Winston Churchill would know what to do.
10,000 guarantees a reply from the relevant government department: which may (and often will) be not much more than a re-statement of existing government policy and whatever evidence they choose to base it on.
100,000 guarantees a debate in Parliament, and a review by the Committee on Petitions which, depending on the nature of the issue raised, may also mean further investigation of relevant arguments and evidence by the Committee on Petitions with a view to getting the relevant specialist committee to take it up in more detail with government ministers. But this sort of issue doesn’t look like one that raises that sort of question, nor would it result in anything more than an expression of opinion on Parliament’s part: it’s up to the government to decide how far to stick to their decision.
I wonder what you think he would do?
The question didn’t arise much in his day, but I doubt if he would have thought in terms of a full State Visit, which for US Presidents only started with Thatcher’s crush on Reagan. Before that there were a few official business visits (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter): there was no return State Visit for the 1938 State Visit of George VI and Elizabeth for obvious reasons, and even after the war, Truman only paid a short official visit.
Just as he did with FDR, Churchill would sweet talk Trump into doing whatever Churchill wanted.
Hmm. Didn’t work at Yalta, and particularly not over Poland, but that’s another issue. I can hardly imagine Trump and Churchill in discussion, but the question of a state visit and all the rest of it would hardly arise.
All it would take is to say Obama did the opposite.
Good point.
Neville Chamberlain could do it.
He’d make a plan and he’d follow through,
That’s what Winston Churchill would do.
“Trump not welcome in Greenwich”: Council.
What they could do to actually keep Trump out, I don’t know.
Jack squat, I assume. Harrumph loudly and turn their backs on hm. Oh, well, The Donald doesn’t care about the little people’s opinion of him anyway.
The size of his inauguration crowd…
Maybe not relevant to Greenwich, but:
What would happen if a municipality and/or state decided they didn’t want to cover the expense of a presidential visit, and told the Secret Service that they were on their own? No road blocks, no massive numbers of police officers to bolster presidential safety, etc. Would the visit have to be scrapped? Is a local government required to provide these services to a federal official?
It’s a police matter. Of course they provide appropriate services. It is called the Police Service, because they serve the whole of the public.
They have probably declared themselves a nuclear-free zone as well. Councils sometimes do this stuff - maybe they want the publicity, or maybe it’s a trade-off for some deal in the council chamber.
Quite possible they were half asleep and thought they were playing bridge - “Three No Trumps…?”
Trump responded: I don’t wanna go to Green-Witch anyway. I mean, have you been to Green-Witch? It’s an awful place. Very unfriendly. Very unfriendly. Believe me. Even their time is mean.
It’s a shame Prince Philip has retired, because otherwise I see a solution to that problem.
As I asked in the other thread, does he get an invite to the wedding?
They sidestepped that problem by having it at Windsor Castle with a limited guest list. I doubt that there will be any Heads-of-State, or even political figures there unless they are personal friends as well. St George’s Chapel has room for 800 guests, so it shouldn’t be too hard to prune the list.