The "NO's" have it...MPs debate refusing Donald Trump a state visit to Britain

[Denzil_DC]

61. NO. Parliament didn't do that. You might want to add a qualifier to the OP.

The situation's confusing and the procedures are arcane, so here's a summary of what did happen from the Guardian (my bold):

At the end of this debate Andrew Turner, the chair, put the motion that this House has considered the two Trump petitions to a vote by acclamation. Some MPs shouted aye, but many more shouted no - effectively registering a symbolic protest about Trump’s visit. But there was not a proper division, and their voting down the motion by acclamation does not carry any weight.

(a) Parliament wasn't formally voting (i.e. by retiring to the voting lobbies), but voicing its opinion by MPs shouting "Aye" or "Nay" as they saw fit.

(b) They weren't voting on whether Trump should have an official state visit, they were voting on the technical motion that the House of commons had considered the two (pro and anti) petitions. Parliament is required to hold a debate if petitions reach a threshold of signatories.

The debate ended without MPs voting on whether the visit should go ahead and the debate will have no impact on the government’s plans. But, alongside the parallel Stop Trump protests taking place in Parliament Square and in other British cities this evening, it illustrated just how much opposition Trump will face when he arrives on British soil. Duncan ended his speech saying he hoped Trump would get a “polite and generous” welcome. (See 7.20pm.) Tonight that sounded optimistic, to put it mildly.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/feb/20/paul-nuttall-ukip-chairmen-quit-in-protest-over-paul-nuttalls-hillsborough-falsehoold-politics-live?page=with:block-58ab44ebe4b05f755cc0aac5#block-58ab44ebe4b05f755cc0aac5