So now in the UK there is a big deal about Trump visiting there, let alone addressing Parliament - as usual The Britisher has some good insight on this:

The Britisher - Trump snubbed by Speaker of the House of Commons

TL;DW - Trump cannot speak, because -ism, but other heads of state like PRC President Xi Jingping and other are allowed (that have atrocious human rights records) - interesting. I do want to hear from more UK LQers here, what is your view on this - if any.

You need to understand that Bercow is a very unusual Speaker. All previous Speakers have been enormously respected by the House. Bercow is not.

It was the Labour Party that brought him to power. By a long-standing tradition, the Speaker is chosen alternately from the Labour and the Conservative parties, and the Conservatives were due for the office. So Blair arranged the election of a Conservative who was about as unpopular with his party as he could get. It was a way of thumbing his nose at the opposition.

Since then, he has been nothing but trouble. He has spent grotesque amounts of public money on decorating his official apartments and his wife is a notoriously indiscrete Twitterer. And now he has ventured into international politics, which many people think is contrary to his duty of impartiality as Speaker.

Actually, now that I come to think of it, he's not unlike Trump himself -- in temperament, I mean, not in his political views. Perhaps that's why they don't get on. "Two of a kind never agree".

Oh - so no different than here across the pond and vengeful actions on both sides. Although, I rather enjoy seeing the British Parliament - its just so entertaining at times - not like the snooze fest if you get here in the US congress zzzzzzzz.

I am not going to ask how much he spent on the decorations, but I do recall also seeing something in the news about the Palace allowance and the cost of remodeling, something in the millions of pounds - and there was talk how that money could have been used for better endeavors instead of sprucing up the Queen's living quarters.

I thought Boris Johnson would have been closer, only I guess because of his hair. Anyways - whether or not you agree with The Britisher he is right though - on what basis would Trump be not allowed in the UK , or speak - address the British Parliament when other heads of state did so - and as mentioned again their human rights records would be unfavorable.

-edit

I couldn't resist

House of Commons shenanigans :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bhpXhxP-WU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heDiKUgG794

Boris is nothing like Trump, apart from being a populist. He's an intellectually brilliant public school boy with enormous charm.
There is no question of Trump not being allowed in the UK. There was a daft online petition to that effect, which a lot of politically correct idiots signed, but there is no way it could ever have been implemented. As for the right to address parliament, that is for parliament to decide -- which means the Speaker in practice. Of course it makes no sense that Shih Jin Ping was invited to do so; George Osborne must have twisted a few arms to get that through parliament.

Funny. I watched the House of Commons rip into Trumps latest immigration rant

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7565651.html

Where was those bleeding heart political correct idiots when Xi made his address?

Well Xi wasn't the first though - lets see:

Nikita Krushchev , though not in the Royal Gallery - though Xi was in the Royal Gallery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...dom_Parliament

Since he is the speaker and from what everyone says - he is supposed to be a neutral figure - though he clearly made his opinion known - but again not his to decide.

I need to check parliament.uk to see when there will be other sessions, and hope to catch a live stream - because its just so damn entertaining to watch! As a matter of fact, I think I'll watch some Yes Minister episodes on DVD - Britsh comedies/satire God tier comedies/satire

Al Jazeera - Why is Romania suddenly in turmoil? - Inside Story

Decree withdrawn - but now people want to take down the government:
BBC - Romania protesters demand more

Jeebizz,

As far as the EU is concerned, I think you will find that the fate of the euro will play the principal role in determining future events rather than just the rise of populist parties, although these will also have some effect:

http://www.express.co.uk/finance/cit...oseph-Stiglitz

Someone once said that to eat, you need a knife and fork. For national Treasury departments, the currency is the fork and fiscal measures are the knife. By coordinating the two, the economy can be kept on track. But Eurozone countries are now stuck with a knife and no fork: they can vary their taxes but not the value of their currency. Logically there is no way that this can work.

The vileness of what was done to Greece, the birthplace of European democracy, was one of the things that led me to vote Leave.

Although some of the press reported in a similar vein, it isn't quite that simple. Greece was a woeful mess of out of control government spending, tax evasion, deficits and mounting debt - the 2008 "credit crunch" just kicked it over the edge. But yes allowing Greece into the single currency in the first place was born out of questionable motives.

cynwulf,

It is far from being a Greek problem.

Germany has a massive surplus whilst at the same time Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece are all suffering because they are tied to the euro.

If these countries still had their old currencies then things would not be anywhere near as bad.

It seems extremely clear to me (full disclosure: "as an American ...") that the EU Treaty – following directly the examples created by e.g. NAFTA and the now-failed TPP treaties – will fail unless its proponents drastically alter, and reduce, their vision of what it should consist of.

It seems clear to me that Brussels wanted to create a Federal Government ... a "United States of Europe," with its capitol in "Brussels, DC." But their catastrophic mistake was "to let everybody in." The EU became "oxen unequally yoked together." And, Brussels reached much too far, much too early.

Financially, the system was sucking lifeblood out of strong nations, pushing it into "the Euro," and distributing that strength to weak ones who benefited greatly merely from accepting the Euro.

Legally, Brussels wanted to have an "über-supreme court." It didn't matter what the courts or the laws of your nation said: Brussels' courts trumped everyone. But they didn't simply limit themselves to trade issues.

The "EU Passport" quickly turned into a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for citizens of small, poor countries who just wanted to get the hell out of Dodge and, of course, "move to <London | Paris | Berlin | Rotterdam. >" (Wouldn't you?) And the EU told those countries that they weren't allowed to say "no."

In order to survive, the EU is going to have to very quickly turn itself back into a trade-only Union, and give up most of its self-appointed powers. Its leaders are going to have to talk to, and listen to, all of its present Members, and, quite probably, some of those Members who do not leave on their own are going to have to be sent away.

I frankly don't give it too much chance of success.

While I think that Europe could benefit from a genuine "trade union" containing many of the core elements originally contemplated for the EU, I think that it got something that became its own worst enemy. And I think that this happened because Brussels sincerely believed that "no one would ever leave."