Donald Trump Debate Westminster Hall

Donald Trump 's Mac state visit to the USA. You can follow the comments

on our website, and we will return to the main chamber at half past

seven. This is a very oversubscribed

debate. If everybody sticks to five minutes and does not take many

interventions, everybody should get in. Can I remind people in the

public gallery this is the chamber of the House of Commons. By all

means listen and observe but if I have any offstage noise I will

suspend the sitting and clear the public gallery. I call Mr Paul

Flynn. It is a pleasure to serve under your company is a very

distinguished parliamentarian. I beg to move that addition 178844, and

117928 are considered by this house. Could I think the petitions

committee for allowing me to introduce these petitions. There's

been a great deal of misunderstanding about their nature.

There is one that is signed by nearly 300 people which says that

Donald Trump should be invited to make a state visit because he is the

leader of the free world and the UK is a country that supports free

speech and does not believe that people who are poised to a point of

view should be kept. That petition gained 300,000 votes. The one that

gained a remarkable total of 1,850,000 votes in a few days reads

this, and it has been much misunderstood. Donald Trump should

be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the United

States government, but he should not be invited to make an official state

visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the

Queen. This is a fascinating prospect. One is in the first

petition suggests in some way cancelling the visit, the state

visit would deprive President Trump of his ability to speak freely when

we've had from him in recent days is ceaseless incontinence of free

speech, and the man is everywhere 24 hours a day, seven days of the week.

But the other petition is saying not that he shouldn't come here, he

should come here on business or other matters, but he shouldn't be

accorded the rare privilege of a state visit. Only two Presidents of

the to have been granted a state visit since 1952. It's extraordinary

that that's the situation but here we have a position where seven days

into his presidency he is invited to have the full panoply of a state

visit, extraordinary. Completely unprecedented. And we can dwell on

the reasons for that. But the reasons are nothing to do with the

fact that we all in this room hold in great respect the United States

presidency, their constitution, their history of presidents which is

part of our history, and we know how close that our cultures have melted

together in the arts, entertainment, in our film and cinema. We are

merging into almost one nation. But we have a direct interest in the

presidency of the United States because he is also the lead of the

free world. The question of the seven-day invitation, would my

honourable friend interpreted desperation as the reason? If my

honourable friend is able to see desperation for a trade deal, does

he think that President Trump might be able to detect it as well? The

word comes to mind. We think of the circumstances of our beleaguered

Prime Minister in that she's with this great predicament of being the

Bridge burner, destroying the bridges to us and Europe, and

knowing the possibility, we are told there are Brexit bumps in the road

ahead, but it might turn out to be a Brexit sinkhole into which our

economy might plunge in freefall, she had difficulty, can the Bridge

Burnaby the Bridge builder? And because she made an attempt to

present herself as someone who would act as the link between the

Presidency and Europe, and quite rightly the president of Lithuania

pointed out we don't need a link because we are in constant contact

with him through his incessant tweets. Whilst some of President

Trump Wess views on women, on race and religion are very distasteful

indeed, does the honourable gentleman agree with me that the

special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States

of America goes peon and any individual that might happen to

occupy the White House at any particular time? Agree entirely. And

I know in my own life my father's life was ruined by the First World

War, the Second World War I can remember as a child in school seeing

the empty desks when children had been killed. We were grateful and we

remain grateful for the United States at that time, and I think

Europe is right to remember that and recall our gratitude. There is no

country in the whole of the world that sacrificed the blood of its

daughters and sons for the democracies of other countries than

the United States. And there is no question of any disrespect towards

that country. But there is a great feeling of concern which welled up

in this petition. The day after the inauguration 2 million mostly women

marched on the streets of America. 100,000 marched here in this

country. And it was an expression of fear and anxiety that we had someone

in the White House wielding this enormous power, the power was

enormous but unfortunately the intellectual capacity of the

president is protozoan. We are greatly concerned about the actions

that he has taken. Extraordinary actions, blundering into frozen

conflicts around the planet that needed delicate handling, that

needed the microsurgery of decisions taken in the past by statesman. But

he went in and he's caused problems in every particular area in which he

has become involved in. The China Sea, in Ukraine and in Israel and

Palestine. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Does he agree

that to use the expression "Grab em by the pussy" describes a sexual

assault and therefore he should not be given a visit with our Queen.

Entirely. His manner and behaviour through the election period were

greatly worrying. It was his extraordinary reaction to his own

inauguration that was partly provoking the demonstrations that

took place. He said he was going to object to the election on the

grounds of fraud when he thought he was going to lose. But it's

extraordinary for someone to complain when they actually win. But

he complained about everything. He complained that the rain didn't fall

and we all saw it fall, about the numbers who were in the crowd being

less. He complained and light about the result that he had. And this was

of great concern, when you have a petulant child. How is he going to

behave in a future conflict? I think the honourable gentleman for giving

way. His response to Mr Trump's ill considered phraseology, but what

complaint did the honourable gentleman make when Emperor Hirohito

came? There have been many people here who were less welcome than

others, that is absolutely true. We've had people here who are very

unsavoury characters, and not from the United States. But certainly we

can't try to imitate the errors of the past, we should set an example

by making sure that we don't make those mistakes again. My concern is

what we've got here is a situation that is one that is of great

concern. Because the Prime Minister is in an awkward position, I believe

that from the seventh day of his presidency things have got far worse

by the 31st day of his presidency. We have seen General Michael Flynn

forced out of office because he couldn't tell the truth about

relations with Russia. And he could have been a victim of blackmail.

That is a very worrying situation when we know during the election

campaign that there were allegations made and there was an appeal made by

the presidential candidate Trump to encourage people to hack the

accounts of Hillary Clinton. There may well be a case coming up which

will show that the position of the president is one that is going to be

difficult to sustain if he himself is open to blackmail. We also know

of the confrontation that took place between President Obama during the

election campaign warning that this was a likely outcome. I'm grateful

to him for giving way. A higher percentage of constituents from

Brighton signed the petition and I am proud to represent them today.

Many of them have raised not only Trump misogyny and racism and his

contempt for climate science. With the honourable gentleman say that a

state visit for somebody who has shown such effrontery to science is

another reason he should not be coming here. It is extraordinary

that from the cavernous depths of his scientific ignorance is prepared

to challenge the conclusions of 97% of the world experts on this manner.

It is a bad science conspiracy theory conclusions that he makes on

what is, apart from the nuclear issue, probably the most important

issue of our time. But it is on the nuclear issue where he is again

almost unique in that he believes in nuclear proliferation and he is

trying to persuade countries like South Korea and Japan to acquire

their own nuclear weapons. We know that the danger of nuclear war is

not because of the malice of Nations but the likelihood is that it will

come by accident, by human error, by technical failure, like the one that

happened when one of our missiles headed in the wrong direction

towards the United States in a recent test. And the more nations

that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that that problem will

emerge and we could be plunged into nuclear war. If we look at the

question which the petitioners put them in point, the situation as far

as Her Majesty is concerned, and a former permanent secretary of the

Commonwealth office, Lord Ricketts, reacted to the invitation by arguing

that there was no precedent for a US president to visit in his first year

of office, quite right. And he said it would have been far wiser to see

what sort of president he would turn out to be before advising the Queen

to invite him. Now the Queen is put in a very difficult position. And I

believe for that reason alone that we should consider this, the

government should consider this with a bit of humility to decide what

action should take place and change the invitation to a visit, not a

state visit. I know what a great fan of the monarchy he is, and indeed he

probably has a weekly chats with her. What did she actually say to

the honourable member to lead him to believe that she found it difficult?

We are not trading on it into this debate, all right, colleagues? Mr

Flynn. I am well aware of the standing orders on this matter, I

speak as someone with enormous regard for the Queen. She is my

inspiration, she is my example. She is working at an age that is 80 is

beyond my age. I am certainly not going to be so wimpish as to stand

down while she continues with her heroic work at her age. Our main

concern, we are in this position now of surrealism over an Orwellian

world that is unfolding before us where the theme that has been put

forward by Trump is that lies are the truth, that good is bad, that

war is peace, that fantasy is fact. And we see this with the figure of

the Trump Big Brother, there, ever present, seven days a week, 24

hours, preaching from this one source of news, the only voice of

truth. I think the honourable gentleman for giving way. Would he

not agree with me that there is something, even though this ban is

completely absurd, there is something quite professional about a

politician doing what they said they would do before they were elected.

And whilst this ban is quite ridiculous it is actually a reaction

to the chaos caused in the Middle East by previous generations of

politicians which in my view is far worse than anything that Trump has

done and which many of the people in this room voted for. Where is the

will of the American people, where is your respect for that? The will

of the American people has changed rapidly within the last seven days.

We'll get the facts. The position today is that Trump's standing is

-18, that's precisely the level of support that was held by Richard

Nixon on the day that he resigned his presidency. He is on a rock

bottom. He is the least popular American president in this country

ever. And he is down on a level of approval and quite rightly so.

collecting what we are doing and what is meeting here today is doing

is taking notice of what the public says, and we are not going to be in

a position where we ignore public opinion, or is insensitive to

democratic decisions. That is why many of us with heavy hearts voted

for Article 50 last week. We can't allow that Gulf to appear as

happened in America between politicians and what is seen as

public opinion. If we don't ignore what is being said in these

petitions, and take action from them, they will greet us with the

same cynicism, and they will see us as distant, and look for people to

be elected who are non-politicians. That is a great overarching topic on

Brexit and on this is you. That we must maintain respect for

politicians, and we mustn't see an increase in the divisions, the lack

of trust that has been happening in this country in these expenses

scandal, our reputation in this house was at rock bottom. Now it is

subterranean and we have to work to change it. Andrew Walmsley, a very

distinct journalist, has something to say about the position. He said

some ministers matter that the big mistake was to issue the invitation

to make an early state visit to Britain, a notion conceived as a way

of flattering his colossal vanities. At the very least it would have been

prudent to wait before broiling -- rolling out the Royal red carpet,

pimping of the Queen for the Donald Trump. This apparently is what they

meant by getting our sovereignty back, the words of Andrew Walmsley.

-- Andrew Rawnsley. I do not think it is in order to talk about pimping

out our sovereign even if it is quoting a journalist. Can we get to

the wind-up, please, Mr Flynn? It is a simple one, it is a great chance

to be here and the start of this debate but I know that there are

many people who have contributions to make on the subject. I would say

we are in a position unlike any faced by any previous parliament

where we have a person of a unique personality running of the United

States. There are great dangers in attempting to give him the best

accolade we can offer anyone, only been offered twice before, of a

state visit. This would be terribly wrong, because it would appear that

British Parliament, the British nation, the British sovereign is

approving of the acts of Donald J Trump.

Five minute time limit. A delight under your chairmanship. I suppose

2016 was a seismic year, in many ways, and for those of us in this

room who actually believe in democracy, I didn't actually realise

that there were so many interpretations of it. We have seen

that justice last week. It is almost as if in 2015 we have the election

of a Conservative government, which clearly hit a lot of little hard.

Then we had Brexit, and people are coming to terms with it or not to

terms with it in their own way. And then of course the election of

Donald Trump, and I advise anybody who is interested to go and YouTube

a Newsnight video where it shows the leading lights of the United States

of America from Nancy Pelosi, George Clooney, have reread and various

others all saying that there is not a chance that this man would ever

become President of the United States. They sneered when they said

it, and why were they sneering, and actually it is interspersed with the

inauguration of Donald John Crump. Right at the end they say the United

States has a new president, his name is Donald John from. So for those

people who are finding it difficult to get to terms with Brexit, we are

actually leaving the European Union, that is what the people decided. And

for those who are finding it difficult that the American people

voted for Donald Trump, get over it because he is President of the

United States. And what I would say for all of us here and this actually

includes myself is that we have to ask ourselves why is it that people

felt so left behind that they made the democratic decisions they have

had, which we think we can't understand, some of us? How can you

possibly vote for Brexit, how can you possibly vote for Donald Trump,

but the fact is the people have. These were the forgotten people,

just like we have them in the United Kingdom, there are the forgotten

people in the United States of America. They are the ones that

packed that Stadium on Saturday to cheered Donald Trump, after his the

first month in the presidency, because, actually, they like what he

says. We may not like some of the things he says, and I certainly

don't like some of the things he has said in the past, but I do respect

the fact that he stood on a platform which he is now delivering. He is

going to go down in history as being roundly condemned for being the only

politician to deliver on his promises. I know that is a peculiar

thing in the politics that we are used to hear, that politicians

actually stand up for something and then deliver on them. But the fact

is he is. And I know we can all go back and talk to the people we know

in our own little echo chambers, and all we hear of the same things, but

the fact is there were 61 million people who voted for Donald Trump,

and when we stand up in this country and then condemn him for being

racist, and I have seen no evidence of that. I have seen no evidence of

him being racist, or at acting in an unseemly way, we are actually

attacking the American people, the 61 million people who voted for

Donald Trump. If they wanted more of the same all the usual stuff, that

was on the ballot paper. But they decided by the majority of states on

the electoral college, as it works, that they wanted Donald Trump. I am

very grateful, my honourable friend keeps talking about the 62 million

people, 63 million. But what they forget is that of course Hillary

Clinton got nearly 66 million. I agree, she piled the votes up in the

liberal California and the liberal New York on the east coast, she

piled them up, but that is not how the system works, and my right

honourable friend is an expert in American politics, he knows how it

works, and the that as part of the checks balances. Donald Trump knew

how it worked and it was the people in the middle of America have left

behind, what they call the deplorable is, they were referred

to. The deplorable is who feel left behind by ministration after

administration, and they decided to put Donald Trump in. One thing I

would say because we have limited time. I hope people who will condemn

the trolling of Baron Trump and Lallana Trump. We talk about sexism

and Melania Trump, it is appalling. When she read the Lord's Prayer on

Saturday in Florida, the amount of people who had a go at her for doing

that and the fact that she is from Slovenia, that she has not got an

American accent. Quite appalling. Deselected here a bit of parity. The

other thing is I don't want this house to be brought into disrepute

as my old friend from Newport said, in as far as double standards.

Double standards, we can refer to all the things about Donald Trump

are some people have, even though he is democratically elected. She's in

pain were here last year, where were the demonstrations then? How many

votes did she Jim Bevan get? We had a state visit from a Chinese leader

ten minutes after the -- ten years after Tiananmen square. There have

been many other state visit over the years and that is double standards.

It is simply because people in this room, and maybe in this country as

well, cannot understand why it is that the people voted for Donald

Trump, why they voted for Brexit, and I'm still people -- until people

understand that there will be more of the same, the people who feel

left behind have spoken, and they voted for Donald Trump from.

I would hope in this important debate when members of the public

have spent a long time thinking about this and actually calling the

debate that some of us might try and be above party politics. This debate

cuts to the heart of the nature of our own democracy and how we honour

and celebrate other countries. That is why I think it is important we

reflect on whether it is right, after seven days, that Donald Trump

should be afforded a full state visit. I personally am a great

friend of the United States. My father is buried in the United

States. I studied in the United States. I worked in the United

States. I visited America more times than I visited France. It is a

country I love tremendously. All of us I suspect in this chamber are

well aware of the deep connection and affection that the British

people for America and it people, but we also aware of the challenges

that exist in that country, and the contentious manner of the election

that led to Donald Trump. That means, I think, that of course one

would expect the leader of the free world to come to Britain, but it is

the terms and the basis on which that is done. And for those reasons

I think an official visit might have been appropriate, but to afford this

man after seven days a state visit is why so many people have

petitioned. I am not going to give way, it is only five minutes. I am

here really because I want to remind the chamber about the path that

America has taken, and the contribution of African-Americans in

the United States of America. I want to remind the chamber that there are

many African-Americans in America sitting at home in fear. They are

concerned about the president that has had the support of the Ku Klux

Klan. They are concerned about a president that has welcomed, sorry,

white supremacists, it is a term that we almost hoped would sort of

fall in the history, into his close the circle. They look at events like

Black history month. You think of the way in which our own Prime

Minister 's of different political stripes, response, the sorts of

statements they make, and you look at what he said, how he made that up

at all about himself, and you really say in our country, seven days and

he gets the full panoply of the state? Really? I think of my

five-year-old daughter. When I think about a man who thinks it's OK to go

and grab pussy. I think about a man who thinks it's OK to be so

misogynistic erred towards the woman that he's running against, and,

frankly, I can't imagine a leader of our own country, of whatever

political stripe, in that manner. And it is for that reason that I

think people are offended and concerned that Britain should

abandon all its principles and afford this man a state visit after

seven days. Really? And why? Because this great country is so desperate

for a trade deal? That we would throw all of our own history out of

the window? We didn't do this for Kennedy. We didn't do this for

Truman. We didn't do this for Reagan. But for this man? After

seven days? We say please come, and we will lay on everything, because

we are so desperate for your company. I think this country is

greater than that. I think my children deserve better than that. I

think my daughter deserves better than that. I am ashamed, frankly,

that it has come to this. We should think very carefully about a

president whose attitude towards the press is what we are finding out.

Borren,. We should think very carefully -- and torrent, frankly.

Should think very carefully about a president who has said what this

president has said, who has put simply people in fear, and for that

reason we should not afford in fear, and for that reason we should not

afforded a state visit. Having been born at the midpoint of

the 20th century I think it's appropriate to look at what happened

in Anglo-American relations or in European-American relations both

before and after the 1950s. Before the 1950s, we had two opportunities

for a world war and both times the world war II place. From the 1950s

onward we had one opportunity for another world war and that World War

II had not take place. Now, we can all have theories about why there

were world wars in 1914 to 18, and 1939 to 1945, and why the Cold War

did not become world war three. I will give you my theory, and my

theory is this. That whereas in 1914 it was possible for an aggressor to

think that it could pick off a small state like Belgium without

triggering a conflict from day one with the United States of America,

and whereas it was possible for an aggressor in 1939 to think that it

could pick off a small state like Poland without triggering world war

with the United States from day one, from the signing of the Nato treaty

onwards in 1949, it was no longer possible for any aggressor to think

that they could launch an attack against any European or non-European

member state of Nato without immediately being at war with the

world's greatest superpower. Now, for me, that is the single most

important consideration. And this debate ought to be about more than

the personal qualities of any individual. I would like you to ask

yourself this as a matter of conscience. If you knew that it

would make a significant difference to taking the new president of the

United States of America, who is in some doubt about continuing the

Alliance which prevented world War three, and which is our best

guarantee of world War three not breaking out in the 21st-century

either, if you knew that it would make a significant difference to

bringing him on site to continue with the policies that prevented a

conflagration on that scale, do you really think that it is more

important to parade him, castigate him, and encourage him to retreat

into some sort of bunker rather than to do what the Prime Minister did,

perhaps more literally than any of us expected, which is to take him by

the hand and try and lead him down the path of righteousness. Because I

have no doubt at all about this matter. What really matters to the

future of Europe is that the transatlantic alliance should

continue and should prosper. And there is every prospect of that

happening provided that we reach out to this inexperienced individual and

try and persuade him, and there is every chance of persuading him that

he should continue with the policy pursued by his predecessors. I think

the honourable gentleman for giving way. I agree with him entirely and I

think it is right and proper that we are debating this issue. Given his

views, why does he support the speaker in saying that Trump should

not come here? Well I am very pleased to say that this is a debate

about President Trump and whether he should come here, and I believe that

it is entirely right that President Trump should come here and therefore

issues about any extraneous matters whatsoever are matters for debate

perhaps at another time in another place, but not here or now today. I

am grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving weight but I

have to ask him, what basis does he think giving President Trump a state

visit will have the effect he believes it will have. We've aurally

told him he can have one and just this weekend we hear him talking

about walking away from Nato against quite well I am not at all aware

that he has talked about walking away from Nato. On the contrary he

has made two criticisms of Nato. One is that he believes that Nato has

adapted insufficiently to meet the threat of international terrorism

and is too solely focused on state versus state confrontation, and the

other criticism he has made is a criticism which, if it is extreme,

then it's an extreme view shared by the Defence Select Committee, which

is that countries are not spending enough on defence. And he is

pointing out, quite rightly, as is his secretary of defence, at only

five out of 28 Nato countries are paying even the 2% which is not a

target, it is a minimum guideline. And the failure of Nato countries to

protect themselves is something that has been remarked upon time and time

and time again to no effect. And so I finish with this point. It may be

strange to relate but stranger things have happened in history, it

may be that the only way to get Nato countries to pay up what they ought

to pay in order to get the huge advantage of the American defence

contribution and they are spending three and a half percent of their

much larger DDP while so many of our Nato fellow member countries are not

even spending 2% of their much smaller GDP. If Donald Champ's

threat is the only way to get them to pay up then Donald Trump,

ironically, may end up being the saviour of Nato, not its nemesis. Mr

Walker, I am particularly pleased to be able to attend the debate opened

at length by the honourable member for Newport West. In fact here in

the honourable member able to speak at length is justification in itself

for this petition process. I particularly enjoyed his put-down of

the whippersnappers on the Tory benches who are paying insignificant

regard to the experience of the honourable member and of course Her

Majesty the Queen, I thought that was one of the highlights of the

debate thus far. I think it is difficult to know whether to be

appalled at the morality of this invitation or just astonished at the

stupidity of the invitation. As an example of fawning subservience, if

I could disagree with my honourable friend for a second, Prime

Minister's holding hands would be difficult to match. To do it in the

name of shared values was stomach churning. What exactly are the

shared values that this house, that this country would hope to have with

President Trump? An example of what shared values are is a process

fraught with danger, but the Prime Minister tried it when she was Home

Secretary. She said things like democracy, belief in the rule of

law, tolerance, equality and acceptance of other people's faith

and religion. Now, which of these values as outlined by the Prime

Minister has President Trump exemplified in his first 30 days in

office? I think the right honourable friend for giving way. Would he

agree with me that given President Trump's remarks about torture, his

misogynistic stance against women as well as Muslims, that associating

with him in the form of a state visit has huge amounts of damage to

the Queen and our monarchy which is respected and revered around the

world, and that the government should have a government to

government visit, and leave Her Majesty out of this? I noted also

that Trump's acolytes according to one newspaper report are starting to

choose which members of the Royal family they would meet on a state

visit. He wasn't going to meet Prince Charles in case the

conversation turned to the issue of climate change. I do think this is a

world first, somebody being accorded a state visit picking and choosing

which members of the Royal family he might expect to meet. When he met

Donald Trump and welcomed him in Scotland, did he expressed the same

views? I have met Donald Trump more than once which will give me an

advantage over, I think, every other member in this chamber, I have also

negotiated with Donald Trump which will give me an additional

advantage. Because what you should remember about President Trump, he

is not a stupid man. And the belief that he has forgotten what was

actually said about him by the Prime Minister when he was a candidate is

nonsensical, or indeed the Foreign Secretary when he said he would not

go to New York unless he was confused. To believe that Donald

Trump has forgotten these things is to seriously underrate the man's

intelligence. If I could paraphrase PG Woodhouse, it is not difficult to

tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and Donald Trump's

grievance, and I can bring experience to that. And that brings

me to the act of stupidity involved in this invitation. Even when people

are in a weak negotiating position as the UK is at the present moment,

thanks to the nonsensical decision to invoke Article 50 without at

least having some idea where the negotiations are going to end up,

IAC Brexiteers shaking their heads. I was quoting almost exactly from

the vote leave website who said that doing that would be like putting a

gun to your head. Unfortunately that's exactly what the government

have chosen to do. To actually put yourself in that week negotiating

position and to advertise it so blatantly to President Trump as the

Prime Minister managed to do is a recipe for total and utter disaster,

from my experience with negotiating with Donald Trump, let me tell the

honourable member, never ever do it from a weak position. Because the

result will be total disaster. Justin Trudeau, like the Prime

Minister, is relatively new in office, yet he has demonstrated how

to pursue a business relationship while keeping Canada's integrity

intact. The prime ministers should take note, written and the state

visit before more embarrassment is caused in this country. It has been

mentioned in this debate, to actually allow this process to be

the pretext for another assault on the speaker is beyond madness in

this place. The gunpowder plot, this new one, will fizzle out just as

surely as the last one did. What we should demand from Mr Speaker is

fairness to all parts of the house, the ability for all people to be

heard... Will use it down, I don't want to shout. We are not having a

debate about the speaker, you have made your point, can you return to

the substance of the debate which is Trump's visit. I was responding to a

point you are allowed to be made in the debate already and stating my

opinion that this house across all parties will not allow this

particular speaker to be removed on this issue I think is perfectly in

order. So therefore, the process of basing the shared values that we are

meant to have with the united states, and the point was well made

by the member for Newport West that this president in 30 days has

managed to achieve a record low in the Gallup ratings. The United

States of America is not being invited a state visit, the state

visit is to the individual. And to confuse the two is a serious come a

serious mistake by honourable members and others who support this

particular offer. Secondly, Mr Walker, not to recognise from all

experience of negotiating with this particular man, to do so from a

position of weakness will not result in some face-saving life-saving

augmented trade deal, it will be a root and a recipe to total disaster

for this country. This invitation for the state visit should be

rescinded before any further damage is caused. It is a pleasure to serve

under your highly tuned chairmanship. I must admit I don't

normally speak on foreign policy matters but I feel duty bound to

speak. Because so many of my constituents have signed the

position. I have to say to those who have, I do have sympathy with them

and they are entitled to do that. I'm talking about the petition

against the state visit. As has been said, some of the things said by

Donald Trump are extremely offensive. What concerns me the

points of substance, such as ambiguity about Nato. But it seems

to me that what we are debating here is about UK foreign policy. To me,

foreign policy for this country is best served in following national

interest, not through gestures or knee jerk reactions. From calm,

effective diplomacy in the old-fashioned way on the

behind-the-scenes, and working towards a long-term strategy rather

than something which frankly has the tone of student politics and would

be a gesture that would get us nowhere. In my view we need to focus

on the strategic point. There are two points to that, the first is the

recognition that we need to be as close to this administration as

possible. If we have concerns about President Trump, we should be in

there trying to shape the administration rather than receiving

an offer that was sent and accepted in good faith.

We will gain nothing from it if we withdraw that offer. I'll tell you

who will win, one man will win and that's Vladimir Putin. There will be

smiles in the Kremlin if we followed this petition, because the one thing

they want in the Kremlin above all else is to divide the West. They

want the UK and the US to be divided. They don't want a strong

transatlantic partnership. It is in the global interest and we would be

crackers to do so. Having said that, I would offer a state visit to

Vladimir Putin, as was done by Tony Blair. That's despite the fact that

Russian Bear bombers are buzzing our airspace, that they have nuclear

missiles pointed at us. That's precisely why we do it, because we

want to influence the administration. I give way. Was he

not buoyed up that Donald Trump has taken quite the opposite position to

Obama, who came here during our referendum and told us we'd be at

the back of the queue for a trade deal, tried to influence our

referendum, and yet Donald Trump has said he wants to see us at the front

of a trade deal? Of course, the referendum is done and dusted and we

have some interesting days ahead in the Other Place about that. I'd

simply say, when President Obama spoke on it, I have to say as

someone who campaigned Remain, it was a gifted the Leaver campaign. We

are talking about the issue today which is Donald Trump. I would

invite Vladimir Putin for a state visit because they can say offensive

things, they can represent terrible values, Russia is not a serious

democracy with a terrible human rights record, but our foreign

policy is about the national interest of the UK, and that means

being as strong as possible, but having as much influence on those

countries who are the major players in the globe. I conclude by saying

that we should serve this country Best by sticking to an invitation we

made instead of making ourselves look a laughing stock to the

countries that matter. I want to thank my honourable neighbour and

friend the member of the Newport West for his opening to this debate

and two petitions. I'm delighted that my own constituents, nearly

4000 of them, have signed the petition arguing Donald Trump

shouldn't be given a state visit. That has tallied with the concerns

I'd had raised with me in person over recent weeks, that I've also

had from those who contacted me directly about the matter. I know

where my constituents firmly stand on this issue. But I stand on this

issue also because I love America. I love Americans, I have travelled to

25 of the 50 United States. My own grandfather was an American GI who

came over in 1944 to help us fight the Nazis. We don't know much about

him but he came over here, and I've walked with honourable members

opposite along the beaches of Normandy and other places where the

sacrifice of so many Americans was given in servers of the freedoms of

Europe and our country. I believe we should have contact with any at

American administration, as much as I disagreed fundamentally with the

policies and actions of George Secretary of State for Exiting the

EU Bush, I was disappointed that turned the many into a wider strand

of anti-Americanism. America espouses liberty, equality and an

optimistic government, allowing people to their freedom whether

that's in the press, in the courts or the of democracy at State, local

or federal level. It is for that reason I feel deeply concerned and

frightened when I see the principles on which the Constitution was

developed by the founding fathers being put under questioning by a

President. We've seen attacks on the press, on the judiciary, an

religious freedoms, and it's that but I am most worried and most

fearful. I think we are right to be. I will give way. Would he not agree

with me that this is as much about our Prime Minister as it is about

the American President, and this apparent cosying up to people with

questionable values or records, not only Trump but Erdogan the day

after. This seems to have compromised our ability to be a

critical friend. It's not an easy job to be a Prime Minister. Often we

have to have contact with people we might fundamentally disagree with.

Herein lies the fundamental point. This isn't about whether Donald

Trump should be banned from this country or whether our government

should not have contact with him. It's absolutely right the Prime

Minister should meet with the President to discuss matters of

mutual interest. But we choose who we honour. We choose the way in

which we honour. We choose the way in which we decide to negotiate. I

noticed the comments made by the honourable member former leader of

the SNP. We choose how we engage on those issues. I think Prime Minister

Trudeau has shown a different way of dealing with President Trump where

he has been able to retain his integrity. For me that is the

fundamental issue at stake. We rushed into offering the razzmatazz,

the champagne, the red carpet, even if you were the ultimate pragmatist

and the matters of equality or standing against torture, racism or

sexism didn't matter to you, even as the ultimate pragmatist, that isn't

a sensible negotiating strategy. Giving it all up in week one without

any questions asked, how can that make sense to anybody? One of the

most important things here was, certainly when President Obama was

invited here, he was the first Afro American President. Obama stood for

something totally different. Donald Trump doesn't seem to share our

values so far, so we should have waited at least two years to see how

his presidency pans out. Indeed, and that's why I've spoken out so

strongly on the issue of using Westminster Hall and the Palace of

Westminster, given that it's the place where President Mandela

addresses DOS, where President Obama addressed us, where Pope Benedict

Kane, where Churchill lay in state. I'm delighted it is the most signed

at the moment in this session of Parliament. I wish to make a brief

point about the wider issue of state visits. State visits, I think we

need to look at again. Many people rightly pointed out who we have

offered state visits to in the past and whether that was right. There

were protests when... I have strongly disagreed with the way we

have behaved with the monarchies in the Gulf. I'm concerned at the way

we seem to have turned a blind eye on a series of issues and I think we

need to look very, very carefully at the way we choose to use a

significant amount of taxpayers money, and looking at the types of

visits we offer. Many of us would question whether the Burmese Prime

Minister should have addressed us. Just because we've got things wrong

in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't get things right in the

future. I think we have a special responsibility when it comes to the

special relationship, when it comes to that relationship with our

greatest ally and friend. We cannot accept the denigration of a free

press, denigration of a judiciary, denigration of women, religious

minorities, the banning of refugees, the application of torture as the

new normal. We cannot accept those things, it wouldn't be acceptable

from any country but it certainly shouldn't be acceptable from our

greatest ally, and one of those countries that has frequently stood

up for the values of liberty, equality and democracy. That is why

we have a special responsibility, and is why we have a special

responsibility in this House to speak out. I have great faith

ultimately in the American Constitution and the way it was set

up. James Maddison said, and elective despotism was not the

government we fought for but one in which the powers of government

should be so divided and balanced, so that no one can transcend their

legal limits without being effectively checked and restraint by

the others. We too should check and balance our ally, offering up a

state visit and all those honours in week one of his already turbulent

presidency, isn't the way to do that. Thank you. I guess I should

start by declaring an interest. Not simply do I have a deep antipathy

towards President Trump, but I was prepared to do more than just talk

about it, and I spent a considerable amount of time last year working for

Hillary Clinton on her presidential election in New Hampshire, Wisconsin

and South Carolina. I believed, as President Obama did, throughout the

2016 campaign when he said that she was" the most qualified candidates

to run for President in the 20th century". And, it deeply grieves me

as every day goes by, not least the last seven days, to see, sadly, what

opportunity America passed up for the person that they chose. But we

are where we are. Because of course, she did get 2.8 million more votes,

but the Americans do not elect their President through who gets the most

votes but through the electoral college, those are the rules so

there is no point in crying over spilt milk. I won't rehearse all the

reasons why any reasonable person should have significant doubts about

Donald Trump, because they are, sadly, far too well known. But what

I do believe, is that America is our greatest ally. It has been for a

considerable amount of time. It has stood by us shoulder to shoulder in

our hour of need, as we did in their hour of need, particularly during

9/11. So it is to my mind foolish to allow our personal views and

assessments of an individual, and some of their more grotesque

characteristics or behaviour, to blur what is, in Britain's national

interest. And what I believe this Britain's national interest is to

continue that special relationship, as we have done and most prime

ministers the Second World War, with probably the exception of Sir Edward

Heath, to ensure... I'm very grateful to you forgiving way and I

know his deep affection for the United States, and indeed I've been

with him at Democratic conventions in the past. But is the natural

conclusion of his argument that almost, the more offensive, the

American President, the more concerned we are as a nation about

who gets elected, the quicker we should rush to give them a state

visit? Because as the debate really about the nature with which Donald

Trump should come to this country? If the right honourable gentleman

would bear with me I will get onto the timings. He raises a valid

point. But what I was saying was, regardless of what we may think or

not think of Donald Trump as a man, I believe it is in our national

interest to ensure that we can continue to be a candid friend to

the United States, a candid friend who is respected by the United

States, and has the ability to be able to talk to them candidly, to

explain to them when we believe they may be getting it wrong, or where

they could be doing it better, or, where we can ensure that they can

moderate their views to something more in keeping with what we believe

is dignified and the correct way to behave. We cannot do that if we just

totally ignore the United States, the presidency, and save the man is

dreadful, so we will have nothing to do with him. We would become

isolated, we would become less influential, and it wouldn't be in

national interest. A number of honourable members during the course

of this debate have questioned the timing. Quite frankly, I don't think

it really matters when one issue is an invitation if one is trying to

protect, develop our national interest.

Whether it is seven days into a presidency, he will be criticised.

If you do it in 2020, you will be criticised for playing around with

the American electoral system and trying to help the man in his

presumed re-election bid. For the last time. Delaying the invitation

for a state visit would at least have the advantage of knowing the

president would still be there. Mr Simon Burns. The right honourable

gentleman may be better at looking into a crystal balls and I. None of

us, frankly, could predict what is going to happen next week, let alone

next year, the year after order you're after. The right honourable

gentleman might be right. I do not think the beginning has been

auspicious in any shape or form. And I always, it is a bit like the

Bible, one always admire as a sinner who repent. We will have to see

whether the people around President Trump are able to moderate him and

guide him. I am not convinced that they will be as successful as some

others think. But that is not the point. The point is that whenever

the invitation was extended for whenever it takes place, there will

be criticism for those who wish to criticise. And I think we have got

to rise above that. What we have got to do is look at what is going to be

most helpful for Britain, for its future policy and development, and I

think it is a no-brainer that working closely with the United

States is far more important for this country, particularly as we

begin negotiations and the exit from the EU in two, two and a half years'

time, we cannot afford to be isolated and to ignore our friends

and just stand there alone in thinking that we are going to ensure

that everything works out all right. Because more often than not it will

not. Loyalty has always been eight seamark of this country, whether it

be under a Conservative president, foreign, Prime Minister, or a labour

Prime Minister. -- been eight seamark for this country. Some

people will argue that in some towns we have been too loyal, I will not

intrude with grief to 2001-2006, but that was a difficult time and maybe

we got it wrong in the way in which we talked as a candid friend to the

previous part one president. But we all learn from mistakes. And I

believe that we have the opportunity, by giving respect to

the institution of the presidency of the United States from the start,

and continuing to work with the United States, that it will pay

benefit for this country, for America and that it is the right

thing to do and that the state visit should go ahead. Although I have to

say, and it may come as a surprise to some, I do agree with the Speaker

that there should not be an address down in Westminster Hall for a joint

session of Parliament. Thank you, Mr Walker. This is a subject we have

debated many times since Donald Trump was inaugurated a month ago

today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank every single

one of my constituents who has used this petition to have their voice

heard. Just over 3500 constituents have signed the petition to prevent

the state visit, nearly 60 people in every 1000 registered voters in the

constituency. In the last 31 days, what we have seen has in many ways

been chilling. The executive orders that have dominated his first weeks

in the White House have been frightening. And the question many

of us are asking, where does this slippery slope really lead? If we

take only one of the groups of people he has fought to divide,

those of the Muslim faith, not necessarily distinct to one country

or another, his rhetoric has been so broad that even I personally am as a

Muslim, feel attacked and misrepresented. And no doubt many of

my constituents who make wonderful observations to this country on a

daily basis feel the same way. We have to take every opportunity to

show that his negativity and divisive messages are not going to

divide us, and just as importantly, we cannot let them divide us.

British Muslims make an invaluable contribution to the UK as a whole in

all forms and walks of life, from doctors to teachers, business

owners, professionals, and add an immense cultural value to the rich

fabric of modern British life. To allow Donald trump the space to

provide a group that play such a huge role would be a shame upon us

all. The report in 2013 by the Muslim Council of Britain tried to

beat an economic value that might put an economic value on the impact

British Muslims make to the UK. The report showed that they make an

estimated ?31 billion plus contribution to our economy, and

that as a group of over ?20.5 billion in spending power. Just in

London alone, nearly 13,500 Muslim - owned businesses create over 70,000

jobs. This shows a glimpse of the real invite Muslims have in this

country. This is how Muslims should be portrayed, not the fearful,

racist, bigoted views of somebody who has used fear to win votes. Will

she give way? I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Does she

agree with me that it is deeply saddening, and shameful, that

colleagues who are defending this visit are not recognising the

serious concerns people have, particularly Muslims, but many other

communities, about the dangers of the rhetoric of Donald Trump? And it

is time they spoke out against that kind of hostility. It is deeply

divisive and it is time the address this issue, instead of making

excuses and being apologists for his hatred. I thank my honourable friend

for making the very valid point and absolutely concur. Last year, when

we first debated a potential ban... I will happily take up the

challenge. His attitude to Muslims is an outrage. What is most

outrageous if it is totally lacking in evidence, because all the deaths

caused by terrorist on US soil since 9/11 have been caused by US citizens

or residents, and the 911 attacks were caused by people from outside

the US, but none of those seven countries. Not only is prejudiced

but lacks any evidence. I thank the honourable gentleman for

making those very valid points. I continue, last year, when we first

debated a potential ban in this very chamber, I went on public record and

said that I wanted Trump to come. I wanted him to visit Bradford,

Bradford West, I wanted to take him out for a curry! I wanted him to see

what contribution Muslims make to this country and to my constituency.

I wanted him to meet real Muslims, not the ones he has invented for his

own end, I wanted him to walk down the street and meet people such as

the Chief Superintendent born in my constituency, taken the skills and

meet Muslim headteachers and that health professionals, like Sahara,

and the Muslims on the front line of our health care service. I wanted to

see some of the tremendous businesses in my constituency being

run by Muslims, providing and growth, like la la's and many

others. I wanted to show the world of the cultural impact Muslims play

on my constituency, through things like the amazing Bradford literature

festival that is run by two extraordinary Muslim woman. The

annual world curry festival, organised by a Muslim man. But to do

so now, Mr Walker, now that he is president, will only reinforce and

condone his actions, if devices -- is divisive, racist and picture

messages. This is what he stands for and what he represents at this

moment and this flies in the face of everything we stand for. Everything

we thought we shared. We cannot support what he is doing by offering

him legitimacy. My honourable friend touched on double standards. The

difference in this conversation here is that the British people are aware

of the human rights violations about the misogyny that happens when we

offered a visit by the Chinese premier. Pointing out all of that,

we do not look to China for its record or advice and support on

human rights records, or on how to treat women. We do not do that. But

we do look to America. We do look to the United States of America, the

leader of the free world, to support us in those shared values. What this

president does not represent if those shared values that belong to

us, that belong to this House, that we have seen. My children have even

seen the movies where women throwing themselves on these cobbles outside

to get the right to vote in this country. We have seen what has

happened with the civil rights movement. We cannot... When I spoke

about this in the main chamber, I talked about of the three steps to

genocide as defined on Holocaust Memorial Day in the booklet. I can

tell you, we are already on sale three. So when the honourable

gentleman tells me I'll be stopping Walt was he? Actually, what are we

contributing to by allowing President, to continue in that

rhetoric which divides people and tell those that Muslims are the

enemy within. That is me as a Muslim in this House. I am not an enemy to

Western democracy. CHEERING

I am part of Western democracy. I thought my election really hard, I

fought against all of them things, that bigotry, sexism, the patriarch

eighth, two in my place in this size. By Donald Trump, a state visit

and bringing out the crockery, China, the red carpet, what we are

doing is endorsing all of those views, all those things that I

fought hard against and saying, "Do you know what? It is OK." I

absolutely thank the millions who have found this petition. My

heartfelt thanks to them and I really do hope we do not honour this

president. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the invitation to take part in

this debate so energetically opened by the honourable gentleman for

Newport West. He referred to the legal Prime Minister and I am

looking forward to the good authority she's going to exert when

she is not quite so beleaguered! That made our beleaguered Prim

Minister. I am still flying over his borders on power but will come back

to the power exercised by the president. -- I am still confused by

his power. This invitation has been issued, issued in the name of Her

Majesty and if we want to find a way of embarrassing her, withdrawing

that invitation would be the quickest way about it. So, we are

left in a situation where, look, formerly the word TO stay but also

that of the United Kingdom is now engaged. Now let's get on to the

realpolitik behind this. -- it is very likely that opening up the

possibility of a possibility of a state visit secured our Prim

minister the first call on the newly elected president of United States.

And during the course of that visit, she got the incredibly important

assurance around me so expressly referred to by the chairman of the

defence committee. -- around ten two. Right honourable gentleman

being interviewed on radio Scotland and said it, that it was very likely

that Theresa May had used the offer of a state visit to security first

visit to Tom. Can he come what is in for that statement as? -- visit to

come. I am simply using my own experience of my career as to how

these matters are arranged, and therefore what might have happened.

I am happy to confirm that I have no first-hand evidence of the

discussions so I am merely using my experience as to what might have

happened. However, is she secured that first visit and she secured the

undertaking about Nato with immense importance to the security of

Europe. She got a reaffirmation of the special relationship, by being

the first foreign leader to visit him, and also the day before, she

related she had a spectacularly successful visit to address the

Republican caucus in Philadelphia. And here we need to understand what

is going on. We are dealing with a president who is the first

nonpolitician, and the first non-service man to be elected to the

office. He is definitively different. And in an exercise of

pressing the right buttons to engage him, I think dangling a state visit

in front of a half Scottish president of the United States, his

mother had an immense attachment to the country, was a very successful

use of the kind of soft power that the United Kingdom has. But it is --

but as well as securing the undertaking around Nato, let's

understand the checks and balances that this president will have to

operate under. First of all, he is going to need to operate under the

checks and balances that come from the Congress, and the Republican

caucus in the Congress is going to be immensely important in that. For

our Prime Minister to have secured a place where she has an opportunity

then to be in effect putting our case, which might also be aligned

with the case of the State Department, the Pentagon and the

CIA, into the White House, as the right honourable gentleman is

brief... He continues to seriously underweight president Trump. The

idea that this president is going to have things determined by anything

of than his own interests and what he perceives the American interest

to be in the mistake of such naivete that explains the fact that he

managed to get into the white House and the first place.

He is then issuing these undisciplined statements. What does

he has to say about torture,? I was told by LG BT friends of mine he was

about to rescind the employment protection for LG BT people in the

United States. He did not. We have then seen what happened on the road

between his national security adviser and his vice president, who

won out? His vice president. If we look at the immigration man, that is

being overturned by another element of the separation of powers in the

United States by the judges. So we are seeing the development of this

administration, under this extraordinary unprecedented election

of this individual to the presidency. I will not because I am

now out of injury time. The point I am making, this is early days, we

are beginning to say the necessity for a disciplined administration

begin to crowd in on this president. Who was the heaviest develops and it

is incredibly important our Prime Minister has secured the first voice

of a foreign leader. -- we've all seen how this develops. The truth is

we need to calm this debate and take the hype out of it. I do not just

mean the debate in the chamber but the national debate. The invitation

has been issued, I do not think it could or should be rescinded

properly so that is the proper -- possibility the invitation will be

taken up in the course of this year. I think that will be a mistake. We

need to point out that in 2020, we will have the 400th anniversary of

the Pilgrim Fathers. Incredibly important in the United States and

it would be an utterly important movement to be marked to a state

visit to United Kingdom by whoever is ahead of the American state at

the time. I think we focus bit administration on that opportunity,

I head of government visit this year would be entirely appropriate. If we

do not take the hype out of this debate, with all the people who sign

this petition, there is every possibility that this visit will be

a rallying point for everyone who is unhappy with the direction of

American policy and British policy and we will be left with the poor

old commissioner of the net with a significant public order issued to

manage. -- Commissioner of the Metropolitan police. I think that is

an opportunity to celebrate a great anniversary in British and American

relations and extract ourselves from the practical difficulty of this

invitation being issued. If you ask me if the issue of that invitation

cots as are re-enforcement of the special Administration between

America and Great Britain and an opportunity for us to reinforce

devices into the White House, from the State Department, the Pentagon

and the CIA, that was infinitely the right thing to do. A number of

colleagues who have already spoken are intervening and if they could

desist, we might get everyone into the debate. The stalker, it is a

pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. -- Mr Walker. I am

delighted to speak on behalf of my constituents who signed the

petition. As well as a large amount to said they did not want to sign

that petition but strongly objected to a state visit taking place. Many

contacted me and said they had never signed a petition before but felt

this was wrong and they had done so now. What an earth have we come to

that the UK government should for one second think it was appropriate

to reward the discrete full statements and actions of President

Trump with the state visit? A state visit with all the pomp and ceremony

of the British establishment. It is hugely depressing to hear those on

the Conservative benches to support the state visit tell us today it is

important we engage with President Tron because America is our friend.

So it is but that is why we should challenge this. President Trump's

administration so far has been characterised by discrimination and

prejudice. It is simply racism. The Prime Minister has decided that she

would take any friend she can get for her hard Tore Brexit and to hang

with the refugees, the Muslims and anyone who is different. To hang

with EU nationals, women, Mexicans and people fleeing from war and

terror because that is what this pointless state visit says. Let us

not kid ourselves, this UK Government with its ever reducing

plans to help Child refugees has knowingly and deliberately heading

into this Islamophobic, misogynistic, dangerously confused,

if events in Sweden are anything to go by, leader of the free world.

Instead, is one of my constituents said, not having the balls to stand

up and show some kind of moral backbones. President Trump's words

and actions are horribly destructive for Muslims across the world. They

will foster Islamophobia and racism. We have heard about the nice day,

insidious creeping racism which has felt it can reach -- raise its ugly

head. Hate crimes up since the Brexit vote. This state visit ramps

that up further, giving those who are fuming to persecute other people

the comfort they need especially as they feel it is now rubber-stamped

by this rudderless shambles of a UK Government. On these pages we have

grave concerns about the effect this has on people living, working and

studying in Scotland. Many Muslims are understandably upset and

fearful. Other groups as well upset and fearful. As the mother of

mixed-race children, I am upset and fearful for the future in a way I

never been before. This is a time of flux and uncertainty. There are dark

clouds gathering in many parts of the world. Our John peers should be

to shine a light, to stand tall. -- our job hear. We should be taking

the moral high ground and stand -- sending a firm message to President

Trump that this is not acceptable and he needs to stop. Instead this

UK Government has rolled over to have its belly tickled and shame on

all of you involved if you do not rescind this invitation for the

state visit. This will never be in our name. There are two like ways

you can approach this debate if you agree the state visit should go

ahead. You can argue along the lines of national self-interest, which is

the easy way or the more difficult way, you have to understand what Mr

Trump means to many people in America. I will start at the first.

It seems obvious to me that great countries like our own a

non-national self-interest. The issue these invitations to further

that self-interest, presumably when we invited two presidents of China,

we were prepared to overlook the fact that this is effectively in

China a police state. That is no freedom of expression or movement.

That is outraged religious persecution, in every single respect

it is a state which does not share our values in any shape or form.

Presumably when the issued the invitation to President Ceausescu

years ago and awarded him a knighthood we felt it was an

interest to do so for national self-interest. We only rescinded the

knighthood when he was executed by his own people. I will give way.

That is not a great deal of consistency about the way we offer

the state visit or their content. I think it was useful when we offered

one to the president of Colombia because that helped progress the

peace process in Colombia but I wonder whether he would not support

the idea of the Foreign Affairs Committee doing a proper review of

state visits so we get this right for the future? That is a perfectly

valid point. I have no objection to that. Presumably when we invited

President Mugabe, a racist homophobe to have tea with the Queen we were

prepared to overlook his transgressions. When we invite the

president of Saudi Arabia, the ultimate misogynist state, we

decided they were important allies of our own. We have to consider, if

we listened to this petition which people in perfectly good faith, but

if we were to accept it and rescind this invitation, it would be

catastrophic to a relationship with what is our closest ally. I will not

leave that point but my honourable friend for new Forest has surely won

the argument in that sense, the whole peace and security of the

Western world depends on us using influence with President Trump. I

believe the visit of our Prime Minister was an absolute triumph.

Not only in furthering our national self-interest but by binding

President Trump and his new administration into Nato and we are

seeing the effects of that honour this week in terms of what the vice

president has been seeing. I think there is no doubt in my mind that it

is in our national self-interest to accord respect and honour to our

closest and greatest ally and whether we like it or not, this man

is the duly elected, democratically elected leader of the free world. To

me that is the easy argument to make. I feel I have to follow my

honourable friend from Lancashire in making what is probably a much more

difficult and controversial argument. We had a debate one year

ago on Mr Trump and speaker after speaker condemned him. Even people

from my own site. I think I was the only one who try to understand why

people are supporting and voting for him. I made the point then and I

make it now that I think it is unwise of us to try and transferrin

own views and prejudices, our own viewpoint to the other side of the

Atlantic. Most people hear for instance think I am on the far right

of this political spectrum in this House but he Dianne, a person who

warmly supports gun control, who oppose the Iraq war and July is

entirely on the NHS, these things would make me an abomination in

large part of the Republic party. So it is foolish of us to lecture our

colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic what is the right or

improper nature of conservatives. Mr Trump is not my kind of

conservative, I have nothing in common with him but let us look at

some of his comments. The charge of misogyny. What the reporter said is

horrible and ridiculous. But which one of us has not made some

ridiculous sexual comment sometime in our past. Well, in private. Let

he who is without sin Cass the first stone. He has apologised. It is not

really the reason to withdraw... I had better give way because someone

is casting an intervention. I thank the cheer for letting him give way.

I Cass noise versions but is he seriously suggestion that back

suggesting it is legitimate that the comments made in public by Trump on

a number of issues, including marriage equality for LG BT people

and in private which were then broadcast on sexual abuse and

attacking women are legitimate position and he stands there and

things it is acceptable to say in this chamber in this House that that

kind of position is acceptable? Said precisely the opposite. I have never

spoken like that nor friends of mine had spoken like that I completely

deployed it but all I am saying is most of us would be rather

embarrassed if everything we have ever said in private, in our past,

was ever... I have given away twice. I knew it would be a difficult

argument. It is easy to dodge it but I think it is fair you have to make

it. As regards the argument of racism, I do not believe there is

any proof -- proves that this travel ban is racist. Indonesia is the

largest Muslim country in the world, there is no question of a travel

ban. All these countries are riven by Civil War. To accuse the new

president of the United States of racism, misogyny and all the rest, I

think is overstating. I knew these arguments would be difficult to make

but the fact is there are 61 million American people who actually voted

for Mr Trump and support him, whether you like it or not, whether

he fills you with complete rage, the fight is he is there, he is the duly

elected president of the United States. Our interests rely

absolutely on trying to influence this man, to bring him overhear, to

tie him to our point of view. He would never get elected in this

country. His views would have no traction in this country. He would

never become the leader of the Conservative Party in this country.

None of us rude campaign along the lines that he has campaigned on. All

of us disagree fundamentally with so many things he has said, but he is

there, he is elected and we have to work with them which is why it would

be a disaster if this invitation was rescinded.

It will not, as a surprise there will be speaking against state visit

by Donald Trump. I started to think about her I was Donald Trump was my

worst nightmare, the daughter of a political as seeker, raised in a

Muslim who sold and maybe worse trouble a woman with strong

opinions. Somehow, I think I will be on his Christmas card list this

year. Joking aside, I recognise that he has been elected in the United

States. I recognise that this debate has come off the back of an

independent election, that this debate is about the nature of the

government's responds our government's responds, to Donald and

about whether we get him a Royal welcome to our country. An

individual who has already made thousands of British people in this

country, including members of our own house, question whether they are

still welcome in America. And I have two main reasons for clocking

against the state visit being granted to Donald Trump. The first

is, what has he actually said and done? What has he said to be Prime

Minister of our country to warrant the state visit? Because, in my

opinion, a state visit should be granted, not expected. The

honourable member for Newport West has already made the point about how

this does not happen because you have been in position for seven

days. Barack Obama waited two and a half years before he was invited on

a state visit. George W Bush waited three years before he was invited on

a state visit. Nixon, and all for George Bush Senior, were never given

a state visit at all. -- and George Bush Senior as well. My question is

about what he has actually done, because in my opinion all the fans

and he has been president is number one in salted the press, two

champion economic protectionism and number three, tried to ban Muslims

from entering the United States. Ids reasons why we should be granting

him a state visit to our country? Secondly, estate visit is meant to

be something which is celebrated. A celebratory event for people. Look

at the millions of people who have signed a petition saying they do not

want to give Donald Trump a state visit. Look at the thousands of

people who marched along Whitehall and across the country saying they

did not welcome Donald Trump on a state visit to this country. Listen

carefully and you will hear the thousands of people outside right

now, outside this House, then they do not want to becoming into this

country on a royal state visit. We have a duty to listen to these

people, to give them a voice, and if people from the Trump administration

are listening, this is not the news. The people who are protesting

outside, these are not alternative facts. -- this is not a fake news.

These are real British protests from British people who do not want to

give him a visit. This is not about timing? I disagree, for me it is

about timing. In the post-Brexit era, there are deep divisions within

our community. We have a duty to kill these divisions, not to invite

figures like Donald Trump so that he can cause more divisions within our

community at a time when we are trying to figure out whether the

immigration status of British nationals is secure in European

countries, added time when we are trying to figure out whether

European nationals who have left your four years and years can still

stay here, we should not be inviting somebody whose immigration measures

are so divisive and so contradictory, because it sends the

wrong message to the rest of the world. I would ask honourable

members opposite in all good conscience, can you really lay out

the red carpet for somebody who has talked about grabbing women by the

pussy? Can you lay out the red carpet for somebody who insulted the

LGBT community, branded Mexicans as rapists and murderers, insulted

Jewish people, insulted disabled people? I will end on a final point,

we will be judged by future generations about what we do when we

pay a visit to Donald Trump and tell him to come here, because we as

British people, we have values, we value respect, we value tolerance,

we have mutual respect for each other. If we do not speak up in the

face of injustice, if we do not challenge bigotry, then we are not

serving ourselves and we should not be inviting him to preach hatred and

to spread his bigotry, his misogyny and his division. Thank you, Mr

Turner. Clearly this is an issue that has resulted in some extremely

passionate speeches on both sides of the argument. Many of my

constituents will have signed the petition, from has signed the

petition in favour of Mr Trump coming. I have to say that only

around 30 of them have actually taken the trouble to e-mail me with

their views. I think it is perfectly legitimate that those individuals

have signed a petition expressing their own personal, individual

views. But for a government to support one of those petitions,

particularly the one in favour of banning the president, would be

irresponsible and self-indulgent. The government must separate the

individual from the officeholder and act, as has been said by many of my

colleagues, in the British national interest. There is no doubt that our

relationship with the United States is essential in terms of both the

economy and security. If the visit, a state visit, will enhance and

strengthen those ties and I think that is something that we should

support. I think those who have sort have been critical of the legitimacy

of the president, and I think it was the honourable lady for Bradford

West whose book about legitimacy, and I recognise the passion with

which, and a deep feeling, with which she spoke. But actually, the

president is legitimate. He is democratically elected by the

American people. And for us to turn our back on the officeholder of

President is actually an insult to the many millions of people...

Certainly. I thank the honourable member for getting we are made by.

Would he agree with me that actually this debate is not about... Nobody

is saying not to invite President Trump to the UK, we are saying let's

not let the red carpet and honour his rhetoric. Well, I think we

should roll out the red carpet if it is in our own national interest to

do so, and I do not think, as I have said, that there is any doubt about

that. As my honourable friend who has not now in its place, Ribble

Valley, spoke earlier about comparisons with the Brexit fault,

which is perfectly the case. The reality is that other candidates in

the USA, just as those who campaigned for the remaining board,

did not understand the deeply held views of the British people. Many of

the sort of sneering, arrogant, superior comments that we hear from

commentators, and from some politicians, is actually an insult

not to the British people, in this case to the American people. The

United States is a fully functioning democracy. It has got checks and

balances in the system. We have seen that with the instance of the court

decision against the President's immigration ban. The member, the

right honourable member from Gordon spoke about shared values and those

are the important shared values that we should be uniting and

strengthening, the democratic process, the judicial system. And a

free press. Foolishly, last year, as I think it was the honourable member

for Gainsborough mentioned, we had a debate in this chamber about whether

or not to ban candidate Trump. I think that was foolish and

ill-advised. On this occasion, it is even more foolish and ill-advised. I

repeat, here's the democratically elected president of our most

important ally. Reference has been made to him meeting our Majesty the

Queen. Her Majesty has met, as other members has described, from

unsavoury characters. Not only has she met some unsavoury characters,

she has met some characters who have actually taken up arms against the

Crown. But she has moved on from that in the best interests of our

nation. Mr Trump has upset some unusual things, a regular things,

and something of I would not agree with. -- has said some unusual

things. -- some irregular things. He has not, as many world leaders who

Her Majesty and the government has made over the years, abused human

rights. He is now any position, one hopes, to actually prevent those

other leaders throughout the world who seek to do that. There is

absolutely no doubt in my judgment, Mr Turner, that we should indeed

roll out the carpet for the president. We are not ruling out the

carpet for Mr Trump, we're rolling out the red carpet for our most

valued ally. I am sorry that the right honourable

member for New Forest East is not in his place, because I thought I would

like to respond to the arguments he made, particularly about the

post-2nd World War situation and the need for peace and stability. On the

4th of September 1959, as a little boy, I walked with my mother from a

ball to culling cattle in Ayrshire. I did so on that or Tom -- I walked

from Maybole to Culzean Castle with my mother. I did so to witness

President Eisenhower's visit. He was well known, he has been made a free

man in 1946. He has also been given by the people of Scotland a suite of

rooms in Culzean Castle called Eisenhower said. He was, as many of

you will know, a 5-star general who served as a supreme commander of the

Allied exhibition are forcing Europe. Post-World War II he was to

become the first supreme commander of Nato. He was then president of

the United States from 1953 to 1961, at a time when the Cold War was

gripping people with a fear that we faced the possibility of a third

World War. And he famously called Culzean Castle his second White

House, given he visited that not only when he held positions, when he

visited that with his family on many occasions during his life. And

however this great American who served as so well in the Second

World War as a supreme commander, this man who was the first commander

of Nato, this man who became probably the greatest Republican

president, post-2nd World War, only once, in 1959, was allowed to have

an informal visit to the United Kingdom. He was never afforded a

state reception. He was never afforded the right to address

parliament, and the American people in that president never complained

once. He was able to engage informally. All we are saying is

surely if it was good enough for that great president, who

contributed so much to our society, who contributed so much to the

defeat of fascism, that an informal visit was sufficient, why on earth

are we ruling out a red carpet to a man who has only spread division and

international instability? The first foreign leader to be invited to

address this Parliament was the President of France on the 23rd of

March 1939. So, it was not that there was not a precedent for having

people to come on state visits or to speak to Parliament. And we know

that only two American president in history has been afforded both a

state visit and an invitation to address parliament, President Reagan

and President Obama. One of President was invited to address

parliament but not receive a state visit, Bill Clinton. One had a

visit, a state visit, but was not invited to address parliament,

George W Bush. But most American presidents since the beginning of

the 20th century who have come to this country have come on informal

visits. It is unusual for us to record a state visit or an ability

to address parliament to American presidents. And when we do so, I

would say we should think very carefully. What is it that makes

this president who has created such international instability in

creating such as social division, what makes them deserving of a state

visit? I would say nothing. It is a grubby and despicable manoeuvre by

this Prime Minister. Many years ago, the Scottish poet Hugh McDiarmid

said that when he died he wanted to have a two-minute pandemonium.

The only -- thing I can say coming out of the state visit by President

Trump, is an opportunity for the citizens and parliamentarians of the

United Kingdom to have a two-minute pandemonium in opposite -- in

opposition. I will keep my remarks brief. I am disappointed some of the

honourable members who have been speaking at actually saying that

anyone who would support this visit is an apologist for his views, that

is not the case. I thought my honourable friend for Suffolk who

talked about reflective diplomacy was absolutely right. I do not think

megaphone diplomacy should be advocated. We are best served by

conducting our relationship with the United States in a positive manner.

When you look at the response from the government, to both of these

petitions, I cannot think that the response is the visit was offered

only be half of her Majesty, the Queen. I cannot think the Queen is

completely unaware of what is offered in her name. I would suspect

although this is way above my pay grade because I have no idea what

her Majesty thinks, that is the point, we are not all we're what she

thinks, she does not pronounce her views. I cannot think she would be

embarrassed because as always she will be a beacon of soft diplomacy

by greeting visitors to this country that are recorded in her name the

right of the visit. I would find it quite surprising that honourable

members, I have made a list of them but I ran out of names, who are

against this visit, including the honourable member for Newport West,

Tottenham and others, are arguing that seven days is a short term. I

hope colleagues will indulge me in the old adage about arguing a

prostitute about price, when he is offering her tartans, what do you

take? He says this is negotiating track -- strategy. At what point

will the honourable members opposite, everyone has heard this

comment before. I'm standing he is a woman being shouted down by women,

is that right? At what point in the seven days, will it be considered

appropriate to extend the invitation? We are talking about a

ban. Everything that has been said, there is no point which seems to be

acceptable to the honourable members have spoken for this petition about

banning. I have listened courteously to all the members who have spoken,

I have sat a year so I would appreciate no barracking from

opposition members. -- sat here. If we are going to agree that the

diplomacy should be extended between ourselves and the United States of

America is within the gift of the Prime Minister and the permission of

her Majesty then it will be done in the best possible manner to further

our relationship with our closest ally. For this talking with a stick

to state up the bees nest, I am amazed honourable members think this

is the best way forward. They can reflective measures which are being

talked about are exactly what we should be doing. Any of us who have

particular concerns about the pronouncements of President Trump,

have them quite rightly so, I object completely to some of the things

I've been said but I am looking at our government which has extended in

the name of her Majesty an invitation for someone to come to

our country as a welcome ally and president who we should hopefully

have a good and purposeful relationship with. Therefore, all

these comments we are now hearing about the man being proteins E.ON,

we have no respect for other countries if we talk in this manner.

If we have concerns about policies going forward, by all means

criticise and raised concerns about them but until we turn our back on

the president of the United States of America, I think it is quite

appropriate we offer a state visit. Our Prime Minister, through her

diplomatic efforts has secured a future for me talk, a future

direction for this country which binds us together as allies. Of

course I will. You also get the impression that a number of people

cannot get to terms with the fact that over 60 million people voted

for President Trump because they felt left behind. That is an

inability of people in this House to come to terms with democracy which

is why Tony Blair was visiting radio and TV stations the other day trying

to overturn the democratic decision of the British people. It is an

inability to understand what democracy is all about. Nearly 63

million people actually voted for President Trump and that is there a

democratic decision. They are the people who evaluated whether they

like the man and believe he can take the country forward. They were aware

of his comments in the past and voted for him because of the line he

has taken, it is not for us to criticise and try and retest the

matter now. I thought it was a ridiculous debate we should stand

against his candidacy, he is the president and we must move on. We

have criticisms and concerns but they should be done behind closed

doors, these public pronouncements seem to me to be counterintuitive to

what we need to do for the future of this country. My friend who spoke

for Gainsborough got it exactly right, the easy argument is to stand

here and make speeches about how some of his comments have been

totally reprehensible. They have been. But how much farther does get

us and our country in the future for trade deals and negotiations and

perhaps the reliance on them at some point in the future when they need

to come to our aid? I suspect this is a dangerous route to go down.

Thank you, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I wanted to

start by talking about the numbers of people who sign this petition. It

is a truly staggering number. In my constituency, almost 9000, one in

every ten resident in Cambridge. We have been talking about democracy,

democracy does not equal the majority solely. I want to talk

about why people like cities such as Cambridge feel passionately about

this issue because they go to the very heart of people's beliefs about

themselves. We have heard about the people who have been left behind but

there is also another country that values tolerance, education,

understanding and learning. That is the kind of city Cambridge is and

there are other cities around the country just like that. By many

people this is more than just a calculation of national interest, it

is about who we are. -- for many people. It is about our values which

really matter. One constituent who wrote to me said they were appalled

by the recent travel ban imposed by President Trump which denigrates

western values in such a public and devastating way. We have heard the