The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Trump plan to visit Britain sets off political dispute
Speaker of House cites opposition to ‘racism, sexism.’
LONDON — State visits to Britain are supposed to be about ceremony — banquets at Buckingham Palace, rides in horse-drawn coaches and small talk with Queen Elizabeth II — rather than politics.
But even before a date has been set, President Donald Trump’s trip to London has provoked a fierce political dispute, after an online petition urging the government to cancel the trip, and outspoken suggestions that Trump does not deserve to join Charles de Gaulle, Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama as dignitaries who have been accorded the honor of addressing Parliament.
The argument came in reaction to comments made Monday by the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, who said he opposed the possibility that Trump might be asked to address Parliament, citing his “opposition to racism and sexism.”
Prime Minister Theresa May extended the invitation to Trump, on the queen’s behalf, during a visit to Washington last month.
Some Conservative Party lawmakers have accused Bercow of hypocrisy because he has welcomed controversial leaders like Chinese President Xi Jinping, who addressed Parliament in 2015. Others have suggested that Bercow’s outspoken intervention overstepped the tradition of political neutrality associated with the role of the speaker.
Bercow has long been a controversial figure in Parliament, and his political journey from the right wing of the Conservative Party to a more liberal brand of politics has made him enemies along the way.
But the dispute underscores the divisions in Britain over the decision to invite Trump, which has prompted more than 1.8 million Britons to sign a petition calling on the government to cancel the trip.
On Tuesday, the backlash against Bercow was led by Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, who, while avoiding direct criticism of Bercow, told the BBC that ministers did not agree with the speaker’s view.
“The government is very clear: President Trump is the leader of our most important ally, he’s elected fairly and squarely, and it’s manifestly in our national interests that we reach out to him,” Javid said.
John Whittingdale, a former culture secretary, told Sky News that Bercow’s intervention was “a performance — it was John Bercow playing to the gallery and I think it was damaging to the national interest. I think it is regrettable that he did it.”
Yet Bercow is far from isolated, and his intervention on Monday was greeted with cheers and applause from some lawmakers. One veteran left-wing lawmaker from the opposition Labour Party, Dennis Skinner, rose from his seat and told Bercow: “Two words: Well done!”
Some female Labour deputies called for a boycott of any Trump speech. And so far there has been no attempt in Parliament to bring up for discussion a no-confidence motion in Bercow.
That suggests that lawmakers may be reluctant to upset the speaker, who controls debates, or have calculated that he would survive any vote to unseat him.
In fact, Bercow’s intervention is not conclusive, as the lord speaker, the speaker of the House of Lords and the lord great chamberlain, who represents Queen Elizabeth, would also have to agree to any government request to invite a head of state to speak in Parliament.
On Tuesday, the lord speaker, Norman Fowler, said that he would keep an “open mind” on whether to invite Trump and that Bercow had apologized for a lack of consultation before his statement Monday.
Nevertheless, Bercow’s comments made it unlikely that such an invitation would be made, and they provoked the wrath of Conservative-leaning newspapers.