not. Parliamentary dignity? Ha.

Oh, please. We, the people, put the sexist and racist MPs in the House by voting for them. We're stuck with those. That doesn't mean that the Speaker is obliged to force Parliament to listen to more of their ilk.

absent I agree 03.31.06. Post.
thatbags I enjoyed reading that piece.

I've just heard that the Speaker Mr Bercow wants to ban Donald Trump from speaking in the House. Whilst not in agreement with most of the Donald 's ideas I do believe in the freedom of speech.
So much hangs on how you word something christinefrance Remember the old chestnut "Answer Yes or No. Have you stopped beating your wife?"
There is all difference in the world between inviting a visiting Head of Stare to speak to both houses and banning him or her.
It could be compared at a domestic level to "not inviting" somebody to dinner at your own house because you dislike what they stand for, but not being rude to them if you happen to meet elsewhere.
It is an honour and a privilege NOT a right and within the purview of the Speaker of the House of Commons to express that opinion. Within the House, his authority overrides that of any MP including the PM. He also expressed himself calmly and with moderation unlike the rants we have heard from the White House over the last few weeks.
To blame him for having a "smarmy face" POGS is hardly his fault, blame his parents or nature!!

It's more the smarmy expression ( linked to what he says sometimes) than his actual physical face Maw I often want to throw something at him ( but would break the tv.)

His decision won't be reversed - Parliament is sovereign. The Tories were recently taught that lesson. Doesn't seem to have sunk in.

There are a few like that who have the same effect on me rosesarered. That idiot in the flat cap, tweed coat and jeans and his sidekick in the covert coat among them!
(My late and lovely MIL used to go apoplectic at Harold Wilson's Gannex Mac, and Cherie Blair's mouth at full stretch was an instant cure for low blood pressure. )

Who are they Maw ( Pete and Dud, Holmes and Watson.) Perhaps I should know, but don't, and what is a covert coat?

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with an invitation to speak to Parliament. That is an invitation-only privilege, not a right of any visiting Head of State.

Gosh MawBroon, did she freak out when faced with anyone with a facial deformity? Shudder to think what a PM who had suffered the loss of an eye did to her blood pressure

You are maybe missing a point... he is not a speech maker. If if happens, it would be all of 10 mins if that! I think it's more likely he might just send the House a Tweet.

And he will not take and questions or make himself available to the press. Bush didn't come to the House. London was on lock-down when he came. Trump? Likely the same... might just want to avoid the whole thing and just want to have tea with the Queen and giver her the saddles he's making for the royals. He does dinners and drinks very well with his NYC society experience.

www.rt.com/uk/376443-donald-trump-state-visit/

US President Donald Trump is not interested in addressing Parliament during his state visit to the UK, and instead wants to focus on the pomp and ceremony Britain affords foreign leaders, government officials planning his stay say. Sources told the Guardian that Trump has expressed no interest in speaking at Westminster. However, it’s understood that he does want “high visibility visits with key members of the Royal family.”

Most foreign leaders who come to this Country do not speak in Parliament. It is actually fairly rare.
I think it is too early to judge how Trump will behave when Republicans realise that they have to rein him in but if a decision has to be made now, then it seems the right one.
His freedom of speech isn't affected. He seems to use twitter for that.

Exactly thatbags complete hypocrisy. And don't let's even start naming some of the evil despots the queen has shaken hands with, met, entertained and dined with.

Rein him in is what they cannot seem to do! Hopefully the removal of the ban will hold up in the appeal. Likely it will go to the Supreme Court, but since judges from the Appellate usually are not overturned, I think it will hold. It's hard to get the SC to take on a case and takes a long time.

Anniebach that is unfair, unkind and totally without any justification whatsoever. My MIL was a lovely kind lady so why she should be pilloried for objecting to HW's Gannex I cannot imagine.
It was Cherie's expression not her face I spoke of, so I hope you are ashamed of suggesting any intolerance of disfigurement on my MIL's part. And it wasn't her Bp anyway.

Roses a "covert coat" is one of those smooth-faced (coat, not wearer!) coats with a velvet collar, much worn by trainers at the races.

I believe in freedom of speech too Christinefrance and you can say what you like in you own or a public space but I may choose not to invite you into my home among my friends. That is not banning public speech.

Very few people have been invited to speak in this way and it was high-handed of T May to go ahead with this without consulting others in Parliament. She is not (yet) a dictator; parliamentary democracy is not one person.