UK Parliament to debate barring Trump

I don't like Trump but banning him is ridiculous. Isn't not like he a war criminal, like Cheney

 

You can't tell me that she can't call Cameron in for a "chat" any time she wants.

 

The reality being that she has done none of the above since 1953. Remember, she is only in her position by consent.

 

The glue which holds the Establishment together.

 

That is utter nonsense!

 

If I were on the dole for as long as she has been, I'd give my consent too. How is she better than anyone else?

 

She isn't better than anyone else, and I have no love for an anachronistic establishment which I support through taxation. She does, however, pay tax as do all the Royals. http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxation.aspx

 

No royals, no honours to give away (or sold by Prime MInisters). Imagine all those knights of the Realm who would have to remain plain old Mr and Mrs. What would they do?

As one wag once said, they call themselves "honourable" because no one else will...

 

'Sir John Lydon' has a certain air of British imperialist superiority, wouldn't you agree? I'd love to see that.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=j...UICCgC&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=2Tr8EdpellZoIM:

 

English law, freedom and democracy have become nonsense and delirium.

 

Every once in a while, Europe gets its knickers in a twist over an American political figure.

The hatred for Ronald Reagan was hysterical and all he did was win the Cold War.

 

They have been that way for hundred's of years. What is laughable about the entire situation, is the fact, that certain members of the British Parliament, are actually spending their time, in debate, over whether they should, or should not, let an American private citizen, who has done absolutely nothing to or in anger, to harm the British population, government or its monarchy.

Now, you reverse that situation, make it the United States Congress, which the British monarch recently addressed in a joint session in Washington, and say, it is MP Cameron (a politician and member of Parliament with the priviledge of an MP), and prior to a British election, the American Congress, having no basis whatsoever, to be upset with Mr. Cameron, decides to meet officially, and debate banning the politician from ever visiting American soil, and goes ahead and does so.

Than, suddenly, Mr. Cameron happens to become the Prime Minister (Britain's 1st Minister to the Queen is the actual title, the country being a Constitutional Monarchy subject to her approval). How does that effect the long standing "special relationship" between Britain and America, in so many ways, that they are almost uncountable?

Now you again reverse the situation, and discover that the mother of all Congresses, the British Parliament, is, in fact, holding a debate, based upon nothing more than innuendo and media hype (which the majority of American's, based upon our polling number's do not believe), is going to debate and pass a revolution, a year in advance of the American Presidential election, that bans a private, non-elected, non-professional, non-politician, Donald Trump, private citizen, from ever setting foot on British soil.

You add in the fact that perhaps (it isn't accomplished yet, it may not be, it could be, he has an excellent chance it may happen) - lighting struck twice for a relative unknown with no talent, leadership ability, or program to lead, Barrack Obama, why couldn't it also occur for a Mr. Trump, a man who is a private citizen, has done nothing to garner the anger of the British nation or its population.

SHAZAM? - Now, just what is the position of London, and the British Parliament, the British military (mostly a support arm of the American Navy), Britain's general population, twice saved from destruction by America, who rebuilt the nation in the 1940's and 1950's through The Marshal Plan? And what is the sudden position that the British Parliament has put the Royal Family, which is the head of that government in, regarding the fact that they have a law prohibiting the President of the United States from ever entering British territory, including Canada, and Australia, South Africa, and dozens of other nations that have joined the British Commonwealth of Nations in the recent past?

I can just imagine the first meeting of the United States Secretary of State with the British Ambassador to America, and what they would discuss. "Excuse me sir, but the initial State Dinner for foreign ambassador's to America, in the White House, to introduce themselves and their countries to our new President, will not include you for the first time in history, since our President isn't welcomed on British soil.

Now we all know that the American Congress has about a 12% public approval rating, and routinely shoots itself in the foot daily. What about the British Parliament, and the MP leaders who led the ban of the private citizen, Mr. Trump, from ever setting foot on British soil? You think they will add a qualifier to their resolution that say, "Oh, BTW, just in case he does become President of the United States, this ban is null and void, and we didn't mean to insult that office or its occupant?"

I can see Mr. Trump and his family on the stand witnessing the parade in January, whispering to his Chief of Staff, his first order of business, before he even enters the White House as President (all private possessions and property of the outgoing President are removed, and all private possessions and property of the incoming president are in place, and all done during the inaugural ceremony), to notify the British Ambassador, to contact the PM and Queen, that America's ambassador to the Court of Saint James in London, is being recalled and official, (that usually is a prelude for war), relations between America and Britain have been severed, based upon Parliament's decision to ban Mr. Trump from visiting or setting foot on British soil.

You want to see some very fast backtracking? Perhaps even the fall of the British government, a nationwide television appearance by the Queen to her subject's explaining how stupid they happened to be? Well - that would do it, quick. Mr. Trump is not the sort to be in a reconciliation mood regarding such an obvious, direct, personal insult, by a nation which has no business or reason to issue such a order or resolution. In fact, the issuance of such a resolution, becomes the official policy of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the moment it is passed - and the moment Mr. Trump becomes President. Argue all day long that he won't win, but polls put him in a good position to do so, and Britain? They would be in one hell of a hole, officially, politically, militarily, and prestige-wise, should Mr. Trump happen to win, and that is a distinct possibility. Gawd - would I love to see London's response to it...........

 

Everything else that you wrote was just plain bonkers.
The US has not saved the UK from destruction neither once nor twice.
The UK was never a recipient of Marshall plan aid.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that it's the British people who don't like Trump and don't want him to come here. Cameron and the rest of the tossers will ensure that this anger comes to nothing.

Me, I'd send him to Disney to be the new gate usher there. That's how seriously I take him and that running mate thing that slithers alongside him.

Come an election these days you Yanks would vote in a sandwich if it had PR standing and the MSM backing it.

 

Yes, the US saved you. And Britain was not only a recipient of Marshall Plan money, it received the most of any European country. It received $2.7 billion dollars which would be equal to $36 billion today. You're welcome.

 

Me? What are you talking about?

 

Only you forgot to add that US bankers sponsored Hitler and US actively participated in the outbreak of war in Europe.

 

Russia and Germany were pretty cozy before the war with their little non aggression agreement. Sorry, but Russia has already blamed Poland for starting the war.

 

US took an active part in the outbreak of war in Europe.

 

Where do they get this stuff? Is there some right wing group in the US that really thinks it's still 1775, or perhaps even 1688? They know we have cars and TVs and things now, right?

The actual title is 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', the post previously officially being known as 'First Lord of the Treasury'. Parliament has legally held power over the monarch since the Bill of Rights of 1689 - those theoretical and ceremonial powers still held by the monarch are held because parliament allows them to be, because they are never exercised in any other way than according to the will of parliament and/or elected government. The monarch can't even abdicate their own throne without an act of parliament to approve it, and nor can the monarch hold on to their throne if parliament decides otherwise. The 'Crown' in UK law is the 'State', under the control of government and parliament not the monarch - the language used is occasionally archaic in appearing to refer to the monarch, but that is simply as a result of historical legal developments and not in any way a reflection of reality relating to the monarchy. The monarch in the UK has no practical power - if one attempted to exercise any residual theoretical power that nobody's bothered to yet removen in any way other than how they were instructed to do by government/parliament, that monarch would simply be removed by parliament, because parliament has that legal right (and total control over the military, civil service, and so on, of course - there could be no possibility of the monarch resisting if that were to happen). In reality, if that were to happen (which it won't), the monarchy itself would almost certainly be abolished - monarchs tend to be held in check quite effectively by the idea that they could not only be removed but have their hereditary legacy removed with them for all time.

Monarchs in the UK system are servants of the citizens - the days of 'obedient subjects' disappeared centuries ago, even if some in the US like to imagine that they somehow haven't. It's nothing more than a fantasy to prop up a delusion of being 'superior' for having 'escaped the evil aristocratic system'. That entire system no longer exists in any form (even the House of Lords is appointed, and those few hereditary peers who remain only do so because they were allowed to remain effectively as 'appointees' as a result of being ones who actually turned up and made themselves useful on a regular basis).

The parliamentary discussion about Trump was a direct result of pressure from the people. The alleged 'offence' on which it was based was one of inciting hatred, contrary to exactly the same law that sees Hate Preachers and other violence-promoting extremists banned from the country. It was not directly an attack on the UK, of course, but an attack against common humanity, tolerance and decency. The UK does tend to have some morals when it comes to that kind of thing - people here really don't appreciate people who want to come here to spread messages of bigotry and hatred that could incite violence and discrimination.

 

The Brits will feel ever so much better after they permanently alienate about half of the American population. Blooming idiots!

 

?
Interesting. Please provide sources and details of the link between US banks and the NSDAP. Exactly how did the US "actively" participate "in the outbreak of war in Europe".

 

The USSR and Nazi Germany were allies. Germany could not have invaded Poland without the Hitler/Stalin Pact.

 

Everything I wrote is common speculation of the probability of the British Commonwealth of Nations penalty and America's response, should Mr. Trump move from private citizen to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Presidency, and our response to Britain's stupid resolution. The Brits would be thought of like American's think about the United Nations in NYC, a useless, anti-American body, serving no particular useful purpose.

BTW, the UK received $2.7 billion dollars from the American taxpayers under the Marshal Plan, at 1940's value, and the flushed it down the toilet, attempting to hold onto, and recreate the British Empire, which died in 1945. Sorry old chap - you don't know your facts.........

 

Not sure who you are referring to here, but if you send Donald Trump over to Disney at Orlando, he is very likely, and perfectly capable, of writing a personal check and purchasing the entire Disney empire. I know America and England are separated by "the pond" but politically, the two nations have always been pretty close regarding public esteem and respect. Since the Brits know nothing about Mr. Trump (and they knew nothing about Mr. Obama, except what they read in the mainstream media, but they almost made him a member of their Royal Family), this resolution Parliament is going to debate will make Britain an outcast in their relations with America. MI--6 will be denied further information from NATO regarding possible terrorism activities, they will receive more foreign aid from us, and the tourism industry - that will flounder huge between America, and particularly London. The Queen won't be able to travel to the Kentucky Derby again, and the high respect American's hold for her long reign will dissipate.

Now, we do receive Prime Minister's Questions on American television, and I can tell you that absolutely nothing Mr. Trump has said as a candidate for President of the United States during his campaign, is anywhere near the disrespect, mindless blather the occurs among MP's during these sessions. You don't know America - the French tried this tactic and American's responded with total dismissal of all things French, from wine; cologne; cheese; automobiles; freedom fries; chocolates; designer clothing, etc. Brought the French economy almost to a standstill when American's stopped buying French goods - all because of the same type of thing your British Parliament is doing now.

We have long memories on our side of the pond, and always get even..............