Tuesday, 7 February 2017

Speaker Bercow insults President Trump for no reason

SHARE
Speaker Bercow has made this extraordinary speech on his reasons for not letting Donald Trump address the two Houses of Parliament, something there is no reason to suppose that the British Government ever contemplated. 

The Speaker says the American suspension of visas to nationals of seven countries settled the issue, said Mr Trump was a racist and therefore not eligible to speak to Parliament.

The Speaker  would certainly have been correct had the decision been about Trump speaking in Westminster Hall, except there was no decision to make. Mr. Trump is not

racist, but he is far too new and far, far too controversial to speak in Westminster Hall. 

The Royal Gallery is a different matter and not in the Speaker's gift, though he says he has a say in what happens there too. But no one has suggested that Mr Trump should speak there either.

Speaker Bercow was not correct in making a political speech - that is not how Speakers should speak. He was deliberately making trouble in a most unconstitutional way. 

The idea that he put forward that he can make controversial statements about foreign leaders but not about domestic politics is laughable, of course. By attacking a foreign statesman he is attacking people in Britain who like or back him.

He is typical of his and my generation - a narcissist. He likes to trample on tradition for the sake of self-expression and exhibitionism.

Note that he told MPs:

“We value our relationship with the United States. 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 hugely important considerations in the House of Commons."
He placed the strong emphasis on the words 'I feel'. Feelings and being true to himself took precedence for him over Britain's relationship with a foreign power. These feelings were a justification for his 'decision' (merely grandstanding) that he felt that all should accept.

This is, I suppose, part of the Diana-ification of public life.

By the way, this very anti-racist Speaker who bangs on about racism and sexism a lot was once a Powellite, with very strongly anti-immigration views, before he met his left-wing wife.


Before this frankly dreadful Speaker, every Speaker for about 150 years was completely politically impartial and never said anything that wasn't completely boring. 


Regardless of what you think of Trump, the Speaker should stay schtum instead of criticising the US President or any other politician, except MPs who break the rules of the House.

John Bercow came to Bucharest and made comments about how Romanian workers worked harder than British ones that I transmitted to the British press.

He has a wife, which Speakers usually don't, a very embarrassing one who libelled poor Lord MacAlpine. When asked by a magazine what her favourite household appliance was she said 'my vibrator'.


I used to walk through Westminster Hall and the Royal Gallery and the House of Lords every day in my first job. O happy days when most peers were hereditary.

I remember as if it were a minute ago that, although Margaret Thatcher wanted him to, Ronald Reagan was not allowed to speak in Westminster Hall either. 

The Royal Gallery, where Trump may speak, as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did, is very much nicer (Pugin decorated it gorgeously) but 19th not 11th century.

I have no idea why we sucked up to Obama and invited him to speak in Westminster Hall. It's pretty clear that he has no love for England and told us we would be at the back of the queue  for a trade deal if we voted to leave the EU.

But of course I have a good idea - Obama is the exactly the sort of feminised, globalised symbol of the new dispensation whom left-wingers and liberals love. 




19 comments:

  1. So Obama has nothing but contempt for the little island and they gush and fawn over him like school girls. And Trump an actual Man and President who shows them some respect and they squander it by some little baby. The only Prime Minister they ever had was Winston. The rest were just ministers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only Prime Minister they ever had was Winston

      No prime minister in history did more harm to Britain than Churchill.

      Delete
    2. If you mean you blame Churchill for Britain going to war with Hitler you should blame Chamberlain for that. Just saying. Churchill had nothing to do with it.

      Delete
    3. The anonymous comment about Obama is true, obviously.

      Delete
    4. Totally disagree. 90% of the blame goes to Churchill.

      1.He was the ring leader of the gang that was constantly berating and pressuring the government to declare war in the first place (using fabricated evidence to claim that Hitler intended to attack Britain.)

      2. He is to blame for keeping Britain in a war which they had already lost turning it into a full blown world war. The pretext for war was to defend Poland’s territorial integrity. In this Britain were defeated. Rather than accepting Hitler’s peace offers which would have made no demands on Britain whatsoever, Churchill kept the country at war because he was obsessed with attaining battlefield glory and to cancel out his failed political career.

      3. To get the British people on side with his unpopular war he ordered the bombing German civilians with the stated intention of provoking the Germans to do the same to British civilians, the most psychopathic act of treachery in British history.

      Churchill said: “My one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”

      These are not the words of a far sighted leader who was giving any thought to Britain’s long term interests. Nor was he fighting to preserve the “balance of power” as his apologists often claim since the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 41 would have been the perfect opportunity to disengage and let the two powers fight to the death something that would have left the victor exhausted.

      https://mises.org/library/rethinking-churchill

      Delete
    5. If you mean you blame Churchill for Britain going to war with Hitler you should blame Chamberlain for that. Just saying. Churchill had nothing to do with it.

      No, I blame Churchill for doing so much to drag Britain into the First World War.

      Delete
    6. I don't think he was much to blame for 1914 was he?


      I am reading now John Charmley's excellent "Churchill: the End of Glory". Halifax decided after the Germans marched into Prague that war was probably inevitable and that we should go to war for moral reasons. Chamberlain agreed to give guarantees to Poland and (very oddly) Romania expecting that Hitler would not cross those red lines. When war began Chamberlain expected the blockade to make Germany capitulate. Churchill was influential though less so than Eden but there was a big public feeling in 1938 for standing up to Hitler. Had Halifax and Chamberlain chosen they could have defy this opinion and sought to change it but remember a general election was expected in the autumn of 1939.

      Delete
    7. The problem was that Chamberlain was a weak man, not for supporting appeasement but because he didn’t stick with it. He initially accepted the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia on the basis that the Czech state had collapsed and so the guarantee to Czechoslavakia was invalidated. The occupation was also done with the consent of Emil Hacha in order to prevent a very imminent communist takeover. However to the ignorant and ill-informed it looked like naked expansionism and so it was a great propaganda victory for the warmongers.

      Delete
    8. He was certainly not a weak man but a very tough one, but he had a general election to fight and win and he thought guaranteeing Poland would save Poland from Hitler.

      Chamberalin knew in 1938 as everyone did that the Czechs ruled the Sudeten Germans badly, that Czechoslovakia could not be preserved and that it was not in British interests to seek to do so.

      Delete
    9. I don't think he was much to blame for 1914 was he?

      Churchill certainly was very much to blame. His was the strongest voice in Cabinet in favour of war and he played a major role in swaying the Cabinet. As First Lord of the Admiralty he also took it upon himself to make provocative naval moves just to make sure that war was inevitable. Churchill was a very nasty piece of work - a selfish self-centred warmonger with no morals whatsoever.

      The Conservative Party never trusted him, even after he jumped ship from the Liberals. In fact he was the least trusted man in British politics. When your fellow politicians consider you to be unusually treacherous it says rather a lot.

      Churchill had an uncanny ability to be always wrong. When he should have mistrusted Stalin during the war he trusted him. After the war, when peaceful co-existence with the Soviets was the only sane policy, he suddenly started banging the Cold War drum. He played a large role in starting the Cold War, a tragic mistake from Britain's point of view as it left Britain with only one foreign policy option - complete subservience to the US.

      He trusted Roosevelt, an extraordinarily silly thing to do.

      When you analyse his actions you discover the secret - he always did what was best for Winston Churchill's career.

      Delete
    10. He was certainly not a weak man but a very tough one, but he had a general election to fight and win

      That's the problem with democracy. Politicians will always care more about winning elections than about the fate of the country.

      Delete
    11. I am reading now John Charmley's excellent "Churchill: the End of Glory".

      It's a great book. If it has a minor weakness it's the fact that even Charmley can't help falling under Churchill's spell.

      His Churchill’s Grand Alliance is even more intriguing, particularly on the subject of Anthony Eden for whom Charmley has considerable admiration. Charmley's account of the early stages of the Cold War is exceptionally interesting.

      Delete
  2. https://order-order.com/2017/02/06/bercow-welcomed-emir-of-kuwait-despite-travel-ban-and-dire-human-rights-record/

    The poisonous dwarf welcomed the emir of Kuwait and the President of China.

    Which goes to show that the objection to Trump's migrant ban has nothing to do with supporting "human rights" and everything to do with destroying whites.

    To Britain's anti-white MPs any measures that might slow the minoritisation and dispossession of Whites in another majority white country is an intolerable evil, worse than hanging and flogging gays in the middle east.

    The war on whites is the very top of the leftist hierarchy of values. Nothing else really matters to the left. Whether its feminism, gay rights, environmentalism, workers' rights, there is no part of what could be called traditional progressivism that modern liberals are not willing to abandon if it means dispossessing whites.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear me, what foul creatures crawl out of their midden to vituperate on your blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is you counter-argument Mr. Libtard?

      Delete
    2. Why not give at least a false name?

      Delete
  4. You meet all sorts in comments on blogs - I draw the line at some things. He has a very good point, though, about the repellent Bercow having no issue with the Emir of Kuwait and the President of China.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for introducing me to the word 'midden' which is new to me.
    I just got into trouble with Romanians for using the word Maidan to describe the protests in Bucharest - it has a derogatory meaning in Romanian apparently but I don't think it is germane to midden.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Mr. Trump is not racist." Of course. His executive order banning nationals of seven countries to enter the US is not a form of discrimination based on race, but discrimination based on religion.

    Although, one may wonder why Trump has not included other Muslim countries in his list, specifically Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia etc. Question: how do you call discrimination based on business interests being present?

    (By the way, none of the seven countries on Trump's list has ever been the source of terrorism in America. Among the 9/11 hijackers, fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was Egyptian. Literally not a single one of the countries which show up repeatedly in terror attacks — especially Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt — aren’t on the list. So how do you call discrimination based on stupidity?)

    ReplyDelete