Freedom of speech

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.

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

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. )

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

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.)

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!!

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

He doesn't want to bann Trump, Trump hasn't been invited and when invited it is not in the house but in Westminster hall to both the commons and the lords, not all who came on a state visit are invited to speak

Bercow has a right to a view; but I am not sure that his position allows him to air that in parliament.

Bercow is Speaker of the House of Commons. He runs it, so to speak. The Commons is independent of the Executive (i.e the Government) I believe that only the Speaker can decide which 'strangers' (people who are not elected MPs) can address the Commons. The Speaker of the House of Lords performs the same functions in the Lords. No Prime Minister can tell them who to invite or not to invite to address the respective Houses.

What people have to realise is that it is Parliament that is sovereign, not the Executive (the government). Governments can only 'govern' because they have a majority vote in the Commons. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to pass any new laws because laws can only be passed be getting a majority vote in the Commons. If a piece of legislation proposed by the government fails to get a majority vote it cannot be enacted into law.

Heads of State are not automatically invited to address Parliament.

Since 1939 only three US Presidents have addressed Parliament; Reagan, Clinton and Obama.

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/may/25/head-state-addressing-uk-parliament

So Bercow is not doing anything unusual or breaking with any tradition by not inviting him. Announcing it so publicly is unusual.

With regard to 'hypocrisy'; as far as I can make out Aung Sun Suu Kyi spoke to Parliament over three years ago, presumably before the recent crackdown on the Rohingya people.

The visit in January was by the Speaker of the Myanmar equivalent of Parliament. He did not address either House, just had a tour, met a few people and attended an official dinner hosted by Bercow in the evening. We don't know if the occasion was used to put pressure on/influence the Myanmar government to improve their treatment of the Rohingya.

A little light googling seems to reveal that Bercow has an interest in maintaining relationships with Myanmar.

No doubt POGS knows much more about this as the plight of the Rohingya appears to be a cause she is interested in.

I really do not see what all this has to do with freedom of speech. Trump can say what he likes when he comes to the UK. He's just not being invited to address parliament and there is no particular reason why he should be.

The queen and parliament have "welcomed" many exceedingly dubious folk and supped with them using long long spoons.

I guess that is what has to happen once more - but I would hope that the benches in parliament will be sparsely populated and this will speak volumes.

Bercow has a right to a view; but I am not sure that his position allows him to air that in parliament.

There is always the soap box at speakers corner.
He could tweet from there at same time
Bit of multi-tasking

I agree with Monica. Seems crazy and dangerous.

That is what I thought Ana it was never intended for him to speak to Parliament, just a visit to Westminster.

Especially as Trump hadn't even been invited to speak in the House, nor was it ever intended that he would be.