AP photo
By
Hazel Speed
Many have been astonished by the comments made by the Speaker of the UK Parliament during a debate in the House of Commons on Monday.
If one watches the TV replay it is quite edifying to see the cheers of those on the Labour Opposition benches and the shocked silence of MPs sitting on the Conservative Government benches opposite.
Reactionary style of Populism (as opposed to democratically voting equivalent), has been condemned yet this Speaker is surely participating thereto as it relates to those wishing to stop any visit by President Trump in both general and specific terms.
There is footage which showed Mr Bercow bowing to the Leader of China during that State Visit. So where were Mr Bercow’s protests then? Bowing to someone whose lack of human rights was beyond question thus makes Mr Trump’s current views look reasonable in comparison.
The visit of the Pope to any major Establishment including Churches, Parliament or Buckingham Palace, used to be at least against the British Protestant Constitution as it related to any Pope being entertained in or invited to various Constitutionally related British venues, major or minor. This was not against those who had a Catholic Faith but to protect English Protestant Sovereignty as The Pope is historically representative of The Vatican City and a Political Head of State whose involvement in politics throughout history has adversely affected the Isles of Great Britain – indeed it was a catalyst throughout the English Civil War offering to provide foreign mercenaries to fight Englishmen in the Service of King Charles I against Cromwell – and the King was consequently subsequently charged with Treason and paid with his life.
During the English Civil War the Speaker of that time and beyond was William Lenthall and Cromwell at one stage had to order that he be dragged from the Speaker’s chair during a set of circumstances hence the tradition of a mock replication to drag an elected speaker in relation to that chair.
There is the historic statement of the Speaker such is akin and infers to the fact that they have no eyes to see, ears to hear and tongue to tell save that by leave of the House.
Mr Bercow, though giving the impression of usually being a thoughtful and modern Speaker of the House of Commons, should glance at the metaphorical blood red dualling lines in front of him which straddle the floor of The House of Commons representing the distance of opposing dualling swords of former times to ensure no battles ensue between opposing factors as once they might.
It may be within part of his remit to hold a private view but not to verbalise. He can, apparently have input to ban President Trump from Speaking to Parliament. Democracy?
Some have asked, so it is alright for a Leader of another Faith to UK Protestantism or Chinese Leader but not for our best ally to address Parliament.
Many are saying privately ‘forget the placards of the protestors against President Trump it should be remembered that there are more who support President Trump and his stance also wishing Britain adopted the same hard line to protect the UK indigenous identity’.
I dare say they are the ones ‘keeping their powder dry’ for the outcome of Brexit.
One commentator pointed out that Mr Bercow welcomed the Emir of Kuwait who was anti gays so a measure of hypocrisy was in play by Mr Bercow.
Also MPs are frightened to criticise Mr Bercow or support a vote of no confidence in him as otherwise he may refuse to allow them to be called in Parliamentary debate – shades of China perhaps?
Many now think Mr Bercow should step down because he of all people should know the rules of the game as they were outlined on the tin when he accepted the role of Speaker!
Others say if respect goes then so should the person.
We shall see what happens.
Hazel Speed
Photo (c) Hazel Speed – used by kind permision to Tuck Magazine
Look how democratic the speaker of the British Parliament is.His attitude is hostile toward another democracy! Coming from a speaker,that too!