Apparently, it doesn't exist there. Look, I think he's a crank, too. But he has a right to be a crank. And that's really OUR decision, isn't it? I thought that issue was settled already---in 1781.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35345279

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-35337170

Relax, it's all bollocks. We have this thing where if a certain number of people sign an online petition on a particular subject on the Number Ten website it can trigger a 'debate' in Parliament on that subject. A lame PR exercise in effect since it's totally non-binding and never results in any legislative action. You'll note that:

Monday's debate, which took place in a packed Westminster Hall committee room, ended without a vote.

In my view it was monumentally stupid to even allow it to get this far. They could quite easily have come up with an excuse to ignore this petition no matter how many people signed it, and they really should have done. What if he wins ? Yes, it's unlikely, but we're hardly going to ban the President of the United States from entering the country are we ? The whole thing was utterly absurd. Obviously whichever fool allowed this to go ahead thinks that Trump has no chance, and I daresay he's right, but it was still very foolish.

But yeah, setting aside the epic stupidity of holding the debate in the first place, the practical reality of the matter is that it was meaningless.

For being "meaningless" the BBC is making a big deal about it.

A lame PR exercise in effect since it's totally non-binding and never results in any legislative action.

Sounds to like "dysfunction" to me!

(OK, that's a joke, I just couldn't resist. Pity we weren't talking about Canada.)

sass

But yeah, setting aside the epic stupidity of holding the debate in the first place, the practical reality of the matter is that it was meaningless

I think it was a way to influence the American elections.
Perhaps some voters might be appalled at how a potential President is viewed by many in the UK>?
Its also an ironic way of demonstrating the stupidity of Trumps ban on all Muslims entering the US.
That ban, if applied broadly, could include the Kurdish government, the royal family of the KSA, the King of Jordan, the second largest shareholder in Fox, members of the board of Google, Microsoft and Apple ...and more....
and if not applied broadly would become a nightmare to administer. And the subject of mountains of litigation.

For being "meaningless" the BBC is making a big deal about it.

The Beeb is full of right-on metropolitan liberals who think Donald Trump is utterly horrifying. But in fact that goes for most people in this case. He's getting a lot of news coverage over here as well as over there because he's making himself so controversial. It says a lot more about Trump's ability to dominate the airwaves through his controversy than it does about the importance of what just happened in Parliament.

With that said, it is important in a way, because it demonstrates that the government have taken leave of their senses. I'm not sure who the current Leader of the House is (a government minister responsible for scheduling of Parliamentary business), but whoever it is ought to be sacked for allowing this to go ahead. In theory he/she would have had no choice once the threshold of signatures had been reached, but in practice there's always a way to get round these things and one ought to have been found. It's utterly inconceivable that something like this would have happened for any of the other candidates, let alone one who's currently leading the polls with less than a year to go till the election. It's never going to be in the national interest to make an enemy of the President of the USA and this should have been made perfectly clear by ignoring this pointless petition and getting on with real business. Cameron and his team have taken their eye off the ball here and I'm sure they're regretting it already. Chances are no harm will be done, but you never know.

Sassenach wrote:

For being "meaningless" the BBC is making a big deal about it.

The Beeb is full of right-on metropolitan liberals who think Donald Trump is utterly horrifying. But in fact that goes for most people in this case. He's getting a lot of news coverage over here as well as over there because he's making himself so controversial. It says a lot more about Trump's ability to dominate the airwaves through his controversy than it does about the importance of what just happened in Parliament.

With that said, it is important in a way, because it demonstrates that the government have taken leave of their senses. I'm not sure who the current Leader of the House is (a government minister responsible for scheduling of Parliamentary business), but whoever it is ought to be sacked for allowing this to go ahead. In theory he/she would have had no choice once the threshold of signatures had been reached, but in practice there's always a way to get round these things and one ought to have been found. It's utterly inconceivable that something like this would have happened for any of the other candidates, let alone one who's currently leading the polls with less than a year to go till the election. It's never going to be in the national interest to make an enemy of the President of the USA and this should have been made perfectly clear by ignoring this pointless petition and getting on with real business. Cameron and his team have taken their eye off the ball here and I'm sure they're regretting it already. Chances are no harm will be done, but you never know.

Bingo.

sass

It's utterly inconceivable that something like this would have happened for any of the other candidates, let alone one who's currently leading the polls with less than a year to go till the election.

I think you have to admit that Trump leading in the Republican polls (In Florida and Georgia too), was inconceivable only 6 months ago. And that the reaction to him is propelled by what would have been inconceivable rhetoric from a leading candidate only 6 months ago. He is the inconceivable candidate. (Carson and Cruz too really)
Go back and read the first few pages of the topic "Why is Hillary the Only Candidate". Trump has turned this election on its head.
Perhaps Sanders as well.
The petition system is a way of making Parliament a little more responsive to the public. The debate happened, the steam is blown off, and the system was respected... Its not a big deal. The media in both countries is over playing its import. I don't think it will either help or hurt Trumps chances.
In the latest head to head by the WSJ he's 10 points behind Clinton and 15 behind Sanders.
And those holding intense negatives about him are at 47%... They've already decided they can't possibly vote for him.
The ramifications for the UK are nil.

Ricky:

I think it was a way to influence the American elections.
Perhaps some voters might be appalled at how a potential President is viewed by many in the UK>?

You are clearly not at the Zeitgeist of the Trump movement. I would think the average Trump supporter will be more inclined to vote for Trump knowing that a European government -- and they believe that the UK is part of Europe -- is against him.

Ricky, I know full well how improbable it still is that Donald Trump will end up becoming President. It's still too big of a risk to antagonise the guy though. There's essentially no upside to that and a huge potential downside in the event that he becomes the official Republican candidate.

Keeping your nose out of other nations' elections is rule number one of diplomacy. It's just simple common sense for us to stay silent about what's happening in the primaries this year, because at some point we're going to have to deal with one of the candidates as junior partner in our most important alliance bar none. If Trump somehow gets the nomination then at worst he's going to have a 30-40% chance of becoming President. Yes, I don't really think it's possible for him to go on and win it, but some pretty strange things have happened in elections lately. You can't rule it out completely, and because of that it was incredibly stupid of these egotistical Parliamentarians to stick their nose in for the sake of a cheap headline. Not to mention rather rude.

rayjay

You are clearly not at the Zeitgeist of the Trump movement. I would think the average Trump supporter will be more inclined to vote for Trump knowing that a European government -- and they believe that the UK is part of Europe -- is against him.

Oh, I think of those currently committed to him in the Republican primary I think you are right. They are committed to him as the authoritarian that he is...and this will only cement their loyalty.
But that only is about maybe 50% of the 30% of American voters who are republican registered...
I'm thinking beyond that to the general election. And it may influence some who are currently neutral about him. (According to the WSJ poll thats only maybe 30% since 49% are heavily negative on him.)

sass

Ricky, I know full well how improbable it still is that Donald Trump will end up becoming President. It's still too big of a risk to antagonise the guy though. There's essentially no upside to that and a huge potential downside in the event that he becomes the official Republican candidate.

Isn't the upside influencing the election against him? And frankly isn't haven't a capable American President of interest to the UK?

I doubt Trump cares or notices. (Its just more attention, and that's his primary craving.) But if he did it and it got a reaction I think it might be interesting. He after all is proposing a ban on all Muslims travelling into the US, and the US election is in part a debate on this proposal.
Perhaps the actual practicalities of such a ban, and such a debate, become a little clearer when juxtaposed with the reactions it provokes - even from an ally...
As long as parliament only debates it and then moves on ... I don't see the harm. Your going to piss off Trump anyway, at some point no matter how hard you try to avoid it. Its just how he is...
I agree that to actually act would be folly.

Isn't the upside influencing the election against him? And frankly isn't haven't a capable American President of interest to the UK?

You assume that this was the intention. It's very unlikely that this was the case I'm afraid. More likely some bright spark decided that it would be a good PR opportunity. Let's look like we're responding to public concern without there being any necessity to act. I daresay they were worried that blocking it would make it look like the government was aligning with Donald Trump in some way. If Cameron hadn't have been too tied up with preparing for the referendum I'm sure he'd have had the presence of mind to realise this was a bad idea and vetoed it.

In the grand scheme of things this is obviously not a big deal of course. It was essentially a waste of time that won't be likely to change anything. I do happen to think that it was monumentally stupid but the government do monumentally stupid things all the time so we probably shouldn't be surprised.

I think it was a way to influence the American elections.

And how do you think this will actually affect our election? CNN was briefly amused, now they've moved onto something else.

Keeping your nose out of other nations' elections is rule number one of diplomacy. It's just simple common sense for us to stay silent about what's happening in the primaries this year, because at some point we're going to have to deal with one of the candidates as junior partner in our most important alliance bar none. If Trump somehow gets the nomination then at worst he's going to have a 30-40% chance of becoming President. Yes, I don't really think it's possible for him to go on and win it, but some pretty strange things have happened in elections lately. You can't rule it out completely, and because of that it was incredibly stupid of these egotistical Parliamentarians to stick their nose in for the sake of a cheap headline. Not to mention rather rude.

Spot on, mate.

hacker

And how do you think this will actually affect our election?

Not at all.
I said it was an attempt to influence the election.
I'm pretty sure the headline in the New York Daily News today will have significantly more impact on any who are undecided about Trump...

sassenach

Keeping your nose out of other nations' elections is rule number one of diplomacy.

Hacker

Spot on, mate

Its not like the UK government tried to get involved. They responded to a policy regarding a populist outlet and allowed a debate in the House. Its not like anyone is really listening to a House debate across the pond.
Now, when the president of Israel showed up in the US Congress and made a speech just before an election... that would sticking ones nose in...
Though to be fair, its almost always just before an election of some kind in the US. So scheduling would always be tough.
And its not like the US hasn't stuck its nose into Israelis politics.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tions.html

rickyp wrote:I'm pretty sure the headline in the New York Daily News today will have significantly more impact on any who are undecided about Trump...

In case you missed it:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nydn-front-pages-2016-gallery-1.2482879