British lawmakers debate a ban on Donald Trump entering the country

[rijit]

Now if we could only ban Trump from the US.

What planet are you from dude? Trump is the only one with big enough balls to say what most people only dare to think,wake up man keep your country safe while you still can, Very soon it will be to late & you will be very Sorry.

Seems thankfully most rational considered people arntt from the same 'planet' as you. And small mercies there's a rather large 'ocean' between your 'world 'and reality.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[NoshowJones]

Not to worry Donald, just convert to Islam and change your name to Halal Akbar Trump, and you will have no problem entering the UK. And grow a beard...

Yes, and once you get there, don't forget to go to the benefits office and get your housing benefits and other handouts.

Having that beard, and getting the wife to wear a hijab and you can't fail. You won't be recognised.

Pure hateful religionist nonsense. The sort of bigotry that the original petitioners didn't want Trump to pander to if he came to the UK and caused trouble.

[Transporter]

That's pretty silly. Ban someone because they hurt your little feelers?

No, not ban but debate.

So how come they didn't debate Bush the younger, a war criminal? Oh, of course, if they did that they'd have had to debate Blair as well- both war criminals ( IMO ).

If the plonkers in Britain's parliament want to debate bad foreign people, London is full of them.

What happened to Britain anyway? It used to rule half the world, and now it's debating a man because he wants Muslim immigration halted till they can screen the terrorists out. How the mighty has fallen. PITIFUL.

They let Nelson Mandela in and he was a mass murderer. They also let terrorists, thieves, rapists, pick pockets and hate preachers in.

Strange to try and ban Donald Trump just because he is trying to protect his innocent people from the above.

[lostboy]

As usual, Europeans Euronews is dishonest. Trump didn't suggest banning Muslims from the US. He proposed stopping immigration until they could be properly vetted.

Liars.

The written statement from Trump's campaign, released the day of his verbal comments said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/

What falsehoods are media sources delivering? Total and complete shutdown sounds pretty much like 'banning' to me. 'Figure out what is doing on' does not automatically mean the implementation of vetting systems. You, and other Trump acolytes, put words in his mouth. Since he speaks at a 4th Grade level, it is very clear to most of us exactly what he says and exactly what he means.

Your attack on mainstream media is baseless. You use of the word Liar is purposefully inflammatory. It is certainly plain speaking but it is just plain wrong. Yet somehow these go un-noticed.

[Ulic]

This is ridiculous. Of course Trump is a windbag, and living proof humans can mate with

Orangutans but to actually ban him from entering the UK is against everything the UK

stands for. Start with banning the Saudi Imams that preach radicle Islam and jihad

in UK mosques and go from there.

[dunroaming]

Go to any pantomine in England and the audience will cheer the hero and boo the baddie. This petition is a bit like that. It is just booing the baddie. It is a way of people showing their disgust for the duck. It had to be debated in Parliament because any petition getting over a100,000 signatures has to be. The were some voices saying ban him but the majority said no let him in. The general feeling was that you don't ban someone for being stupid and it was pretty much unanimously agreed that he is very stupid.

[Chicog]

He'd make a great Dame in Cinderella

[Sealbash]

Go to any pantomine in England and the audience will cheer the hero and boo the baddie. This petition is a bit like that. It is just booing the baddie. It is a way of people showing their disgust for the duck. It had to be debated in Parliament because any petition getting over a100,000 signatures has to be. The were some voices saying ban him but the majority said no let him in. The general feeling was that you don't ban someone for being stupid and it was pretty much unanimously agreed that he is very stupid.

How many representatives were in parliament during the debate? What is the average compensation paid to the politicians? For 3 hours? Is this really the most productive the politicians can be for the citizens they represent? Glad the UK has no more pressing issues than to worry about what a US politician says in the USA about USA borders.

[Chicog]

Go to any pantomine in England and the audience will cheer the hero and boo the baddie. This petition is a bit like that. It is just booing the baddie. It is a way of people showing their disgust for the duck. It had to be debated in Parliament because any petition getting over a100,000 signatures has to be. The were some voices saying ban him but the majority said no let him in. The general feeling was that you don't ban someone for being stupid and it was pretty much unanimously agreed that he is very stupid.

How many representatives were in parliament during the debate? What is the average compensation paid to the politicians? For 3 hours? Is this really the most productive the politicians can be for the citizens they represent? Glad the UK has no more pressing issues than to worry about what a US politician says in the USA about USA borders.

It was the Prime Ministers directive to give the people more input into what Parliament discuss. They had no choice in the matter.

The will of the people if you like. you see most Britons I know think Trump is a d*ck.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Chicog

[Mr Tom]

Lol.Like everyone I've talked to from Europe hates Muslims way more than Trump.

[laubau]

As usual, Europeans Euronews is dishonest. Trump didn't suggest banning Muslims from the US. He proposed stopping immigration until they could be properly vetted.

Liars.

You are the one being dishonest. Trump actually said...

Trump's campaign added in the release that such a ban should remain in effect "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

What on earth does that mean...until the 12th of never? You are the one sugar coating his remarks. Trump did not say "properly vetted"...you did.

Trump is a nasty demagogue who plays the racist/religionist card to scare monger and pander to the bigotry of the ignorant in order to try to win an election. We have seen it before in history.

I doubt very much anything will come of the UK debate, but at least it sends a message to the US and the world that many disagree with and can see through his toxic brand of ethno nationalism.

Trump expanded on this quote in an interview right after what he said. "Until they can properly be vetted" POM's have always had a problem with interpretation and understanding the real point. How do you properly vet somebody from a war zone? Are the records up to date or do they even have any? Would you trust Basheer to give you the real info? Give your head a shake! Yup, they might have to be kept out until the 12th of never!!

[OMGImInPattaya]

As usual, Europeans Euronews is dishonest. Trump didn't suggest banning Muslims from the US. He proposed stopping immigration until they could be properly vetted.

Liars.

Mind that Euronews' isn't even European any more. It was bought recently by a Coptic Egyptian. And is often full of rather sly propaganda...

Well, the bastards in the UK who are pushing this crap are liars. Trump never proposed banning Muslims from the US. He proposed something that Europeans are going to cry about because they aren't doing it. Stop immigration until you can vet people.

Liars.

You don't really understand the British at all. Most of the people who signed that petition didn't do so because they want Trump banned, but just because it's a very convenient way of telling him that he's an ar$ehole.

And again, he did not mention vetting, he said he wanted to stop muslims entering the US "Until we can work out what the hell is going on".

Because he's too stupid to actually have any detailed policies.

Is the US visa system not a vetting system in its own right?

Does it not already include overseas criminal lists and monitors of social media? (Ans: Yes it does).

If they do, they woefully incomplete...Tasfeen Malik, the San Bernidino terrorist wife and all of the recent Paris attack perpetrators were not on any US watch or no-fly lists. So one got in and all the others could have at any time.

[MAJIC]

People around the world hear this 500,000 number and think it is significant. If they knew England better, they'd realize it's just a few families in Bradford.

I don't have don't any time for Trump one thing is certain those with a vested interest will be the ones to vote. So a silly vote in the first place !

[NeverSure]

As usual, Europeans Euronews is dishonest. Trump didn't suggest banning Muslims from the US. He proposed stopping immigration until they could be properly vetted.

Liars.

The written statement from Trump's campaign, released the day of his verbal comments said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/

What falsehoods are media sources delivering? Total and complete shutdown sounds pretty much like 'banning' to me. 'Figure out what is doing on' does not automatically mean the implementation of vetting systems. You, and other Trump acolytes, put words in his mouth. Since he speaks at a 4th Grade level, it is very clear to most of us exactly what he says and exactly what he means.

Your attack on mainstream media is baseless. You use of the word Liar is purposefully inflammatory. It is certainly plain speaking but it is just plain wrong. Yet somehow these go un-noticed.

A shutdown until representatives can figure out what's going on isn't a total or permanent ban. You are being dishonest. Europistan is going to wish like Hell that they had done exactly that.

Letting any foreigners waltz in without a plan is bad enough but if there's any chance they include terrorists it's insanity.

The "United Kingdom of Allah" is up next. Why don't you have someone to stand up for the ordinary, traditional citizens as Trump is doing for the US?

You puzzies in Europistan are going to live to regret your better-than-you attitudes and unlike my father who was at D-Day, I'll just tell you "tough shit. Live with it".

Cheers.

Edited January 19, 2016 by NeverSure

[simple1]

Trump is the individual people seriously support being the next President of the USA?

When Trump made his statement on banning immigration to the US until "our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” he was actually referencing a poll conducted by a known right wing conspiracy theorist, Frank Gaffney. Gaffney has made numerous accusations that have been disproved as well as his poll of 600 US Muslims being flawed.

"the Conservative Political Action Committee banned him from their 2011 conference for peddling false accusations about GOP connections to Muslim extremists. It was his organization, CSP, that was behind the unfounded rumor that Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Huma Abedin, was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and once floated the false idea that General David Petraeus had “submitted” to shariah".

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Edited January 20, 2016 by simple1

[lostboy]

As usual, Europeans Euronews is dishonest. Trump didn't suggest banning Muslims from the US. He proposed stopping immigration until they could be properly vetted.

Liars.

The written statement from Trump's campaign, released the day of his verbal comments said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/

What falsehoods are media sources delivering? Total and complete shutdown sounds pretty much like 'banning' to me. 'Figure out what is doing on' does not automatically mean the implementation of vetting systems. You, and other Trump acolytes, put words in his mouth. Since he speaks at a 4th Grade level, it is very clear to most of us exactly what he says and exactly what he means.

Your attack on mainstream media is baseless. You use of the word Liar is purposefully inflammatory. It is certainly plain speaking but it is just plain wrong. Yet somehow these go un-noticed.

A shutdown until representatives can figure out what's going on isn't a total or permanent ban. You are being dishonest. Europistan is going to wish like Hell that they had done exactly that.

Letting any foreigners waltz in without a plan is bad enough but if there's any chance they include terrorists it's insanity.

The "United Kingdom of Allah" is up next. Why don't you have someone to stand up for the ordinary, traditional citizens as Trump is doing for the US?

You puzzies in Europistan are going to live to regret your better-than-you attitudes and unlike my father who was at D-Day, I'll just tell you "tough shit. Live with it".

Cheers.

People who don't parrot your perspective are dishonest and liars? Without a plan - you are kidding right? What the hell is the current immigration system? Chopped liver? If everyone was able to just walk into the US you would have had your Masters carrying (yeah right_ Thai women in Oregon long ago. The fact is that there is a stringent system of border controls that Trump and his crazies ignore. Even when it is said in plain grade 4 English and reinforced by his campaign in writing, his groupies impose their own twisted meaning on what is plainly said. Total and complete shutdown is a ban. It cannot be stated any clearer.

Whatever got up your nose about Europe, your claim of reflected glory from actions 70 years ago are bogus. You weren't at D-Day. You have no claim on anything done by those better than you. That you would think so, is shameful and disrespectful to others. When you've done something more than just fantasising about a 'righteous' kill of non white, non Christian, persons trying to violate your freedoms, then you can post about your heroics. Live with that.

[RabC]

Not to worry Donald, just convert to Islam and change your name to Halal Akbar Trump, and you will have no problem entering the UK. And grow a beard...

Yes, and once you get there, don't forget to go to the benefits office and get your housing benefits and other handouts.

Having that beard, and getting the wife to wear a hijab and you can't fail. You won't be recognised.

Pure hateful religionist nonsense. The sort of bigotry that the original petitioners didn't want Trump to pander to if he came to the UK and caused trouble.

Awww don't pick on him, he's all upset because he can't read his Daily Wail over here.

[NoshowJones]

Not to worry Donald, just convert to Islam and change your name to Halal Akbar Trump, and you will have no problem entering the UK. And grow a beard...

Yes, and once you get there, don't forget to go to the benefits office and get your housing benefits and other handouts.

Having that beard, and getting the wife to wear a hijab and you can't fail. You won't be recognised.

Pure hateful religionist nonsense. The sort of bigotry that the original petitioners didn't want Trump to pander to if he came to the UK and caused trouble.

Awww don't pick on him, he's all upset because he can't read his Daily Wail over here.

Could you be more specific in what you are trying to say?

[RabC]

Go to any pantomine in England and the audience will cheer the hero and boo the baddie. This petition is a bit like that. It is just booing the baddie. It is a way of people showing their disgust for the duck. It had to be debated in Parliament because any petition getting over a100,000 signatures has to be. The were some voices saying ban him but the majority said no let him in. The general feeling was that you don't ban someone for being stupid and it was pretty much unanimously agreed that he is very stupid.

How many representatives were in parliament during the debate? What is the average compensation paid to the politicians? For 3 hours? Is this really the most productive the politicians can be for the citizens they represent? Glad the UK has no more pressing issues than to worry about what a US politician says in the USA about USA borders.

If you had read why the debate took place it wasn't just about his statements to ban Muslims entering the USA he also made some pretty dumb and derogatory statements about the UK and is policies. Also again if you had actualy followed the whole circus you would see that it wasn't discussed in the House but in a committee room therefore not disturbing the running of the U.K. Edited January 20, 2016 by RabC

[OMGImInPattaya]

Go to any pantomine in England and the audience will cheer the hero and boo the baddie. This petition is a bit like that. It is just booing the baddie. It is a way of people showing their disgust for the duck. It had to be debated in Parliament because any petition getting over a100,000 signatures has to be. The were some voices saying ban him but the majority said no let him in. The general feeling was that you don't ban someone for being stupid and it was pretty much unanimously agreed that he is very stupid.

How many representatives were in parliament during the debate? What is the average compensation paid to the politicians? For 3 hours? Is this really the most productive the politicians can be for the citizens they represent? Glad the UK has no more pressing issues than to worry about what a US politician says in the USA about USA borders.

It was the Prime Ministers directive to give the people more input into what Parliament discuss. They had no choice in the matter.

The will of the people if you like. you see most Britons I know think Trump is a d*ck.

Most Americans would consider Jeremy Corbin, you're tee-totaling vegetarian, anti-gun, pro-Euroabia head of the opposition (which Trump is not) to be certifiable as well...so I wouldn't be throwing stones.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Go to any pantomine in England and the audience will cheer the hero and boo the baddie. This petition is a bit like that. It is just booing the baddie. It is a way of people showing their disgust for the duck. It had to be debated in Parliament because any petition getting over a100,000 signatures has to be. The were some voices saying ban him but the majority said no let him in. The general feeling was that you don't ban someone for being stupid and it was pretty much unanimously agreed that he is very stupid.

How many representatives were in parliament during the debate? What is the average compensation paid to the politicians? For 3 hours? Is this really the most productive the politicians can be for the citizens they represent? Glad the UK has no more pressing issues than to worry about what a US politician says in the USA about USA borders.

If you had read why the debate took place it wasn't just about his statements to ban Muslims entering the USA he also made some pretty dumb and derogatory statements about the UK and is policies. Also again if you had actualy followed the whole circus you would see that it wasn't discussed in the House but in a committee room therefore not disturbing the running of the U.K.

Yeah...no balls those UK politicos...just posturing for their radical Muslim constituents...the lapdog wouldn't really want to upset its master.

Edited January 20, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[alanrchase]

Amusing how so many posters that appear to be citizens of the " land of the free" are so upset that the British government have the freedom to have a debate.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Amusing how so many posters that appear to be citizens of the " land of the free" are so upset that the British government have the freedom to have a debate.

I don't think anyone has a problem with them debating whatever they want...it's a silly waste of time and contributor to global warming but if that's the most pressing issue facing the UK at this time then go for it...but why not have the balls to TAKE A VOTE afterwards!

[RabC]

Go to any pantomine in England and the audience will cheer the hero and boo the baddie. This petition is a bit like that. It is just booing the baddie. It is a way of people showing their disgust for the duck. It had to be debated in Parliament because any petition getting over a100,000 signatures has to be. The were some voices saying ban him but the majority said no let him in. The general feeling was that you don't ban someone for being stupid and it was pretty much unanimously agreed that he is very stupid.

How many representatives were in parliament during the debate? What is the average compensation paid to the politicians? For 3 hours? Is this really the most productive the politicians can be for the citizens they represent? Glad the UK has no more pressing issues than to worry about what a US politician says in the USA about USA borders.

If you had read why the debate took place it wasn't just about his statements to ban Muslims entering the USA he also made some pretty dumb and derogatory statements about the UK and is policies. Also again if you had actualy followed the whole circus you would see that it wasn't discussed in the House but in a committee room therefore not disturbing the running of the U.K.

Yeah...no balls those UK politicos...just posturing for their radical Muslim constituents...the lapdog wouldn't really want to upset its master.

Really informative and worthwhile post there Bubba, do they teach that kind of thing on Fox News?

[RabC]

Amusing how so many posters that appear to be citizens of the " land of the free" are so upset that the British government have the freedom to have a debate.

I don't think anyone has a problem with them debating whatever they want...it's a silly waste of time and contributor to global warming but if that's the most pressing issue facing the UK at this time then go for it...but why not have the balls to TAKE A VOTE afterwards!

Again ignorance is bliss, if you don't know or understand the UK parlimentary system, it's better not to shout about it as it makes you look like a fool.

[OMGImInPattaya]

.SA about USA borders.

If you had read why the debate took place it wasn't just about his statements to ban Muslims entering the USA he also made some pretty dumb and derogatory statements about the UK and is policies. Also again if you had actualy followed the whole circus you would see that it wasn't discussed in the House but in a committee room therefore not disturbing the running of the U.K.

Yeah...no balls those UK politicos...just posturing for their radical Muslim constituents...the lapdog wouldn't really want to upset its master.

Really informative and worthwhile post there Bubba, do they teach that kind of thing on Fox News?

Try replying to posts and not posting ad-hominem attacks .

[OMGImInPattaya]

Amusing how so many posters that appear to be citizens of the " land of the free" are so upset that the British government have the freedom to have a debate.

I don't think anyone has a problem with them debating whatever they want...it's a silly waste of time and contributor to global warming but if that's the most pressing issue facing the UK at this time then go for it...but why not have the balls to TAKE A VOTE afterwards!

Again ignorance is bliss, if you don't know or understand the UK parlimentary system, it's better not to shout about it as it makes you look like a fool.

Whatever "system" they're using, it's pretty stupid to debate something and not take any action or vote on it, even if it's only to take the "pulse" of The House. Of course, the whole exercise was comical from the start, no matter the populists rule of debating a question if enough people sign an online petition. Why not debate something useful...like if all UK muslim citizens and residents should be required to take an oath of loyalty to the Queen and forswear allegiance to ISIS like their late (thanks to the US) muslim brother "Jihadi John."

Edited January 20, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[alanrchase]

Amusing how so many posters that appear to be citizens of the " land of the free" are so upset that the British government have the freedom to have a debate.

I don't think anyone has a problem with them debating whatever they want...it's a silly waste of time and contributor to global warming but if that's the most pressing issue facing the UK at this time then go for it...but why not have the balls to TAKE A VOTE afterwards!

Again ignorance is bliss, if you don't know or understand the UK parlimentary system, it's better not to shout about it as it makes you look like a fool.

Whatever "system" they're using, it's pretty stupid to debate something and not take any action or vote on what was debated...even if it's only to take the "pulse" of The Commons. Of course, the whole exercise was comical from the start, no matter if they have so stupid populists rule necessitating a "debate" is enough people sign and online petition, as it would never have any effect on government policy.

So why are you so upset about it? If the debate was about a topic you agreed with you would probably cheer them on.

[simple1]

A number of US citizens commenting who conveniently ignore the fact the US has a similar petition arrangement, though a different decision making process. Anyone recall the petition calling for Piers Morgan to be removed from the US?

US citizens are able to file petitions on the White House website. If they collect at least 25,000 signatures within 30 days the White House is obliged to issue a response.

[OMGImInPattaya]

A number of US citizens commenting who conveniently ignore the fact the US has a similar petition arrangement, though a different decision making process. Anyone recall the petition calling for Piers Morgan to be removed from the US?

US citizens are able to file petitions on the White House website. If they collect at least 25,000 signatures within 30 days the White House is obliged to issue a response.

That's just a political stunt instituted by the Obama administration...supposedly the Big Man or the appropriate cabinet member will review an issue and maybe issue an administration statement it if something like 100k people "sign" the online petition in favor of it. Of course this has nothing to do whatsoever with the operation of the government.