tv British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson Delivers Remarks on U.S. Travel Ban CSPAN February 1, 2017 11:46pm-1:18am EST
>> what can the gop do to avoid sitting on their power and not make the most of this opportunity, which could be over in two years? >> great observation. the democrats thought they had a long time. obamacare, and they did. frank. all of that will be gone in two years. it will all be swept away. there will be no trace of the obama presidency. when i talk about infrastructure investment, it's something you can't find. >> sunday night at 9 p.m. eastern. break, -- in the week, british-born foreign secretary boris johnson president trump temporarily denying entrance into the united states from the citizens of seven majority muslim countries, and temporarily banning immigrants from syria. this conversation is about an
hour and a half. >> secretary of state of foreign and commonwealth affairs. secretary boris johnson. boris johnson: thank you. i would like to make a statement on the implications in this country of the recent changes in immigration policy. in view of the concern over the policy, it may help if i house theor the consequences for british citizens and dual nationals of the executive order issued last friday. let me begin by saying this is not u.k. policy and not our policy, nor is it a measure that this government would consider. i have already made clear our thatty about the measures discriminate on grounds of nationality in ways that are divisive and wrong. president trump issued an executive order running citizens
of seven countries from entering the u.s. for a period of 90 days. those countries of syria, iraq, and, somalia, yemen, libya, sudan. no order makes clear that u.s. visas will be issued to citizens of u.s. states, and anyone who has a visa will be denied entry. the immigration policy of the united states is, of course, a matter for the government, the united states, but on the face of it, this executive order has consequences for some british citizens. for this reason, i spoke yesterday to the u.s. my honorablen, and friend, the home secretary, has today spoken to general kelly, the secretary of homeland security. i am able to provide the following verifications. thateneral principle is all british passport holders
remain welcomed to travel to the u.s. assurances from the u.s. embassy that this executive order will make no difference to any british passport holder, irrespective of their country of birth, or whether they hold another passport. in any case, the executive order is a temporary measure that is intended to last for 90 days until the u.s. system has added new security precautions. this is, of course, highly controversial policy which has repeat, thisnd, i is not an approach that this government would take.
let me conclude by reminding the house of the vital importance of this country's alliance with the united states, which i am sure opposition members appreciate. on defence, intelligence and security, we work together more closely than any other two countries in the world. that relationship is overwhelmingly to our benefit. the prime minister's highly successful visit to the white house last week underlined the strength of that transatlantic alliance. where we have differences with the unites states, we will not quail from expressing them, as i have done today -- mr. speaker: order. order. let me just say to the house that it is obvious that there is huge interest in this matter, which colleagues can rely upon me to accommodate. i understand the strength of feeling, but the foreign secretary's statement, and his upcoming answers to questions, must be heard.
boris johnson: where we have differences with the u.s., we will not hesitate to express them, as i have done today. it members of the opposition were listening as the prime minister did yesterday, as she did in her excellent speech in philadelphia last week. we also repeat our resolve to work alongside the trump administration in the mutual interest of both our countries. i commend this statement to the house. emily thornberry: i am sure that the whole house will join me in expressing sorrow at last night's gun attack on a canadian mosque, which left six dead and eight injured. they were all victims of hate, and we all have a duty to stand up to hate whenever, and in whatever form, it appears. i thank the foreign secretary for advance sight of his
statement. i must say that i thought that it was missing a few pages missing -- but apparently not. i hope mr. speaker, that you will allow me to ask about some details that were missing from the statement and about its timing. first, on the detail, as the secretary of state knows, thousands of people in britain live here on a permanent basis but are nationals of the seven listed countries and have no dual citizenship. many of them are here with indefinite leave to remain, having fled persecution or war. can he confirm, based on what he has said today, that these thousands of british residents are now barred from travelling to the united states? people like dr. hamaseh tayari, an iranian national living and working in glasgow, was told on friday that she was not allowed to fly home from costa rica because she needed to change planes in new york. similarly, if a somali national with a temporary u.s. visa who
is currently in the uk visiting their family, cannot now return to the u.s. under these rules? i hope he can clarify those points. turning now to the timing of this announcement. this order was issued at 9:45 on friday u.k. time. it then took number 10 until midnight on saturday, a full 27 hours later, to say that it would consider the impact on uk nationals. it then took the prime minister until sunday morning to tell the foreign secretary to telephone the white house, and it took him until midday on sunday to call the travel ban "divisive and wrong" -- that is 38 hours. 38 hours, mr. speaker, to have courage to say what everyone else was saying on friday night. , 46 hours after the executive order, we got clarification that u.k. nationals and dual nationals would not be affected. if that was because the wheels in washington were slow to turn, it might be understandable, but
look at canada. they were immediately on task, in touch on saturday with their american counterparts, and by that evening they had secured tribal rights of canadian nationals a full 17 hours before we had secured the travel rights of ours. can i ask the secretary of state canada is supposed to be five , hours behind the uk, so why was it a day ahead of us in resolving this issue? finally, a point on timing. the order was signed barely an hour or two after the prime minister left the white house. can he tell us in their discussions about terrorism and security, was the imminent order mentioned? i don't know what was worse, that the president has such little respect for the prime minister that he would not think of telling her, or that he did and that she did not think it sounded wrong. if it was the first, it would hardly be a surprise. but if it was the latter, we really do have a problem mr. speaker, because when it comes to human rights, when it
comes women's rights and when it comes to torture and the treatment of minorities, president trump is already descending a very dangerous slope. when that happens, we need a prime minister who is prepared to tell him to stop, not one who simply proffers her hand and silently helps him along. boris johnson: mr. speaker, i listened very carefully. i think the honorable ladies most substantial was about the point particular case of a glaswegian doctor. i appreciate that there will be all sorts of cases-particularly difficult cases, heart-breaking cases, in which people have experienced a lot of frustration as a result of this measure. i repeat, because perhaps members did not follow it first time, that this is not the policy of her majesty's government but a policy that is being promoted elsewhere. what we will do is make sure
that all our consular network and all our diplomatic network are put at the service of people who are finding difficulties as a result of these measures, but, as i said, because of the energetic action of this government, of the prime minister and of my right honorable friend, the home secretary, we had an exemption for u.k. passport holders whether dual nationals or otherwise. i think that most fair-minded people would say that that shows the advantages of working closely with the trump administration and the advantages of having a relationship that enables us to get our point across and to get the vital protections that uk passport holders need. the approach taken by the labour party, of pointlessly demonising the trump administration, would have achieved the very opposite.
crispin blunt: does the foreign secretary welcome the joint statement by senator john mccain and senator lindsey graham expressing their fear that this executive order will be a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism? boris johnson: i am grateful to my right honorable friend. what the interventions of senator mccain and senator graham possibly show is that this is a subject for lively debate on capitol hill, as it is here in this house. i repeat that we do not support . policy we agree with, and it's clear from what my honorable set -- friend says it is clear to others in the u.s. that do not agree with it either.
ms. tasmina ahmed-sheikh: i thank the foreign secretary for advance sight of his statement. without a thought to the context, on holocaust memorial day president trump issued an executive order to ban those who were born in seven predominantly muslim countries from entering the usa, including those "bad dudes" who are actually the real victims of violence fleeing the conflict in syria. this action is inhumane, racist and it's immoral. i welcome the fact that this house is now treating the threat posed by president trump with the seriousness it deserves. we on these benches would also like to pay tribute to and support the strong statements made on this issue by scotland's first minister, nicola sturgeon, and welcome the work that has already been done by so many -- you can learn some lessons from scotland's first minister. i also pay tribute to the work being done by so many on the ground in scotland, particularly women for independence, who have provided moral and practical support to those who have been unjustly affected by this despicable action.
can i ask the foreign secretary given the prime minister's , blossoming and frank relationship with president trump, did she know in advance that he was going to issue this order, which has concerned so many of our citizens? with seniore national security experts in the u.s. and elsewhere that this will have national security implications for the uk, given that the u.s. administration have now adapted daesh's false narrative that its conflict is one between the west and islam? if we want to be a global leader, this government need to show global leadership. where is it? the prime minister has been tested and she has failed on this, her first challenge. boris johnson: as the hon. lady -- honorable lady will know, when it comes to tackling the scourge of daesh, she is absolutely right, this country is the second biggest contributor to military action in strikes against daesh in iraq and in syria. we continue to be the second biggest donor to dealing with the humanitarian crisis in that
region. everybody in this house should be incredibly proud of the leadership that the uk is showing in that respect. mr. speaker, i have already made my views about this. it is up to members of the house of commons if they wish to exhaust the wells of outrage in the denunciation of this policy. i have made my position clear-i . i made it clear yesterday. i said it was wrong to promulgate policies that stigmatise people on the basis of their nationality, and i believe that very profoundly. what we have done in the last few days is to intercede on the behalf of u.k. nationals, which is our job, and u.k. passport holders. we have secured very important protections for them. dr. julian lewis: president
trump is what we might call a "known unknown" -- we know that he will do and say unpredictable things, and often just as quickly abandon those positions. he will learn as he goes along, and what we have to remember is that our security and that of europe depends on the atlantic alliance. so does my right honorable friend agree with me that there must be no question of our refusing to welcome him to these shores, in the hope of setting him along the right path as soon as possible, to our mutual benefit? boris johnson: my right honorable friend is entirely right in the sense that the prime minister succeeded the other day in getting her message across about the north atlantic alliance, about nato, and president trump affirmed very strongly his commitment to that alliance. it is vital for our security, particularly the article 5 guarantee, and the new president is very much in the right place
on that. he said so. it is totally right, of course, that the incoming president of our closest and most important ally should be accorded the honour of a state visit. that is supported by this government and the invitation has been extended by her majesty the queen, quite properly. yvette cooper: this is not just about the impact on british citizens. one of our closest allies has chosen to ban refugees and target muslims, and all the -- all he can say is that it would not be our policy. that is not good enough. has he urged the u.s. administration to lift this order, to help refugees and to stop targeting muslims?
this order was signed on holocaust memorial day. for the sake of history, for heaven's sake have the guts to speak out. as i say, it is open to all sides of the house to come forward with yet fresher expressions of outrage about the presidential executive order. -- they aremy views entitled to that. i share the widespread disquiet and i have made my views absolutely clear. i have said that it is divisive, i have said that it is wrong, and i have said that it stigmatises people on grounds of their nationality. but i will not do what i think the party opposite would do, is disengaged from conversations with our american friends and partners in such a way as to do material damage to the interests
of u.k. citizens. we have secured important protections for people in this country, and that is the job of this government. sir simon burns: given our newfound closeness to the trump administration, what plans does my right honorable friend have to try to persuade the administration, after the 90 days, to abandon what to many is a despicable and immoral policy? and would my right honorable friend agree, and paraphrasing a far wiser president, john f. kennedy, that those that ride on the back of a tiger end up inside it? >> well said, sir. i'm sure that the words of the right honorable gentleman will be heard in washington, but all i can say is that we will continue to engage
with the administration to make our points about the interests of u.k. nationals and, of course, to convey our feelings about the global consternation that this measure has caused. hilary benn: will the foreign secretary clarify what would be the position would be for an iraqi national resident in the united kingdom whose child was a -- working in the united states, and is a dual british and iraqi citizen working in the united states in the event that that , child dies would her mother be , able to travel from london to the united states to bury her daughter under the current u.s. arrangements? if not, would he agree that that would be quite simply inhuman and outrageous? >> hear, hear. boris johnson: of course, it is possible to create all sorts of
hypothetical situations that are yet more outrageous. but the answer, as far as i general -- the gentleman will appreciate that it is for the u.s. to explain that aspect of its policy -- the answer is that such a case would be treated very expeditiously and particular arrangements would be put in place to ensure that that person was able to travel to the us. mr. speaker i will do my best to : accommodate the extensive interest in this subject, but may i gently and perhaps tactfully point out that members who toddled into the chamber after the foreign secretary's statement had begun should not be standing? it is in defiance of the conventions of the place, and i am sure they would not be so unreasonable as to think that they would have a right to be called. because that would be perverse. and they wouldn't behave in a perverse way, i'm sure. sir william cash: the united states congress and courts, as
well as the president and diplomacy, will play a part in arriving at a solution to this question. does my right honorable friend accept that there is a universal threat from jihadists? for example, europol has estimated that up to 5,000 jihadists have come over from several of the relevant countries. furthermore, we should remember the victims of 9/11 in new york and 7/7 in london, and in paris, brussels and berlin, not to mention lee rigby. boris johnson: of course, mr. speaker, we understand the threat from jihadists both at home and abroad, so it is ever more vital that we work with our american friends to combat that threat. mr. dennis skinner: will the foreign secretary for a moment try to recall, along with me, what it was like as i hid under the stairs when two fascist dictators, mussolini and hitler, rained bombs on towns and cities
in britain? now this government are hand in hand with another fascist, trump. and what i say to him do the , decent thing and ban the visit. this man is not fit to walk in the footsteps of nelson mandela. say, johnson: i have to but the honorable gentleman's memory is at fault if he thinks that mussolini rained bombs on this country. i hear the comparison that he makes, but i do not accept it; i believe that it is in our interest to work with our american friends and partners, to show our disquiet where appropriate, and to get the best deal for u.k. nationals and dual nationals. john redwood: when president obama imposed a similar ban on a single country in 2011, american democracy ensured that it did not last, and other action was taken. can we not rely on american democracy this time to do the right thing and take the right moral pose, and is it not the job of british ministers to
speak for british policy? >> hear, hear. boris johnson: my right honorable friend is entirely right. the member has pointed out that there is already disquiet about this policy on capitol hill. i have no doubt whatsoever that the american political system will help to introduce the requisite balances in the end. it is our job to intervene now and get the best deal we can for u.k. nationals. mr. david lammy: in november 1938, the then conservative government prepared a bill that led to the kindertransport that transported jewish refugee children to this country. doesn't the secretary of state realize that in making his statement he should uphold the geneva convention and speak truth to power in the united states? he has let the house, and his job, down. boris johnson: i have to say that i think the honorable member is taking sanctimony to new heights.
in fact, most fair-minded people would say that we have made it clear to our friends in america that we do not agree with their policy and that we disapprove of discrimination on the grounds of nationality. however, we have worked with them to get the best possible outcome for u.k. nationals and dual nationals. we have also made clear to the , as i'm administration sure he would approve of, the widespread consternation felt by individuals such as him around the world. anna soubry: can i congratulate the foreign secretary on condemning america's policy, which, by any standards, is completely unjustified. i am also, like many of us, delighted that sir mo farah can apparently now going to be able to go home and see his wife and children. with the foreign secretary agree with the words of sir mo farah, who described the policy as based on nothing more than prejudice and ignorance? >> hear, hear.
boris johnson: i favor the rare congratulations from my honorable friend -- savor the rare congratulations from my honorable friend on any matter whatever. i am particularly delighted that sir mo farah can continue to go back to the united states, where he trains and can get fit to win the many medals that he does. angela eagle: the foreign secretary knows that this policy is counterproductive, immoral , and wrong. his attitude and approach is to get an exemption for u.k. citizens from it, and invite the perpetrator to a full state visit. that does not seem like the wholehearted condemnation that the house deserves to hear given. what is he going to do to make it absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms, to the american administration that this kind of discrimination is counterproductive, wrong and immoral?
boris johnson: she just says that the policy is counterproductive, immoral, and wrong. i have said that it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. if anyone thinks that there is a substantial difference in our positions, i invite them to write to me and explain. nadhim zahawi: i commend the foreign secretary on the work that he did on sunday into the night to ensure that britons had safe travel to the united states of america. can i further ask him whether he's had clarification from the administration on whether they have updated the advice to their embassies, because there is confusion that some embassies are still turning dual nationals away and not allowing them to enter the united states of america. boris johnson: i am thrilled that neither my honorable friend with whom i have travelled many , times, nor sir mo farah will be affected by this presidential executive order. i can confirm that the embassy advice has been updated as we have been speaking.
hywel williams: most of us condemn xenophobia without hesitation and reject racism almost by instinct. which of the prime minister's great british values informed the first initial response to mr. trump's order? boris johnson: the prime minister's primary duty, as the honorable gentleman will know, is to the safety and security of everybody in this country, and to protect their rights and freedoms. that is what has been achieved by the agreement that we have struck. he will also know that the prime minister was first or very early out of the box in saying that she disagreed with this policy. mr. jacob rees-mogg: may i congratulate my right honorable friend on making those words in our passports that refer to allowing her majesty's subjects to travel "without let or
hindrance" a reality, and on being the first minister to come to the dispatch box to defend domestic policy in the united states since lord north. can i encourage him to defend our interest, as he is doing, and not seek to tell america how to run itself? boris johnson: i'm grateful to my honorable friend. i am not seeking to defend, or indeed to explicate or rationalise in any way the policy of the presidential executive order. i merely seek to explain how it may affect u.k. nationals and dual nationals, and what we have done to mitigate its effects. luciana berger: on holocaust memorial day on friday, the prime minister told us that "our commitment to remember the holocaust is about more than words." she said it is about standing up to prejudice wherever it is found today. why, then, was the prime minister unable on saturday to
adhere to her own call to action? >> hear, hear. boris johnson: the prime minister made it very clear he did not agree with this policy. i have made it absolutely clear and abundantly clear several times now and above -- is my view, that it that it is divisive, discriminatory, and wrong. robert neill: the foreign secretary is to be congratulated on working to protect the rights of british nationals, but will he also consider that he would not be telling an ally how to run its own country by reminding it, in calm and firm terms, that our shared relationship is based on mutual respect for the rule of law, both nationally and internationally? persisting with this policy does america no good in that regard at all. i completely: agree with my honorable friend. i would just point out that we are more likely, as a nation, to get a hearing on these vital issues if we treat our long-standing friends and
partners with the respect that they deserve. caroline lucas: it seems that fake news has come to the house of commons with a vengeance, because the foreign secretary has just said that our prime minister was one of the first out of the blocks to condemn the words of president trump. she certainly was not. we have heard that it took 38 hours. her failure shames this whole country. i am proud that more people in my constituency of brighton, pavilion, have signed the petition to stop the state visit than in any other. they recognise that our prime minister has been not involved in diplomacy, but complicit with tyranny. what does the secretary of state say? her constituents are, of course, perfectly at liberty to sign the petition and express their views. i have expressed my views about the measure, but i also think it would be a good thing for the visit to go ahead, because the
relationship between the united kingdom and the united states is the single most important geopolitical fact of the past 100 years, and we are going to keep that relationship going. sir nicholas soames: i strongly agree with the foreign secretary of the vital importance of this country's alliance with the united states, but does he agree with me that whatever others may do refugees arriving in this , country will be dealt with with patience, courtesy and respect? >> hear, hear. i'm grateful to my right honorable friend for his point. i am glad to see that the bust of his grandfather has been rightfully restored to its place in the oval office. and of course, i would remind him that it was winston churchill who took a very strong view that a country should be able to control its own borders and immigration policies.
mr. david winnick: i do not think the foreign secretary understands, mr. speaker, how so many people in this country feel such contempt for what trump has done. can i clarify what he said earlier? if indeed this visit of this wretched, bigoted man is going to take place, can we be reassured that under no circumstances will he address parliament in westminster hall? that, in itself, would be a disgrace. >> hear, hear. boris johnson: i'm sure the mood of the chamber of the house of commons will be reflected in all discussions about how the visit is to go ahead, but we should bear in mind that he is the elected head of state of our closest and most important ally, and there is absolutely no reason why he should not be accorded a state visit, and every reason why he should. sir edward leigh: certainly, if
we got the queen to have tea with the president of china, i do not see why she should not have tea with the president of america. >> hear, hear. >> as all our security for 70 years depended on the special relationship, and with regard to our prosperity and a future trade deal, was not the visit of the prime minister an absolute triumph? we are all thoroughly proud of her. is not the first fruit of this special relationship the fact that the foreign secretary has ensured the rights of british citizens? must say i do i agree with my right honorable friend about the prime minister's visit. i do think it was a very great success, and they evidently kindled an important relationship. the parallels that were drawn extensively in the u.s. commentariat between ronald reagan and margaret thatcher and between our prime minister and the new american president were i think very apposite. we can look forward to a new era of security and stability,
working together with the u.s. mike gapes: the british embassy in the united states has a very important page on a website that shows a list of presidential visits to the united kingdom. can the foreign secretary confirmed that george w. bush was president for more than two years before he made a state visit, that barack obama was president for more than two years, and many previous presidents did not have state visits. why on earth has theresa the appeaser got in here within a few months? >> boo. mr. speaker: order. order. the honorable gentleman will have heard the response to what he said, but my immediate
reaction is that the matter is one of taste rather than order. i certainly don't need help from the honorable gentleman, who would not have the foggiest idea where to start. boris johnson: mr. speaker, may i say with your guidance, i do find it distasteful to make comparisons between the elected leader of a great democracy and 1930's tyrants? i really have to say that i think it is inappropriate. as for the exact protocol of when the visit should take place, that is something which obviously the honorable gentleman cares very deeply, i cannot give guidance about that. it is a protocol matter. mr. keith simpson: may i offer
the foreign secretary my commiserations on his being sent out to bat on a very sticky wicket? would he perhaps tell the house when he intervened in washington, was it through the state department or the president's son-in-law? boris johnson: i'm grateful to my honorable friend for that ingenious question. [laughter] boris johnson: i am sure that the house will appreciate that we have very good relations with the u.s. government. my honorable friend the home secretary has had an excellent conversation today with general kelly of the homeland security department, confirming the very important exemptions that we have achieved for u.k. nationals and dual nationals. tom brake: the foreign secretary does not like outrage, so does he understand the dismay felt by millions of britons at the prime
minister's failure to condemn immediately and unequivocally trump's muslim ban? does he acknowledge that the ban may have increased the risk to british citizens in the seven countries affected by it? iris johnson: mr. speaker, feel i simply will have to repeat what i've already said about 18 times this afternoon about my views on this policy, which i think are exactly the the member for wallasey. it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. that is our position. we have made our position clear. let him reach into his thesaurus and exhaust the wells of outrage, by all means. we have also secured an important exemption for uk nationals. sir gerald howarth: as recent barbaric attacks across europe demonstrate, we all face a continuing threat from islamic fundamentalism, which we are all trying to address in our different ways.
although we may not have adopted the same policy as the united states, surely this is a matter for the newly elected administration in america, its courts and its people. our position has been immensely enhanced by the fantastic visit by our right honorable friend the prime minister, where britain now has influence, thanks to her. boris johnson: may i just say something in defence of that great democracy, the united states of america? if we look at all the migrants in the world, all those who are living in a country other than born,e in which they were 20% of them are in the u.s. some 45 million people in the us -- u.s. were not born in that country. i do not think that it is possible to say credibly that that country is hostile to those from overseas. of course, it is vital that we work with the united states in combating terror and that we deepen our relationship, as we are doing.
ian paisley: may i congratulate the government on a very successful visit to the united states of america, and on putting the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland at the top of the queue? does the secretary of state agree that there is a touch of a double standard here? people from ulster have been told for decades that they must talk to the most objectionable people, work with the most objectionable people, be in government with them, and yet they are now being told by the same people that the president of the most democratic country in the world should not come to this country. can i encourage him to ensure that the state visit proceeds? advice too gives some northern ireland citizens who hold irish passports but who are entitled to full british passports, should they be applying for british passports for ease of travel to the united states?
i completely: agree with the point the honorable gentleman rightly makes. president trump and his administration have not, to the best of my knowledge, been engaged in terrorist offences on mainland britain, unlike those with whom he and his party were asked to negotiate. sir desmond swayne: given the reservations that he has expressed and the mitigation that he has secured, what further opportunities will there be to maximise our influence? can i suggest that a return visit by the president is a rather obvious one? boris johnson: i'm grateful to my honorable friend for that very good thought. the presidential visit will, of course, be an occasion for deepening the relationship and having further such conversations. i will be meeting my u.s. counterpart i think at the munich security conference in just a few days' time.
ms. karen buck: in addition to the general dismay, does the foreign secretary realise that those of us with constituencies with large muslim populations, and in my case, the largest arabic origin population in the country, are feeling deep concern and anxiety? many of them travel regularly to america for work and family reasons, and they are looking for the strongest possible reassurance from the government. can he help me on specific one point? a school party, very diverse school party will leave for , america in a few days, and a couple of the students have already been refused visa waivers. will he do what he can to ensure smooth passage for those students, who are going to america to study the great tradition of american democracy? boris johnson: we will of course do everything we can to help the -- partyculture asian of schoolchildren that she refers to and to make sure that , that they have a great trip to
the u.s. if there are any difficulties with their visas, we will assist. as for the arab muslim minority in her constituency, of course we must speak up for them and defend their interests and rights. that is why we have made the points that we have about the needs of duals and the needs of u.k. passport holders. ben howlett: i commend my right honorable friend for his statement of condemnation. is he aware of the speech in 1940 in which winston churchill said "each one hopes that if he , feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last", in reference to the countries that remained neutral in the war? the dangerous trend towards nationalism, which we have not seen since the 1930s, inflicting itself on the western world has wrongly been defined as populism. it is clear that this executive order needs to be condemned. does my right honorable friend agree with me that the house must make its stand, here and now, for the weight of history stands on our shoulders? >> hear, hear. boris johnson: i completely agree that we must stand up against bigotry and nationalism, but i must say that i do draw
the line at the comparison that has been made relentlessly this afternoon between the elected government of our closest and most important ally -- a great democracy -- and the. me and anti-democratic, cruel and barbaric tyrannies of the 1930's. i think continually to use the language of appeasement demeans horror of the 1930's, and trivialises our conversation. mr. pat mcfadden: people feel strongly about the matter because of the great love held for the united states in this country and in this chamber. the foreign secretary is right to say that our deep friendship brings with it the ability to be candid. but strength also brings the ability to be candid. isn't the lesson from the weak response to these announcements is that desperation leads to the opposite of candour?
>> i think that the important point i would stress for that is that this government has earned the right to speak frankly to our friends in the u.s. and we have and we have made our views about this measure, my views are with the views of the honorable lady and other members here today. the prime minister does not approve of this measure but the important thing to do is to talk to our friends in departments in the u.s. to reflect and relay some of that global consternation that we detest but also get a positive outcome for nationals. >> i congratulate my right honorable friend for securing those rights of dual british nationals. when you look into the case of the middle eastern and other
asian countries refusing -- dual nationals from this country -- from entering their country? >> i am aware that there are other countries, particularly in the middle east that do, themselves, band citizens of at least one country from entering their own. >> the foreign secretary, make no reference at all in his original statement to the american suspension of their refugee program and shouldn't our prime minister echo the words of the canadian prime minister in saying that we will welcome those fleeing purgation -- persecution and terror and war? >> our policy has not changed. we have a good in this country. a thousand syrian refugees alone
and as i said, i don't think anyone could reasonably fault the united states of america as a great recipient from migrants from around the world. if you look at the numbers, 45 million people in the u.s. are not born in a country. it is a very distinguished record. >> does my right honorable friend share my disappointment that so many members of this house have got so used to us not having control of our own immigration policy that they appeared to resent another sovereign country having control of theirs? >> my honorable friend put it bluntly but accurately. i think whatever you may think about this policy, and there is a wide measure of agreement across this house, it is the prerogative of the president of the united states, the american government to do this.
>> the world is in an increasingly dangerous place and if the special relationship is to mean anything, we should be saying that he must desist. meat about the anxiety that the leadership that we must show to deliver peace, security in the world. >> we don't agree with the policy that we engage with the united states. >> the executive order particularly the event of the obama administration in the constituency they had their bank
accounts closed and i ask the foreign secretary not to disengage that to ensure this will not lead to further. >> the honorable lady makes an excellent point and i would just remind the house the reason that these particular countries have been singled out because of the confusion because they were in fact affected by the obama administration. i'm sure the members of the houshouse were born in yemen. thank you for allowing us to
travel to america. the position for the humanitarian purposes they are invited back because the united states may have other information. those that visited or worked to visit the united states. >> i am grateful to my honorable friend. he was born in yemen and there was anxiety about how he would be treated and i'm happy to say >> we didn't need the executive order to be signed to know that this was critical to trump's policy. it was an election pledge. if this was going to happen, did
the foreign secretary raise this issue during his meeting with the transition team or did the prime minister raise it? >> the reality is the conversation between the administration and the u.k. government has been going on for many months. we have to say, we became aware of the policies when it was being enacted by the president on friday evening and since then, we have worked hard to secure the exemptions and protections that we have today. >> mr. speaker, given that the foreign secretary has said today that the u.s. president's policy is divisive and wrong, can the house assume that he will
strengthen any representation he made on this policy to the u.s., our friends in the u.s. by working closely in partnership with our counterparts in the european union and the council of europe? >> we already worked very closely, locked at the hip with our partners in the eu on foreign and security policies and we will continue to do so by the way once we have met with the european union. >> i am grateful to the foreign secretary. many thousands of people will be confident that all british passport holders will be able to travel into the u.s.. those with a legal right to be here will be able to apply for a visa. there are seven countries on president trump list, banning citizens from entering the u.s. for 90 days. everyone of these countries bands israeli passport holders.
had they had representation from dual british israeli citizens regarding this policy which is similarly divisive, discriminatory and wrong? >> i am glad that my honorable friend point that out. i have alluded to this in an elliptical way. the house should the aware of that discrimination, that ban that already exists. the house should also reflect on the fact that all immigration policies are by their very nature discriminatory between individuals and nations. >> allison mcgovern. >> the foreign secretary is right about one thing. we've got friends in america and i stand with our friends there today in standing up against this ban.
can i draw attention back to the humanitarian cause in the middle east? many of those affected will be people who have been striving to save lives in syria, iraq and elsewhere. can we make sure that they can travel to the states as they need to? >> the conversations we have had so far, where there are people who for diplomatic or political reasons or aid workers had reason to travel, there should be expeditious systems for ensuring that they get through fast. that is why, to some of the people who are residents in this country but will have dual u.k. nationality. >> the foreign seeker -- the foreign speaker has touched on this but 16 countries for bid admission to the israeli passport holders. when you are doing is without question misguided and wrong. would my friend agree with me that we should be consistent in our condemnation? >> i am very grateful to my
honorable friend. many members of this house have been ignorant until this afternoon. if they knew it, why did they keep silence? >> many in the academic community are not british passport holders. and my constituents, a specialist from a university, was prevented from boarding a flight because the flight involved a transfer in new york. the holocaust didn't start with the gas chambers. and only days after holocaust memorial day, the parallels are clear. we welcome the foreign secretary's condemnation. willie condemn these restrictions in any discussions he has? can he ensure that the price of
trade will not be our complacent existence of these new rules? briefly, i have said already in my answer to the front bench that we are aware of the particular problem and we will do everything we have in our power to help. as for her repetition of comparisons that have been made all afternoon between these events and the second world war and the holocaust, i have to say it trivializes the holocaust. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i think the foreign secretary for his statement and can i ask him to make it clear that while america pursues this terrible and divisive policy which i utterly condemn that the united kingdom will always be a place where refugees are welcomed? will always be a place where refugees are made to feel welcome?
will you join me in thanking voluntary groups like refugees welcome in richmond that do great work in this field? >> absolutely. i can assure my honorable friend that we will continue to be a great and open society here in the u.k. 40% of londoners were born abroad, including myself. she has repeated condemnation of the executive order this afternoon which has been heard across the house. it is not my place to defend or extricate that policy but it is there for 90 days only and it will be subject to the full scrutiny of debate on capitol hill and we have already heard that there is doubt.
>> president trump's decision to issue this executive order is deeply divisive and dangerous. it sent shockwaves around the muslim world. muslim communities across europe, including here in this country. mr. speaker, as a muslim, i find it deeply worrying and disturbing and i find it deeply fearful for us to live in this country in the midst of reprisals already in countries like canada. and when political leaders amplify tensions, when they fail to show courage and leadership and stand up in the face of division and hatred, then we send the wrong message. can i appeal to the foreign secretary and the prime minister to show courage and leadership and also take steps to provide protections for those communities who are feeling very, very worried about their safety across europe after this executive order.
>> mr. speaker, of course i agree very much with a lot of what she has had to say and that is why both the prime minister and i have taken the mind that we have about this measure. secondly, she speaks of hate crime and she is absolutely right to do so. i don't want to see anything that stigmatizes or infringes divisions or causes, communities to feel unwelcome in this country or elsewhere. that is absolutely wrong. we take hate crime's very seriously in our country and i think we can be proud of some of the achievements we have made in the last 10, 20 years in cracking down on those who ferment mistrust and division between our communities. >> i thought that the prime minister's speech in philadelphia was one of the best
expositions i have heard in recent years of the importance of the atlantic alliance. i would urge all honorable members who doubt that the readers beat and see why this is a relationship that is worth holding onto. would my honorable friend in considering these issues see the warm response to prime minister had from congressional leaders and redouble our efforts to reach out across the aisle as wise counsels and friends of the united kingdom in washington? >> i completely agree with my honorable friend. there is a wide measure of agreement across the atlantic about some of those essentials which unite us. the importance of nato and our collective western defense and the importance of promoting our values in freedom, and democracy, rule of law, equality and human rights. those are shared by many people in the republican party on capitol hill and they also share our strong desire to develop our
trading relation in a new free-trade deal. that is one of the great achievements of the prime minister's visit. >> i have to say to the secretary that i found the emptiness and the hollowness of his statement today. given that during president trump's campaign he very clearly set out that he had a policy for banning muslims, does he agree that this executive order amounts to banning muslims? >> it does not amount to the ban. certain states have been singled out and i believe that to be wrong in the sense that it discriminates against people on the grounds of nationality. >> when president obama came over here during the eu referendum, he gave voice to his concerns about what we are trying to do and we told him in no uncertain terms it was not his business, entirely due to
us. while friends should be able to speak to each other, does the right honorable friend agree with me that the american people have voted donald trump to be the president and it is their business how they defend their borders? >> i do agree with you up to this point. i think it is also our duty, as many members of the house have said, to make our views clear to the american president about this measure. we disapprove of it and we think it is divisive and wrong. as he rightly says, it is a sobering government -- a sovereign government of a friendly country and they have taken this decision by due process. >> if collies have been listening they will have noticed that the foreign secretary has been giving pithy replies and i would ask now for pithy single sentence questions without preamble. if people want to preamble can i politely say keep it for the
long winter evenings that lie ahead? we don't need you today. >> what assessment has the foreign secretary made of the impact of this executive order on british foreign-policy objectives in the middle east and other areas in the world with substantial muslim populations? and how will a state visit from president trump assist them? >> most countries in the middle east are exempt from these provisions but we all work with the incoming administration to address the crises in the middle east including those affecting the countries concerned. >> i congratulate the foreign secretary on -- it is right that we main -- remain a close friend but a candid friend. we should steer clear of policies that could act as a recruiting sergeant for daesh.
>> i have been candid with the house this afternoon about how -- our reservations and they include the grounds that my friend has mentioned. >> can i repeat the question from the foreign secretary that he gave an answer? in light of our relationship with the united states, why does it take the government of the united kingdom over 17 hours longer to get the same assurances that the canadians got? >> it is our duty to secure the best possible deal for the united kingdom. what canada has done is for canada. i have no knowledge of what they may have secured. it is an executive order that took many departments of the american ministration to put on the hop and it has taken them some time to elaborate the policies that we have. >> as donald trump is an elected president and our closest
trading partner, though he is carrying out a promise he made to the american people in the general presidential election, can i commend the foreign secretary for standing firm on the state visit which is absolutely in our national interest. after all, it is the policies that the government didn't agree with if they barred any country, the or whatever get a visit. -- would ever get a visit. >> i'm grateful to my honorable friend. to the best of my knowledge, they have been entertained by her majesty, queen and i think most members of the house would concede that it is our duty and the right thing to do to put in preparation now for receiving our friends, our partner, and the leader of the great democracy and the most important ally we have.
whatever it was for most of us that didn't have to meet either of there's. >> does the foreign secretary my concern that the reciprocal ban enclosed by iraq may damage the bid for security in that country? >> i am very aware of that particular problem and i have heard representations from iraqi politicians. there are specific exemptions for those involved in politics or diplomacy and i hope that they will be treated expeditiously by the u.s. >> does my friend agree that whilst we can say we would not have such a policy in the u.k., interfering in the affairs of another country can be counterproductive?
president obama found out when he tried to impose the outcome of the eu referendum last year. >> that is entirely right. as things turned out, i was rather grateful for president obama's intervention but i think we have got the balance just about right. we have to be clear with our american friends but we have also acted to secure protections for duels and u.k. citizens. >> while i personally -- he referred to grabbing a woman, my constituent said he was devastated by the prime minister's failure to condemn the actions of president trump. does the secretary of state agree?
>> the prime minister has, herself, said several times that such language is unacceptable. >> may i thank the foreign secretary for answering in such a full way and you, mr. speaker for allowing such a debate so we can move swiftly on to the pension bill afterwards. can i ask the foreign if he has got a very special friend and they have been invited to a big party, which is a better way of influencing them? banning them from the party or taking their hand and saying to them quietly what you would like them to do? i think my honorable friend makes the point very amicably. we do not agree with this policy or support it as something we would do ourselves but we think the best way to affect change and influence the white house is to engage and be positive as we possibly can.
my keenness to accommodate is undiminished what can i say that if people feel they are going to add further insight to our proceedings, by their contribution, they can continue to stand but it is not compulsory to do so. >> margaret ferrier. >> the prime minister wants to do business with president trump, presumably in the same way he does business with saudi arabia and the uae. muslim majority countries not on the banned list. not a single attack on u.s. soil has come from one of the countries on the list. and yet the 9/11 hijackers were from the saudi and middle east. >> i'm afraid the honorable lady must've been thinking of something else when i pointed out earlier that these seven
countries were those already singled out by the obama regime for very substantial visa restrictions. >> mr. speaker, i will be attending a u.n. conference in new york in march. can the foreign secretary assure me that i and others like me will not be detained at immigration at the airport for questioning? >> i certainly can. >> putin had state visits but none were invited to address houses of parliament. whose idea was it that mr. trump should be invited to do so? was it the foreign secretary? >> the labour party is assessing about point of protocol with the speaker but all of this has yet to be determined. >> thank you mr. speaker.
the foreign secretary have said british citizens should be treated equally regardless of religion or origin. can i say this? when i entered the united states before being a member of parliament, on two occasions i was stopped at immigration and asked what country i was born in. i'm a british national. can the foreign secretary say that anyone should have a record and make appropriate representation to the united states? >> i would point out to my honorable friend that this -- took place under the obama administration. it is something that, obviously, i am happy to receive correspondence about but again, he and other possessors of u.k. passports will be free to travel to the united states without hindrance. >> from mr. pound?
>> as a man -- i'm sure the secretary is familiar with the art of the deal. trump says the point is to start with something so outrageous it will incite fury and then moved to something that will initially seem outrageous but by comparison seems almost reasonable. as a responsible foreign secretary, will be analyzed possible future actions by the president? >> anybody looking at the president's electoral rhetoric and what he is in fact doing, they would conclude that his spark is considerably worse than his bite and we have had every opportunity to do a very good deal with him on all sorts of things, not only free-trade? >> a short sentence. mr. peter grant.
>> my assessment has been for the u.k. government, if you minutes ago, namely that with islamic phobia being propagated in america, it may be easier for daesh to recruit? >> i agree with the phenomenon, i understand the phenomenon to which he alludes and we all need to work harder and work together with our american friends and partners to tackle that sense of exclusion and isolation which can drive extreme hate. >> for women's rights or torture, you're on one side or the other end how many refugees will we take to offset the ban? how many women's organizations will receive funding from us? will he rethink that highest honor? >> this country has a proud record of taking refugees and
international organizations and campaigning for female victims of sexual violence and conflict. we have done more than any other country in the world to do that and we continue those. as for his point about the state, i repeat my point. her majesty the queen has extended that invitation. it is proper that we should go ahead and it will. >> could the country come to the conclusion that the government's response on this pernicious policy is that her government is so desperate for a post brexit trade deal with the united states that they are willing to become an apologist to the trump administration? >> i think any fair-minded person having listened to what has happened over the last 48 hours would understand that
apart from supporting the policy, far from acquiescing in the policy, far from approving or agreeing, we have worked with the incoming administration to modify that policy and to secure important protections for u.k. nationals and for dual nationals. >> dr. lisa cameron? >> i refer the house to my register. given that psychologists have suggested that president trump has display traits of narcissism and maybe dogmatic, what is the reason moving forward? will the foreign secretary seek a psychological opinion himself? [laughter] >> air respective of the psychological traits that have not checked to see if you are in fact a psychologist but we will work with the president and
golf partners to get the best outcome for our country. but just hours security and stability. >> but this order stigmatizes not just on nationality but this is a muslim and -- bang and in so why is the secretary of sate insisting that these people are not doing the very thing that they are doing quite. >> to the best of my knowledge the president himself but himself from that edition. but these seven countries are indeed the very country singled out by president
obama for restrictive visa regulations. >> giving uh trump illustration when the secretary of state called >> the honorable to andaman to know that it has not been confirmed but we have had other conversations with representatives of his of ministrations about his policy speech meg can you comment that the prime minister was told of the refugee bin and coming prior to signing the executive order. can you confirm or deny?
holocaust survivors have said this reminds them of the '30's is this appeasement or values and? make it is time for perspective. >> mr. speaker i was in washington last week for the assembly. while there it ministrations the congressmen and senators were suspended because our values were under attack. does the secretary appreciate for those who want to fight to retain their values?
>> we do talk to our friends with the organization and she is right we have many friends on capitol hill to those of the incoming trump's administration. to nail the arguments down to engage in the way the weirder doing -- we are doing. >> and many have been waiting what will we do with us special relationship? >> we made the opposition clear we believe there is the proud record of refugees
>> does the foreign secretary not share the concern that given this invitation to the president there may be some short-term brownie points but we lose respect and trust until recently we share the same common values. >> to turn the position on its head looking to engage with the new american and administration to give it a cross the values that unite us civic the shameful lack of condemnation from the
prime minister government often talks of the global influence why is it with the impact of the most vulnerable people on the planet greg. >> is strikes me her question was composed long before she came to the statement. [laughter] if then a betty is listening to what i have to say in but the u.k. government has done could not be done the way that she did. >> with the foreign secretary agree that the trump presidency is tainted
by this ban and uh prime minister in is tainted by complacency? >> is a very important point like talking to the i.r.a.. but what we are advocating is engagement with uh government of the most powerful nation on which the security of the world depends. >> how does the foreign secretary under steam and blacks they are muslim majority and the president himself has said including syrian christians.
>> i have said already bp did the i believe of measure to be divisive and discriminatory with up words of the honorable lady opposite. that is my view. or as it turns out to be counterproductive. >> mr. speaker does the foreign secretary except that this action is exactly what isis' ones because it plays into their narrative quick sense so what he has done is not just immoral but a threat to our national security. >> mr. secretary everybody
and dusty and cisco band of the challenge of what we face. pushing people into a corner to make them feel more isolated. but with a huge coalition of muslim countries many to defeat that to extremism. >> if that any point in the conversation of the geneva convention or would not lead the chancellor could. >> get the risk of repeating myself several times already we have expressed our clear views of refugees from those seven named countries. >> mr. speaker my honorable
friend it raised and important point did appears the prime minister that that was the case of a of ban? >> i do not comment on the confidential conversations take place between the prime minister. we have worked with our friends in the white house and state department to understand exactly how this is implemented. >> mr. speaker the state is presented from trump and his cronies. so does the foreign secretary knocked appreciate
the way that we've react? >> i understand the feelings of many people in this country and around the world . i will just repeat my point that is our job to work with the most powerful democracy in the world whose leadership is absolutely indispensable. that is what we will do. miss the presidents before him donald trump should receive the state visit semitism foreign secretary realizes it is based on the strength of the of leadership and does he recognize with the prime minister falling over the
president greg. >> to the intelligence we have sought changes and improvements to protect the rights of u.k. nationals in dual nationals who may have been born on a united front. >> with tat the prime minister so long to condemn. [inaudible] >> i would add the prime minister during the time that those repercussions were felt were in transit to turkey and involved in
another important visit to supply turkey with british-made fighter planes. >> the u.s. has spent a leader in the world leading the u.s. in the world down can the secretary confirm if the prime minister knew in the advanced and so what was said in response? and if he did did he make any preparation? >> i have answer that question already with those conversations that take place. >> over 4,000 of my constituents he was not
convincing people but the opportunity to visibly protest. >> i am delighted that we were waiting with bated breath. i cannot remember what it was. [laughter] but all i can say is the views of the constituents are important clearly they disapprove of the prospect i'm assembly had respectfully say to them in the interest of the country that donald trump should come to the u.k.. >> mr. speaker to come before the house is afternoon but with the
largest democracy the citizens that the killed the most american citizens over the last 40 years is this the decision clearly that is lacking. [inaudible] >> for the third time those countries in question are called up not by the trumpet ministrations but the obama administration with those thoroughly restrictive measures from people traveling from their country >> to be in the unfortunate position to have to the
naked decision but with my response to the foreign secretary's statement sanders stand i have always been afforded a courtesy in the state's but i find it very disrespectful but if that is not the case then i can step in the street to but if this to help get in order. >> the young lady the right over gentleman is in his place and the kindness but i thought in her question to the foreign secretary she snapped a bit at the end so
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on