Petition to 'Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom'.

[DGW]

The petition below to Parliament seeking to prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the UK now has over 1,000,000 signatures and is currently attracting signatures at a rate of over 20 a second!

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928

 

[ColinD]

It's interesting to see it on a map

 

http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=171928

 

Brighton highest % so far.

[ColinD]

The thing is... he is now the head of the US state... we went all brexit to deal with international partners, can't really kick a trader in the nuts and expect something in return.

 

Strikes me as the kind of guy you only have one card/bridge to play, that or Russian roulette in deer hunter... Plus didn't May just invite him on behalf of HRH?

 

 

Edited 30 January, 2017 by ColinD
typo

[DGW]

 

Quote: Downing Street has rejected calls for it to be cancelled as a "populist gesture".  

 

So that's that, then.     Let's wait and see if it passes the mythical attendance figure of 1,500,000 for DT's inauguration.  

[@Lee]

10 minutes ago, DGW said:

 

Quote: Downing Street has rejected calls for it to be cancelled as a "populist gesture".  

 

So that's that, then.     Let's wait and see if it passes the mythical attendance figure of 1,500,000 for DT's inauguration.  

Does Theresa Mayhem not see the irony in the term 'populist gesture'?

[@Lee]

42 minutes ago, ColinD said:

The thing is... he is now the head of the US state... we went all brexit to deal with international partners, can't really kick a trader in the nuts and expect something in return.

 

 

 

 

[tubbytommy]

It's like Brexit. 

Those moaning lost the vote and somehow forget democracy.

Trump won the vote to be president so accept it and you never know he may even do a good job.

Protesting will make no difference 

[brettikivi]

It's quite funny how no-one is praising the Brexit decision. Everyone seems to be talking damage control. I wonder why?

 

And protesting doing nothing? I think it will. Watch.

Politics based on lies is toxic. Especially the lies that lots of people want to believe but aren't necessarily true... 

 

 - Bret

 

 

[tubbytommy]

4 minutes ago, brettikivi said:

It's quite funny how no-one is praising the Brexit decision. Everyone seems to be talking damage control. I wonder why?

 

And protesting doing nothing? I think it will. Watch.

Politics based on lies is toxic. Especially the lies that lots of people want to believe but aren't necessarily true... 

 

 - Bret

 

 

i voted to leave europe and am glad we are, i like the p.m.s no nonsense approach to it too, listening to what THE MAJORITY voted for.

trump is doing exactly what the majority voted him in to do and good luck to him.

its much better than your usual lying politicians backtracking on all the promises made to get them elected.

[brettikivi]

A campaign based on lies is not a good base for a political decision. Whether that's in the US - tarring Mexicans or treating women with contempt - or in the UK, where the campaign promises were rescinded within 24 hours of the result. 

 

Whether it's a good thing or not is a different question. Making a decision based on lies, fudge, and misdirection - £350m per week, "no experts", "yes, we can have market access without free movement" - is unacceptable. Add in froth central - also know as the Mail - attacking the judiciary because they want OUT OUT OUT... this is not reasoned discourse. 

 

Now we have Trump deciding that people who already have visas are persona non grata. Is that really acceptable? I don't think so and we've already seen the courts agree and the customs guys *ignore* the legal verdicts.

 

On trade: you'd prefer to drop all the EU standards and adopt US ones? That's what would happen with a US-UK trade deal..... would "shafted" cover it? Probably not. Think it through: EU environmental standards are higher. So the UK government would be taken to court as that's a "trade barrier". Expect to lose and pay damages. Repeat. TTIP was hated for good reason, and that would probably be the base of a US-UK deal, but worse for the UK, as it's "only" 80m consumers, not 400m. 

 

For the record, I'm of the opinion that Brexit stinks, *especially* for Europeans in the UK and the Brits in Europe. It's not going to help either side in the short term. The comment from PM of Malta the other day - "the deal cannot be better than membership" pretty much sums it up. Why would a company go to the UK if Eastern Europe offers 99% of the positives and a lack of paperwork? Outside the customs union, there's rules of origin paperwork for *everything*...it will increase living costs remarkably and remove most of the competitiveness that's currently there. Why? Because industry hates the concept of paperwork, it increases cost and hassle and eats into profit margins. So they'll simply avoid it if possible.

It will also add a good £10 to most packages from Europe, as VAT won't be charged at source, so you'll get to pick up your package from the post office after having dealt with HMRC. Yay!

The only industry that will stay will be the low-employment, high-profit stuff, like software companies, and most of their creation operations will be outsourced to cheaper countries, and that will be increased, especially if Hammond gets his way.

 

Trump's also going to bring so much social unrest to the US it's not funny. Attacking your own party's senators is not a good start. I'd give it six months before he's impeached for something. 

 

 - Bret

 

 

[@Lee]

@brettikivi, more eloquently put than I could have done at the moment

[cheezemonkhai]

Thing is you can influence people you keep close. QE can actually have a positive effect on certain things.

Kick him away and spurn him and we will be in major negative territory with the US.

[Aspman]

He's the democratically elected leader of a large trading partner and military ally.

 

He's doing things we might all disagree with but he's actually fulfilling his manifesto pledges.

 

And we need to keep the US on side as our major trading partner and military ally during and after brexit.

 

So really we need to hold our noses, smile and invite him in.

[swedishskoda]

Wasn't there another PM some 80 years ago who held his nose and smiled while meeting a democratically elected leader of a large trading partner?

(Godwin Warning)

Edited 30 January, 2017 by swedishskoda

[Anzio]

3 hours ago, ColinD said:

The thing is... he is now the head of the US state... we went all brexit to deal with international partners, can't really kick a trader in the nuts and expect something in return.

 

Strikes me as the kind of guy you only have one card/bridge to play, that or Russian roulette in deer hunter... Plus didn't May just invite him on behalf of HRH?

 

 

Yes indeed, Prime Minister May took an invitation from the Queen for him to visit Britain this year. So I don't think she is thinking of being embarrassed. 

[Tilt]

3 hours ago, brettikivi said:

It's quite funny how no-one is praising the Brexit decision.  

 

Cos we're all too busy earning a living....................but quite happy it is finally happening.

 

IMO we should have never been part of it in the first place. We should have looked after ourselves first, at least.

 

I'm not going to get into a political argument as I think most of politics is bull, and opportunity for them to bleed the system further.

 

Until we get the best person for each political position and let them get on with it, we will continue to take one step forward and one or two steps back, and the richer will continue on their merry way, whilst the poor continue to struggle.

 

I too think we need to welcome Mr Trump to the UK and hope for a trade deal that benefits us both in the future, but also hope that he sees sense on some of the silly stuff he has planned for his own country.

 

 

Edited 30 January, 2017 by Tilt

[fabdavrav]

I think we have given state visits to more odious leaders than Mr. Trump...

 

Just flipping "fake news" twitter/facebook liberal "shout mouths off" "look at me I'm making a statement"........FFS

 

I also wonder how many of these protestors know about the 2016 report into the religious discrimination against Christians in various countries like the middle east, far east etc........No wonder Prince Charles was fuming a couple of days ago!!

 

 

 

[susi]

Um, a democratically elected leader is just that. Whether people like him or not, to disrespect his legitimacy by attempting to block his entry to the UK is an attack on democracy itself.

 

Democracy, and respecting the result, is the only thing that separates us from the crap countries. Some people just don't get that.

[Ootohere]

When does HRH Prince Charles or his Mum ever bother as they are shaking hands and breaking bread with their good buddies from the House of Suad.

 

Its Brand Windsor (GB) & they are all about business and trade and personal wealth.

Madge can show The Donald her Gold & Jewels, talk about who has the most money and the biggest family of hangers on and tax evaders.

Edited 30 January, 2017 by Offski

[philbes]

1 hour ago, Aspman said:

He's the democratically elected leader of a large trading partner and military ally.

 

He's doing things we might all disagree with but he's actually fulfilling his manifesto pledges.

 

And we need to keep the US on side as our major trading partner and military ally during and after brexit.

 

So really we need to hold our noses, smile and invite him in.

Hillary Clinton received more peoples' votes than Trump (2-1/2 million more?).  The American crazy system of the Electoral College let Trump in.  The voters were not voting directly for the President but to make their area's overall wish known to the Electoral College. The Electoral College was supposed to be a safe guard against 'crazy' voting by the citizens, yet it has never altered the result from even a single area - so what is the point of the Electoral College?  However, the way that all the votes in an area are given to the victor in that area can (and has) changed the will of the people on more than one occasion - Trump being the latest.  So  an area that was 51% Trump got one Electoral College vote and an area that was 98% Clinton also only got one Electoral College vote.

 

If the Brexit vote had been done by constituency, rather than the total of the votes of individuals, would the result have been the same?  Would it have been considered fair?

 

[Wet Kipper]

34 minutes ago, susi said:

Um, a democratically elected leader is just that. Whether people like him or not, to disrespect his legitimacy by attempting to block his entry to the UK is an attack on democracy itself.

 

The petition is not to block his entry - it is to deny him all the pomp and ceremony, saluting soldiers, red carpets, streets filled with flag waving locals / cheering children, special VIP treatment, big respect etc.  that is performed on a "State Visit". 

 

Someone I know suggested that he should still come, and that people should still line the streets but then silently turn their backs on him, not giving him the attention and adulation he craves.

[Ootohere]

Their country, their system and if people do not like it just do not go there. 

Maybe you will not get to anyway.

 

If he decides that he wants to come and not for a State Visit he has someplace rather nicer than Buck house to lay down his head.

Edited 30 January, 2017 by Offski

[susi]

29 minutes ago, Wet Kipper said:

 

The petition is not to block his entry - it is to deny him all the pomp and ceremony, saluting soldiers, red carpets, streets filled with flag waving locals / cheering children, special VIP treatment, big respect etc.  that is performed on a "State Visit". 

 

 

 

Thanks Wet Kipper for the clarification. I'll make my post again:

 

Um, a democratically elected leader is just that. Whether people like him or not, to disrespect his legitimacy by attempting to limit those courtesies normally afforded a foreign head of state is an attack on democracy itself.

 

Democracy, and respecting the result, is the only thing that separates us from the crap countries. Some people just don't get that.

 

[camelspyyder]

1 hour ago, philbes said:

Hillary Clinton received more peoples' votes than Trump (2-1/2 million more?).  The American crazy system of the Electoral College let Trump in.  The voters were not voting directly for the President but to make their area's overall wish known to the Electoral College. The Electoral College was supposed to be a safe guard against 'crazy' voting by the citizens, yet it has never altered the result from even a single area - so what is the point of the Electoral College?  However, the way that all the votes in an area are given to the victor in that area can (and has) changed the will of the people on more than one occasion - Trump being the latest.  So  an area that was 51% Trump got one Electoral College vote and an area that was 98% Clinton also only got one Electoral College vote.

 

If the Brexit vote had been done by constituency, rather than the total of the votes of individuals, would the result have been the same?  Would it have been considered fair?

 

 

So the winner in the USA didn't get a majority of the vote.

 

So what?

 

Did the current Government in the UK get a majority of the peoples vote?

 

Did the Leave campaign get a majority of the peoples votes?

 

Only one majority, but three sets of rules for a democratic choice.

 

The major similarity in the US and UK is the shocking bad-loser behaviour post-vote of those whose choice didn't win.

[@Lee]

Robert Peston;

 

Quote

A few tidbits about the row over Trump's selective ban on who can enter the US, and the related furore over the Queen's invitation to the US president to come to the UK on a state visit in June or July.

1) The PM cannot duck responsibility for the state-visit invitation. I am told by one of her closest colleagues that the final decision to issue the invitation was made when she arrived in Washington at the end of last week. And another very well placed source told me: "I can tell you categorically that state visits are signed off by the PM...Absolutely no doubt that this was her and her team's idea".

2) The foreign secretary Boris Johnson has just said in the Commons that the UK now has a special carve out from the ban for British citizens who also hold passports for the seven affected countries (Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iraq) - as does Canada. And I am told that New Zealand and Australia can expect exemptions too, as the other members (with the US) of the "Five Eyes" intelligence co-operation network. That Trump's America seems to be favouring what used to be called the "White Commonwealth" will do little to allay concerns that Trump is doing his best to alienate as many Muslims as he possibly can.

3) No one even tries to suggest that the state visit was the Queen's idea. In fact a number of Tory MPs tell me they are concerned the Queen will be feeling deeply uncomfortable about the manifest unhappiness felt by many Britons about the plan to fete Donald Trump with all the pomp and circumstance our state can muster. It is not the happiest of starts to the relationship between May and HM, as one said to me - but then the relationship between the Queen and Margaret Thatcher was at times bumpy (although Theresa May has made it clear she has no desire to be Thatcher reborn, even if Trump wishes to style the two of them as a new "Ronnie and Maggie").