Will Britain Ban Trump?

Post Reply New Topic

CNN

Apparently this is unprecedented.

No and I don't think it would be a good idea. I merely feeds into his PR objective.

Also direct interventions by the Home Secretary are pretty controversial due to the obvious political influence.

If we are to ban someone from entry it should due to guidelines set down in law, through the border agencies.

They're saying his comments about Muslims constitute hate speech. They're making quite a fuss. I'm not sure what their strategy is, but I think you're right that ultimately it works in Trump's favour.

I think this will become problematic should Trump become President. England is one of our main allies.

it gets interestinger and interestinger.

It would be a dumb idea to ban him.

- For the time being, it will only further solidify the far right's approval of him.

- In the very unlikely event that he does become POTUS they will have pre-packed adversary of thier own making to deal with. Sure, he'll say let bygones be bygones in front of the camera but unofficially he'll carry the grudge for the next 4-8 years.

This was discussed almost 2 weeks ago on the Quora website. The premise was the Brits have a very polite way of telling foreign dignataries that are quite reprehensible to f!ck themselves

it reminds me of Scotland giving pat Robertson the boot after he publically dissed them.

If so and Trump is elected lets have a war with them and Ireland and make them the 51st, 52nd, 53rd, and 54th states!! ! Then we enforce Trumps policies, kick out the migrants, refugees, and other illegals and blow the chunnel, there you have an ironically US run British Isles with a natural moat!! !

I believe that the Home Secretary has banned 84 hate preachers from entering the U.K.

We won't. It would be consistent to, but we won't.

Really, we should just stop banning people for what they say altogether. I'd even be against a blanket ban on violent criminals (which is probably already in place).

1) You would lose.
2) Britain and Ireland would constitute at least 5 states.

Aye, the last thing the US (or indeed anyone) wants to do is attack Britain directly. We're something of a dormant volcano, and probably best left that way.

None of it would arise if the whole democratic world was in a citizenship union. Which is what international business contacts, family ties, and friendships, including through sites like WP, the whole global village created by the web, logically should lead to. (Formed peacefully, but you notice AntDog's idea offers us US citizenship: some of this logic seeping through there.)

At present there is a lot of nasty anti-outsider and closing borders feeling all over the West, but it's head on against the logic of our modern lives with all these cross border ties.

Still have airport and seaport security stopping folks carrying explosives. But everyone who is not carrying explosives would be a citizen of the whole citizenship union, not of any one identified country wthin it.

2. Oh I forgot about Northern Ireland, Isle of Mann can be a part of Wales or a dependency like Puerto Rico. We also get all of your dependencies like the Indian Ocean islands, the rest of the Virgin Islands, Bermuda and the Caymans.
1. How would we lose when nobody in the UK is armed and we can attack you within with our several bases we already have there.
3 Next up Canada, New Zealand, and Australia!! ! Then we can have the United States of the Anglosphere with Trump as president!! ! YAY!! !

Frankly, it would be nice for the US to finally make an honest arrangement, rather than its present policy of abusing our heartfelt yearning for it by keeping us as an occasional fuckbuddy in a distant town.

Not Trump, though. I refuse to recognise any leader whose name is a synonym for 'fart'.