UK Holds Hearing to Ban Trump

[Formerly Once-Ler]

https://ricochet.com/uk-holds-hearing-to-ban-trump/

Leading Republican Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump has not only become somewhat a phenomenon here in the US during the 2016 election, but across the pond he has stirred over a half a million people to sign an online petition banning him from their country.

On Monday, Members of Parliament held a hearing on whether to block the former reality TV star from entering the United Kingdom.

A variety of reasons for the ban were given, including the claims that Trump “mocked in a cruel way a man for his disability, that he lumped the people of Mexico in together labeling them rapists and drug users, that he’s made some degrading remarks about women, and the latest that Muslims not be allowed in the US.”

Paul Flynn of the Labour Party told members that the Trump petition had been signed by more people than any other petition in Parliament’s history: 573,971 total.

A competing petition named Don’t Ban Donald Trump from UK was reportedly signed by 42,898 people. However, Flynn clarified that 30,000 signatures were removed for being “suspect because they were coming from one source.”

Noted here are some of the better moments of the debate. Words used to describe Trump included “ridiculous,” “poisonous,” “corrosive,” “buffoon,” “dangerous fool,” and “wazzock.” (Yeah, I had to Google it too.)

Three hours later members held no vote and Trump was not banned.

I guess the English don't have any problems at home they need to deal with.

[EC]

It wasn't a hearing. We don't do those.

It was, as is every other petition to the Crown that reaches 100,000 signatures (OR 2/3 of the residents of a ward in the case of a local based issue), part of the daily business before the House of Commons. Petitions to the Crown take priority over any other business except during war time, as they have since roughly 1200.

The content of the petition was, of course, stupid. There is no law against stupidity, but there are laws on the correct handling of petitions. It was dealt with correctly.

[truth_seeker]

It wasn't a hearing. We don't do those.

It was, as is every other petition to the Crown that reaches 100,000 signatures (OR 2/3 of the residents of a ward in the case of a local based issue), part of the daily business before the House of Commons. Petitions to the Crown take priority over any other business except during war time, as they have since roughly 1200.

The content of the petition was, of course, stupid. There is no law against stupidity, but there are laws on the correct handling of petitions. It was dealt with correctly.

Thanks for the explanation. If we had your system we could presumably dump bad ones like Obama sooner than 8 years.

And we could probably run plenty of items up to our legislature with 100,000 signatures as well.

We do in fact use "iniatives,"  via petitions, in California, from time to time doing what the legislatures will not.

[EC]

I doubt a petition would be enough to dump the Prime Minister. 

Though we do have two tools for that - a vote of no confidence, which may be initiated by any 15 MP's who are of the same party as the PM (how Margaret Thatcher was removed) OR 3/4 of the House of Commons on a procedural vote (that one has happened once, back in Victoria's early years).
The other way is removal of the Royal Assent, but the PM has to screw up in a treasonous manner for that to happen and the entirety of Parliament is dissolved in that case. Given the monarchy's distinctly hands off tradition since the mid 1700's, this method will probably never be used again.

I do like the ballot initiatives you have in California. Neat idea. How well do they work in practice? I mean, people can be dumb (as shown by the subject of this thread!)

[Formerly Once-Ler]

It wasn't a hearing. We don't do those.

It was, as is every other petition to the Crown that reaches 100,000 signatures (OR 2/3 of the residents of a ward in the case of a local based issue), part of the daily business before the House of Commons. Petitions to the Crown take priority over any other business except during war time, as they have since roughly 1200.

The content of the petition was, of course, stupid. There is no law against stupidity, but there are laws on the correct handling of petitions. It was dealt with correctly.

Thanx for explaining that EC.  I knew there must be more to the story, because no matter how silly the idea of having a Queen might be to us as Americans, we must stand together as a gracious, and considerate leader of the free world, no matter how backward and odd the people and the cultures are in other countries.   

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I do like the ballot initiatives you have in California. Neat idea. How well do they work in practice? I mean, people can be dumb (as shown by the subject of this thread!)

Most of the ballot initiatives seem to get thrown out by the courts, even if they make sense to a majority of voters.

[EC]

Don't tell anyone, but we're quietly proud of our kid brother. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Don't tell anyone, but we're quietly proud of our kid brother. 

A "brilliant" response, my friend.  In 11 short words you have crafted a reply that tells me you have been reading my recent posts and you have a tremendous sense of humor.  I am "gobsmacked."  You English have a remarkable wit and style with the American language.

This election has made me wonder if we couldn't find some way for England to annex us to the empire once again.

 

[EC]

 

Though on the annexing thing - we wouldn't even if asked.

We did our bit for 300 years. That's long enough to run most of the world. Reasonably successfully too, looking at the countries that use our law as their base even now.
But, Victoria was right to shut down the Empire. We're a patiently lethal people, on the whole, but we don't much like change and the world was changing faster than we could or were willing to.

Probably for the best to hand it on, eh? New blood and all that.