The first major Commons vote on the road towards the UK leaving the EU is to take place after MPs complete a marathon two-day debate on triggering Article 50.
At the end of the first day of the second reading debate on the bill, which went on until four minutes to midnight, almost 100 MPs had already spoken for and against.
The final speaker, Tory Eurosceptic David Nuttall, made the shortest speech of the day, declaring in a booming voice: "The people have spoken. This bill must be passed!"
Theresa May is assured of a large majority in favour of the Government's bill to approve triggering Article 50, with Tory MPs and most Labour MPs set to vote for it.
But the Labour Party is badly split, with up to 60 of its backbenchers and a handful of rebel frontbenchers declaring they will defy their leader's order to vote for the bill.
Towards the end of day one of the debate, one of its leading opponents, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, told MPs: "For my mind, the bottom line is this: that the Prime Minister has no mandate for the extreme Brexit she is pursuing.
"It was not on the ballot paper."
But one of the leading campaigners for Brexit, Tory MP Steve Baker, said: "If we were to go ahead and refuse this bill, I believe that even our own party on this side would suffer grave consequences.
"It's in all of our interests that this bill passes."
He also - rather surprisingly - defended David Cameron, who called the referendum, saying: "My experience was that everything he did was motivated by the highest concerns for this country."
Earlier during the debate, Labour's divisions were laid bare when shadow Foreign Office minister Catherine West risked the sack by announcing she would vote against triggering Article 50.
Claiming it was the only way to make the Government listen, she said: "It's not just about jobs and the economy.
"It's about our children, our grandchildren and about peace and prosperity."
A few minutes later, Labour's Jo Stevens, who quit as shadow Welsh secretary last week over Mr Corbyn's order to vote for Article 50, said: "The referendum result last year felt like a body blow.
"The Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech felt like the life-support machine being switched off and triggering Article 50 will for me feel like the funeral."
She was followed by Labour's former Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw, who said he would go against a three-line whip on a bill for the first time in nearly 20 years as an MP.
"This could be our only chance to prevent the hardest of Brexits, or to soften its blow," he told MPs.
"I cannot and will not vote to destroy jobs and prosperity in my constituency."
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Sudanese Stanford Ph.D. Student Speaks Out After Being Detained at JFK Under Trump Muslim Ban
Nisrin Elamin is a Ph.D. student in anthropology at Stanford University and a Sudanese citizen. Last week, she was attempting to make it back to the United States before Donald Trump signed an executive order barring immigrants from Sudan and six other nations. She missed a connecting flight. By the time her plane landed at JFK on Friday, the order was in effect, and she was detained. She describes what happened next.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As we continue our coverage of Donald Trump’s executive order, we’re joined by Nisrin Elamin, a Ph.D. student in anthropology at Stanford University and a Sudanese citizen.
AMY GOODMAN: She was detained at JFK airport Friday evening, shortly after Donald Trump’s executive order banning visitors from seven countries, including Sudan, went into effect.
Welcome to Democracy Now! I’m very sorry for what you went through. Can you describe what happened to you at the airport, Nisrin?
NISRIN ELAMIN: Sure. I boarded a plane in Sudan shortly after finding out about the executive order. I was trying to get back before it came into effect, but I missed the connecting flight. When I got in, I was asked to—I was escorted into a separate holding area. I was questioned extensively, in part, among other things, about my views about the political situation in Sudan, about whether or not I knew of radical groups in Sudan, whether I knew people who had radical views. I was asked to share my social media handles—not my passwords, but my social media handles.
Then I was asked to kind of sit tight and wait as they were trying to figure out what was going on, because the order had literally just been signed, so—or they were just getting notice of it, so they really—the officers didn’t really know what they were doing. And they told me, eventually, that I needed to get transferred to Terminal 4, which is a 24-hour holding area. And before doing that, I had to be patted down. And so, I was led into a room. I was patted down. It was a very uncomfortable pat-down. I was touched in my chest and groin area. And then I was handcuffed briefly. That’s when I started to cry, because I felt like—at that moment, I felt like, "OK, I’m probably going to get deported." And they didn’t—they realized they hadn’t handcuffed the other person who was with me, who was an Iranian green card holder, and so they took off the handcuffs, transferred us to Terminal 4. There were other people at this point that were getting led in in handcuffs who were Iranian and Iraqi citizens with valid visas.
Eventually, I got out, after five hours. And I was told—I asked the officer if I would be able to go back to Sudan, because I haven’t finished my dissertation research. And he recommended that I not go back, unless I was willing to be subjected to that whole procedure again. And he said, "You know, I would stay put if I were you," because green card holders were being treated on a case-by-case basis.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And did you get any sense—because there’s been a lot of reports in terms of the lack of preparation for this order. Did you get any sense that the customs officials and the others that you dealt with, the immigration officials, were on the same wavelength or knew what they were doing, or was there a lot of confusion?
NISRIN ELAMIN: There was a lot of confusion. It was very chaotic. And they admitted it to me. It was interesting watching. I feel like when I first got into the holding area, which I was quite familiar with, because when I was an F1 and when I was on a student and work visa, I was often questioned in that room—I never expected to be in there as a green card holder. But, you know, there was a lot of confusion. They didn’t know what to do with us. And in the beginning, I felt like I was being treated quite well. And as the night progressed, I feel like I watched our kind of progressive criminalization, if you will. And that was as people were trying, scrambling to get direction from higher-ups in Washington.
AMY GOODMAN: They weren’t used to holding green card holders, right?
NISRIN ELAMIN: Exactly.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, do you feel you were treated differently as not only an immigrant, but as an African immigrant?
NISRIN ELAMIN: You know, it’s an interesting question. I think, on the one hand, I was probably treated much better than other people, partly because of my affiliation with Stanford.
AMY GOODMAN: Had Stanford helped you come back as fast as you could—
NISRIN ELAMIN: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: —once they realized what was happening?
NISRIN ELAMIN: Yes. They paid for my ticket. I also, during the interview, told them that I was a Stanford Ph.D. student.
AMY GOODMAN: And you were a Harvard undergrad?
NISRIN ELAMIN: Yes. So I think that, you know, led to me being detained for five hours, as opposed to another Sudanese person who was detained for 30 hours and is in his seventies. So, I think that that’s one aspect of it. On the flip side, when I went to Terminal 4, they didn’t know my background, and I did feel—you know, I guess the point that I actually want to make is, you know, I think this order is a reflection of a larger trend in this country to criminalize black people, to criminalize immigrants, to criminalize Muslims. And as a black Muslim immigrant, I’m really concerned about that. And I do think that the Somalis and Sudanese, people of African descent who are going to be affected by this, you know, I think they’re going to be treated differently, frankly.
AMY GOODMAN: You’ve made the point that other terrorists, people like Dylann Storm Roof, who murdered a bunch of innocent civilians, terrorizing a whole population—you’ve made a comparison to how communities are treated.
NISRIN ELAMIN: Yeah. You know, I think—I guess I want people to realize that—you know, to imagine a ban on white Christian males from schools and churches, where these kinds of terrorist acts have happened, like the one Dylann Roof committed. You know, that would be nonsensical. And I think this is very similar.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As we continue our coverage of Donald Trump’s executive order, we’re joined by Nisrin Elamin, a Ph.D. student in anthropology at Stanford University and a Sudanese citizen.
AMY GOODMAN: She was detained at JFK airport Friday evening, shortly after Donald Trump’s executive order banning visitors from seven countries, including Sudan, went into effect.
Welcome to Democracy Now! I’m very sorry for what you went through. Can you describe what happened to you at the airport, Nisrin?
NISRIN ELAMIN: Sure. I boarded a plane in Sudan shortly after finding out about the executive order. I was trying to get back before it came into effect, but I missed the connecting flight. When I got in, I was asked to—I was escorted into a separate holding area. I was questioned extensively, in part, among other things, about my views about the political situation in Sudan, about whether or not I knew of radical groups in Sudan, whether I knew people who had radical views. I was asked to share my social media handles—not my passwords, but my social media handles.
Then I was asked to kind of sit tight and wait as they were trying to figure out what was going on, because the order had literally just been signed, so—or they were just getting notice of it, so they really—the officers didn’t really know what they were doing. And they told me, eventually, that I needed to get transferred to Terminal 4, which is a 24-hour holding area. And before doing that, I had to be patted down. And so, I was led into a room. I was patted down. It was a very uncomfortable pat-down. I was touched in my chest and groin area. And then I was handcuffed briefly. That’s when I started to cry, because I felt like—at that moment, I felt like, "OK, I’m probably going to get deported." And they didn’t—they realized they hadn’t handcuffed the other person who was with me, who was an Iranian green card holder, and so they took off the handcuffs, transferred us to Terminal 4. There were other people at this point that were getting led in in handcuffs who were Iranian and Iraqi citizens with valid visas.
Eventually, I got out, after five hours. And I was told—I asked the officer if I would be able to go back to Sudan, because I haven’t finished my dissertation research. And he recommended that I not go back, unless I was willing to be subjected to that whole procedure again. And he said, "You know, I would stay put if I were you," because green card holders were being treated on a case-by-case basis.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And did you get any sense—because there’s been a lot of reports in terms of the lack of preparation for this order. Did you get any sense that the customs officials and the others that you dealt with, the immigration officials, were on the same wavelength or knew what they were doing, or was there a lot of confusion?
NISRIN ELAMIN: There was a lot of confusion. It was very chaotic. And they admitted it to me. It was interesting watching. I feel like when I first got into the holding area, which I was quite familiar with, because when I was an F1 and when I was on a student and work visa, I was often questioned in that room—I never expected to be in there as a green card holder. But, you know, there was a lot of confusion. They didn’t know what to do with us. And in the beginning, I felt like I was being treated quite well. And as the night progressed, I feel like I watched our kind of progressive criminalization, if you will. And that was as people were trying, scrambling to get direction from higher-ups in Washington.
AMY GOODMAN: They weren’t used to holding green card holders, right?
NISRIN ELAMIN: Exactly.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, do you feel you were treated differently as not only an immigrant, but as an African immigrant?
NISRIN ELAMIN: You know, it’s an interesting question. I think, on the one hand, I was probably treated much better than other people, partly because of my affiliation with Stanford.
AMY GOODMAN: Had Stanford helped you come back as fast as you could—
NISRIN ELAMIN: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: —once they realized what was happening?
NISRIN ELAMIN: Yes. They paid for my ticket. I also, during the interview, told them that I was a Stanford Ph.D. student.
AMY GOODMAN: And you were a Harvard undergrad?
NISRIN ELAMIN: Yes. So I think that, you know, led to me being detained for five hours, as opposed to another Sudanese person who was detained for 30 hours and is in his seventies. So, I think that that’s one aspect of it. On the flip side, when I went to Terminal 4, they didn’t know my background, and I did feel—you know, I guess the point that I actually want to make is, you know, I think this order is a reflection of a larger trend in this country to criminalize black people, to criminalize immigrants, to criminalize Muslims. And as a black Muslim immigrant, I’m really concerned about that. And I do think that the Somalis and Sudanese, people of African descent who are going to be affected by this, you know, I think they’re going to be treated differently, frankly.
AMY GOODMAN: You’ve made the point that other terrorists, people like Dylann Storm Roof, who murdered a bunch of innocent civilians, terrorizing a whole population—you’ve made a comparison to how communities are treated.
NISRIN ELAMIN: Yeah. You know, I think—I guess I want people to realize that—you know, to imagine a ban on white Christian males from schools and churches, where these kinds of terrorist acts have happened, like the one Dylann Roof committed. You know, that would be nonsensical. And I think this is very similar.
Iran launched another ballistic missile in secret last month, US officials say
On the same day the United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting to discuss Iran's recent test launch of a medium-range ballistic missile, Fox News has learned of another secret missile launch, this one conducted in early December, two U.S. military officials tell Fox News.
EXCLUSIVE: PENTAGON BELIEVES ATTACK ON SAUDI FRIGATE MEANT FOR AMERICAN WARSHIP
On December 6, nearly a month after the presidential election, Tehran fired a Shahab-3, an intermediate-range ballistic missile based on a North Korean design, capable of flying 800 miles.
Iran previously conducted two Shahab-3 missile tests last March, coinciding with a visit by Vice President Biden to Israel.
The December launch appeared to mark another breach of U.N. Resolution 2231, which forbids the Islamic Republic from conducting such tests.
NAVY SEAL KILLED IN YEMEN ANTI-TERROR RAID IS IDENTIFIED
The Shahab-3 was launched as part of a military exercise, according to one official. It is not immediately clear where the missile traveled, but the launch was deemed successful.
News of another Iranian ballistic missile test came one day after Fox News first reported a new test of a medium-range ballistic missile Sunday from the Semnan launch site 140 miles east of Tehran, the first confirmed missile test after President Donald Trump assumed office.
The December test launch also occurred at Semnan, according to officials.
U.N. resolution 2231 bars Iran from conducting ballistic missile tests for eight years and went into effect on July 20, 2015, days after the U.S. and other parties agreed to the landmark nuclear deal in Vienna.
Iran is "called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology," according to the text of the resolution meant to coincide with the nuclear agreement.
Iran has conducted at least six ballistic missile tests since the nuclear agreement and the U.N. resolution went into effect in 2015.
EXCLUSIVE: PENTAGON BELIEVES ATTACK ON SAUDI FRIGATE MEANT FOR AMERICAN WARSHIP
On December 6, nearly a month after the presidential election, Tehran fired a Shahab-3, an intermediate-range ballistic missile based on a North Korean design, capable of flying 800 miles.
Iran previously conducted two Shahab-3 missile tests last March, coinciding with a visit by Vice President Biden to Israel.
The December launch appeared to mark another breach of U.N. Resolution 2231, which forbids the Islamic Republic from conducting such tests.
NAVY SEAL KILLED IN YEMEN ANTI-TERROR RAID IS IDENTIFIED
The Shahab-3 was launched as part of a military exercise, according to one official. It is not immediately clear where the missile traveled, but the launch was deemed successful.
News of another Iranian ballistic missile test came one day after Fox News first reported a new test of a medium-range ballistic missile Sunday from the Semnan launch site 140 miles east of Tehran, the first confirmed missile test after President Donald Trump assumed office.
The December test launch also occurred at Semnan, according to officials.
U.N. resolution 2231 bars Iran from conducting ballistic missile tests for eight years and went into effect on July 20, 2015, days after the U.S. and other parties agreed to the landmark nuclear deal in Vienna.
Iran is "called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology," according to the text of the resolution meant to coincide with the nuclear agreement.
Iran has conducted at least six ballistic missile tests since the nuclear agreement and the U.N. resolution went into effect in 2015.
Drivers waste four days a year looking for parking spaces, new research shows
Do you often spend what seems like an eternity driving round and round the block or in a car park looking for a space?
Well, you are not alone.
Every year, motorists in the UK spend nearly four days on average searching for those elusive vacant spots, according to a study.
The issue seems to be worst in London, where it typically takes a driver almost eight minutes searching for somewhere to leave their vehicle after a journey.
This compares with five minutes in the East of England and East Midlands, said research by trade body the British Parking Association (BPA).
A survey of 2,000 adults found 59% of people are frustrated by drivers who park badly and take up two spaces.
Meanwhile, 48% are annoyed by a lack of spaces and 27% by car parks that are difficult to navigate.
BPA chief executive Patrick Troy said: "Ease of access and convenience as well as safety and lighting are key issues for motorists when looking to park.
"The BPA is committed to assisting motorists in having the best possible parking experience by building public confidence in using newer technologies which can make finding and paying for parking so much easier."
Well, you are not alone.
Every year, motorists in the UK spend nearly four days on average searching for those elusive vacant spots, according to a study.
The issue seems to be worst in London, where it typically takes a driver almost eight minutes searching for somewhere to leave their vehicle after a journey.
This compares with five minutes in the East of England and East Midlands, said research by trade body the British Parking Association (BPA).
A survey of 2,000 adults found 59% of people are frustrated by drivers who park badly and take up two spaces.
Meanwhile, 48% are annoyed by a lack of spaces and 27% by car parks that are difficult to navigate.
BPA chief executive Patrick Troy said: "Ease of access and convenience as well as safety and lighting are key issues for motorists when looking to park.
"The BPA is committed to assisting motorists in having the best possible parking experience by building public confidence in using newer technologies which can make finding and paying for parking so much easier."
Donald Trump nominates Neil Gorsuch for US Supreme Court
Donald Trump has nominated a conservative Colorado judge as his choice to take the vacant seat on America's highest court.
In a primetime announcement from the East Room at the White House, the President named Neil Gorsuch as his pick to fill the gap on the US Supreme Court.
All of the major US television networks broke into their regular programming to carry the announcement live - a return to prime time for the President who used to host The Apprentice. The event was streamed by the White House on Facebook Live.
Mr Gorsuch would take the place of fellow conservative Antonin Scalia, who died a year ago, but he faces a contentious battle for confirmation from the US Senate.
Democrats remain angry that Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's nominee for the position.
Many refused even to meet Merrick Garland, arguing that it was too late in Mr Obama's presidency for him to make an appointment.
:: Greg Milam - Tough road ahead for President Trump's Supreme Court choice
It raises the prospect of further bad-tempered clashes and procedural manoeuvres on Capitol Hill even as President Trump struggles to have cabinet appointments confirmed.
Mr Trump said: "This has been the most transparent and most important Supreme Court selection process in the history of our country and I wanted the American people to have a voice in this nomination.
"Judge Gorsuch has a superb intellect, an unparalleled legal education, and a commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its text.
"He will make an incredible Justice as soon as the Senate confirms him."
At 49, Judge Gorsuch would be the youngest Supreme Court appointee for three decades.
The Supreme Court pick is one of the consequential decisions of any presidency because it is, in effect, a job for life. The justice and his or her decisions live on long past the President's term.
He said he was "honoured and humbled" to be selected.
Polls have shown that concern over who would succeed Mr Scalia was a major factor for many voters who opted for Trump. Like Mr Scalia, Judge Gorsuch believes in the original interpretation of the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court is currently split evenly between justices appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a moderate conservative who has often been the swing vote.
It means Mr Trump's choice will effectively restore the balance of power that existed before Mr Scalia's death.
The court is the ultimate voice on a range of contentious issues and the Trump presidency could thrust abortion, climate change, the death penalty and LGBT rights into the justices' hands.
This might not be the only Supreme Court appointment of Trump's term in office - three existing justices are 78 or older - and the next would probably shift the balance of power.
The selection has been criticised by activists.
Adam Hodge, spokesman for the Constitutional Responsibility Project, said: "President Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch is deeply disappointing.
"Gorsuch has a history of putting corporations and special interests ahead of the rest of us.
"The shocking start to Donald Trump's presidency has underscored why we need a justice who will serve as a check on the politicians in the other branches of government, including the President himself, when they break the law or violate the Constitution."
In a primetime announcement from the East Room at the White House, the President named Neil Gorsuch as his pick to fill the gap on the US Supreme Court.
All of the major US television networks broke into their regular programming to carry the announcement live - a return to prime time for the President who used to host The Apprentice. The event was streamed by the White House on Facebook Live.
Mr Gorsuch would take the place of fellow conservative Antonin Scalia, who died a year ago, but he faces a contentious battle for confirmation from the US Senate.
Democrats remain angry that Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's nominee for the position.
Many refused even to meet Merrick Garland, arguing that it was too late in Mr Obama's presidency for him to make an appointment.
:: Greg Milam - Tough road ahead for President Trump's Supreme Court choice
It raises the prospect of further bad-tempered clashes and procedural manoeuvres on Capitol Hill even as President Trump struggles to have cabinet appointments confirmed.
Mr Trump said: "This has been the most transparent and most important Supreme Court selection process in the history of our country and I wanted the American people to have a voice in this nomination.
"Judge Gorsuch has a superb intellect, an unparalleled legal education, and a commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its text.
"He will make an incredible Justice as soon as the Senate confirms him."
At 49, Judge Gorsuch would be the youngest Supreme Court appointee for three decades.
The Supreme Court pick is one of the consequential decisions of any presidency because it is, in effect, a job for life. The justice and his or her decisions live on long past the President's term.
He said he was "honoured and humbled" to be selected.
Polls have shown that concern over who would succeed Mr Scalia was a major factor for many voters who opted for Trump. Like Mr Scalia, Judge Gorsuch believes in the original interpretation of the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court is currently split evenly between justices appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a moderate conservative who has often been the swing vote.
It means Mr Trump's choice will effectively restore the balance of power that existed before Mr Scalia's death.
The court is the ultimate voice on a range of contentious issues and the Trump presidency could thrust abortion, climate change, the death penalty and LGBT rights into the justices' hands.
This might not be the only Supreme Court appointment of Trump's term in office - three existing justices are 78 or older - and the next would probably shift the balance of power.
The selection has been criticised by activists.
Adam Hodge, spokesman for the Constitutional Responsibility Project, said: "President Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch is deeply disappointing.
"Gorsuch has a history of putting corporations and special interests ahead of the rest of us.
"The shocking start to Donald Trump's presidency has underscored why we need a justice who will serve as a check on the politicians in the other branches of government, including the President himself, when they break the law or violate the Constitution."
Trump travel ban softens as US allows in 800 refugees
President Trump appears to have softened his controversial travel ban in the face of global outrage and also some dissent in his own government.
Some 872 refugees will be able to enter the US this week as stopping them would cause "undue hardship", say officials.
The decision comes despite the President's executive order signed last Friday barring entry for 120 days of any refugees awaiting resettlement.
Officials said discretion was allowed in certain cases.
Under the strict controls, citizens from seven mainly-Muslim nations - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - are also banned from the US for 90 days.
:: As it happened: Homeland Security briefing
The Trump administration has now clarified that dual nationals will be able to use their second passports to gain entry.
The executive order has been heavily criticised by human rights campaigners who say the ban is against Muslims - but officials deny this.
Some 872 refugees will be able to enter the US this week as stopping them would cause "undue hardship", say officials.
The decision comes despite the President's executive order signed last Friday barring entry for 120 days of any refugees awaiting resettlement.
Officials said discretion was allowed in certain cases.
Under the strict controls, citizens from seven mainly-Muslim nations - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - are also banned from the US for 90 days.
:: As it happened: Homeland Security briefing
The Trump administration has now clarified that dual nationals will be able to use their second passports to gain entry.
The executive order has been heavily criticised by human rights campaigners who say the ban is against Muslims - but officials deny this.
Anti-Trump petition to be debated by MPs
A petition that calls for Donald Trump's state visit to Britain to be downgraded is to be debated by MPs next month.
More than 1.7 million people have now added their signatures to the petition, which says that such a visit would "cause embarrassment" to the Queen.
It also says that Mr Trump's "well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales".
:: Donald Trump's travel ban fact-checked: How the claims measure up
Signatures soared in number over the weekend after Mr Trump announced a travel ban against seven mainly-Muslim countries.
The debate at Westminster Hall, to be opened by Labour's Paul Flynn, will also take in a rival petition containing more than 130,000 signatures which backs the new US leader's state visit.
It says it should go ahead because Mr Trump is "the leader of a free world and U.K. is a country that supports free speech and does not believe that people that appose (sic) our point of view should be gagged".
Parliament must consider debating an issue once a petition has been signed 100,000 times.
More than 1.7 million people have now added their signatures to the petition, which says that such a visit would "cause embarrassment" to the Queen.
It also says that Mr Trump's "well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales".
:: Donald Trump's travel ban fact-checked: How the claims measure up
Signatures soared in number over the weekend after Mr Trump announced a travel ban against seven mainly-Muslim countries.
The debate at Westminster Hall, to be opened by Labour's Paul Flynn, will also take in a rival petition containing more than 130,000 signatures which backs the new US leader's state visit.
It says it should go ahead because Mr Trump is "the leader of a free world and U.K. is a country that supports free speech and does not believe that people that appose (sic) our point of view should be gagged".
Parliament must consider debating an issue once a petition has been signed 100,000 times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)