This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/06/donald-trump-should-not-be-allowed-to-speak-in-westminster-hall-says-speaker

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Donald Trump should not be allowed to speak in UK parliament, says Speaker Donald Trump should not be allowed to speak in UK parliament, says Speaker
(about 4 hours later)
Donald Trump would not be welcome to address parliament during his state visit, the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, has said in an unprecedented intervention that drew applause and cheers from MPs. Donald Trump is unfit to address MPs, according to the Speaker of the House of Commons who said that he would refuse to invite the US president to speak at Westminster because of parliament’s long held opposition “to racism and to sexism”.
Bercow, whose role is non-political, said he could not block a state visit by the US president but would use his role as one of the three “key-holders” of Westminster Hall to prevent the Republican from addressing MPs and peers. John Bercow warned that the opportunity to speak in the prestigious Westminster Hall during a state visit “is not an automatic right, it is an earned honour” in an extraordinary intervention that divided MPs and annoyed No 10.
He said he had been particularly persuaded by what he termed Trump’s “migrant ban”, the executive order signed during the president’s first fortnight that sought to prevent nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries entering the US, including refugees. The unprecedented step caused many MPs to pour praise on Bercow, but also triggered an angry response in parts of government with ministers privately claiming that he had overstepped the mark.
The Speaker, who made the remarks in response to a point of order by the Labour MP Stephen Doughty, implied that Downing Street should rethink the offer of a state visit made during Theresa May’s visit to Washington. Doughty had organised an early day motion, signed by 163 MPs, calling on the Speaker to withhold permission from the government for an address to Westminster Hall. Senior figures accused the Speaker of grandstanding – while his counterpart in the House of Lords, Lord Fowler, was understood to be irritated by the unexpected statement.
He told MPs: “We value our relationship with the US. If a state visit takes place, that is way beyond the pay grade of the Speaker. However, as far as this place is concerned, I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are important considerations in the House of Commons.” Bercow, whose role is non-political, told MPs that he did not have the power to block the state visit invitation extended to Trump by Theresa May, but made clear that he would use his authority to prevent what is considered one of the high points of the official trip.
Bercow said that an address by a foreign leader during a state visit was “not an automatic right, it is an earned honour” and said there was precedent for a state visit not to include an address to parliament. The Speaker made clear that he was always against the idea of Trump making a speech in the same hall that Barack Obama did in 2012, but said recent policies had even more determined to block the move.
“In relation to Westminster Hall, there are three key-holders ... the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Speaker of the House of Lords and the lord great chamberlain, and ordinarily we are able to work by consensus and the hall would be used for a purpose such as an address, by agreement of the three key-holders. “After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall,” Bercow told MPs, who were visibly shocked by his comments.
“Before the imposition of the migrant ban, I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall. After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump, I am even more strongly opposed [to] an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall.” “I would not wish to issue an invitation to president Trump.”
Bercow said he had less direct power to prevent an address in parliament’s Royal Gallery. “Customarily an invitation to a visiting leader to deliver address there would be issued in the names of the two Speakers,” he said. “I would not wish to issue an invitation to President Trump.” In a raised voice, he added: “I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons.”
Government sources described the intervention as “hugely political and out of line”. One said: “Bercow better make sure of the president’s plan before he shoots off like this. The clear indications are that the White House are not even planning to address both houses of parliament.” The Speaker made clear that invitations to address Westminster Hall were not simply issued by him but also Fowler.
A Downing Street adviser said that the prime minister had been clear about the state visit going ahead. “Exactly what we’ll be doing is to be discussed,” they said about the details of the trip. “The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow on his statement. The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow to the Lords,” said a House of Lords spokesperson.
Government sources have claimed that Trump is not interested in addressing Westminster Hall. One said that speaking to politicians inside parliament would represent the “ultimate establishment” act, and go against what Trump stands for. Bercow’s intervention is hugely significant because of the process by which a dignitary is invited to speak. Officials made clear that a government request to invite a head of state would be sent to Bercow and Fowler, who both have to agree to it. The lord great chamberlain, who represents the Queen, is then consulted.
Pointing out that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W Bush addressed Westminster Hall during their state visits, the source said: “The indication is he wants high-visibility visits with key members of the royal family.” They suggested that the focus would be on parades, the military and a ceremonial guard. His unexpectedly strong response shocked ministers and Downing Street officials who have been working hard to build relations with the new president, including through the recent visit in which Trump grasped hold of the prime minister’s hand. May has also offered to be a “bridge” to Trump for European Union leaders, in a bid to make the most of the Atlantic alliance, which is seen as increasingly important by advisers following the Brexit vote.
The bible of parliamentary rules, Erskine May, declares that “the chief characteristics to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality”. Such is the importance of this principle that no MP is allowed to question it without risking a breach of privilege. “Bercow better make sure of the president’s plan before he shoots off like this. The clear indications are that the White House are not even planning to address both houses of parliament,” one government source said.
“Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure,” it goes on. “He takes no part in debate either in the house or in committee.” Others claimed that Bercow was “out of line”.
After Bercow’s words, the Labour MP Dennis Skinner stood up to raise another point of order, which he said comprised two words: “Well done.” The mood in Downing Street was said to be mild annoyance with the Speaker, with some questioning “if there is anything else that has never been proposed to which he would like to object”. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Bercow’s statement.
The Labour MP Yvette Cooper MP said: “President Trump is continuing his assault on the democratic values that the British parliament holds dear – undermining the rule of law, the independent judiciary and a free press, and encouraging racism and misogyny. But there was also a sense that the Speaker – who has sat as a Conservative MP – was sufficiently separate to May for his comments to be of “no real consequence”.
“By all means have meetings with President Trump in parliament or anywhere else, but he should not be accorded the special privilege of an address in the heart of our democracy. The Speaker is right, we can’t go along with this just because Theresa May was overhasty in her invite.” Bercow was responding to a point of order by Labour MP, Stephen Doughty, whose early day motion calling on officials to withhold permission for an address to Westminster Hall was signed by 163 colleagues.
Doughty said: “I am delighted that the Speaker has listened to members from across the house regarding our deep concerns that Donald Trump not be honoured with an address in Westminster Hall or elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster, after his comments and actions on women, torture, refugees and the judiciary. The MP said he had informed the Speaker about the fact that he would raise the issue, in a standard courtesy, but was shocked by the strength of response.
“Our parliament stands for liberty, equality and independent scrutiny of government. It is vital we stand up for those principles not only here but across the world. Mr Speaker has made that crystal clear today.” “I am delighted that the Speaker has listened to members from across the house regarding our deep concerns that Donald Trump not be honoured with an address in Westminster Hall or elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster, after his comments and actions on women, torture, refugees and the judiciary,” he said.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, said it was “the right decision” by Bercow. “The prime minister might wish to kowtow to the nasty misogynist that now sits in the Oval Office but no one else does. We do not want him to speak to us. He is not welcome,” he said. “Trump should be under no illusion. We are snubbing him.” Labour’s Yvette Cooper said Trump was “continuing his assault on the democratic values that the British Parliament holds dear”.
Other Labour and SNP MPs also made clear their delight at the comments on Twitter. She said it was fine to invite him to the UK but not to offer the “special privilege of an address in the heart of our democracy”.
Speaker Bercow has decided to check people coming into our Parliament VERY CAREFULLY. https://t.co/aXeSd59Svl And Chi Onwurah said that more than 1.8 million people had signed a petition against a Trump address at Westminster Hall, saying it was “ridiculous” to allow it to go ahead. “I am glad the Speaker has given voice to what so many feel.”
Brilliant speech by Speaker Bercow slamming Trump. Opposition benches applaud, Tories glum. This was Parliament at its best. Tory MP Heidi Allen admitted the comments were “controversial” for some, but insisted they were right.
I may get called last in debates far too often but Mr Speaker spoke for the overwhelming majority in saying No 2 Trump addressing parliament https://t.co/5vlkZI4qjG However, Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said a number of his colleagues were surprised and annoyed by Bercow’s intervention. “He’s completely overstepped the mark. It was a pre-emptive strike to torpedo the leader of the democratically free world and our greatest ally from speaking in parliament,” he said, stressing the importance of a UK-US trade deal.
It was the second time in the day’s session that Bercow had caused something of a stir in the Commons. Earlier he announced that the clerks who sit in the chamber would, following this month’s recess, no longer need to wear wigs. “Our relationship is now more important than at any time than the second world war.”
He said the idea was intended to save money, was popular with the clerks, and was intended to give across a “marginally less stuffy and forbidding image of this chamber at work”. Bercow made clear that he had less say over the Royal Gallery – a second, smaller room that is used by world leaders to address parliamentarians – although he said he still had “as strong as a say in that matter”.
The clerks will still wear gowns, in the main to distinguish them from MPs or other officials in the Commons. The government has rolled out the red carpet in a state visit more than 100 times, with controversial figures including Vladimir Putin and Robert Mugabe travelling to Britain for the honour. However, visits do not always include an invitation to address parliament. Westminster Hall tends to be limited to the most coveted guests, which have included the Pope, Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama.
The decision found opposition from the Conservative MPs Gerald Howarth and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, prompting some other MPs to lament the delay to the start of a planned seven-hour debate on article 50. Other leaders, including Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, have spoken in the Royal Gallery.
Government sources have told the Guardian that Trump would see such an address as “the ultimate establishment” act and claimed he would not want it. Instead, he is keen on the “pomp and ceremony” of a visit with the Queen, a military parade and golf at Balmoral palace.