Corbyn thinks Trump can pick next UK PM

Quotes like the following amaze me:

Quote:

Corbyn said: “President Trump’s attempt to decide who will be Britain’s next prime minister is an entirely unacceptable interference in our country’s democracy. The next prime minister should be chosen not by the US president, nor by 100,000 unrepresentative Conservative party members, but by the British people in a general election.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/01/donald-trump-like-20th-century-fascist-says-sadiq-khan

Obviously Corbyn doesn't actually think that Trump's expressed opinion will decide the next UK PM, so why imply it?

The only reasonable message to take from such a complaint is that Trump and others who are not allowed to vote in a given election shouldn't express opinions about it.

But if that was the case, then why should anyone in the world be allowed to express any opinion about anything not directly within their jurisdiction and/or that of their elected representatives?

Is it that Corbyn and others are seeking to eliminate free speech globally by telling everyone who isn't a citizen of a given district to shut up about that district?

If so, why are they for free trade and free migration? Isn't that a form of weighing in on societies outside your jurisdiction?

Instead of all this complaining about who gets to exercise free speech where based on their citizenship, why can't we just accept that free speech is for everyone to express an opinion, and expressing an opinion isn't the same thing as deciding an election or policy?

There's a difference between participation in civil democratic discourse/discussion and authoritarian rule. Why is it those two very different forms of power get mixed up in so many minds and discussions?

Trump is not a private citizen so when he made a comment it god help us a statement of the current US government position an as such hardly appropriate in dealing with a long term ally internal matters.

BillRM wrote:

Trump is not a private citizen so when he made a comment it god help us a statement of the current US government position an as such hardly appropriate in dealing with a long term ally internal matters.

I still don't see a problem. A person in a government position can and should express opinions and positions. What they shouldn't do is allow their opinions and positions to obstruct them from doing their duties.

At least when someone is open about their opinion, you can more easily assess if they are behaving in a biased way. It's when people keep their opinions quiet and act covertly on them that you have a real problem.

livinglava wrote:

There is a very very long tradition that a nation does no interfere with an ally nations internal matters.

If Trump was not a clown he would had known this and not broke that tradition.

Free speech and expressing opinion doesn't interfere because people are free to disregard the opinion expressed.

Now if you consider surgical boycotts against industries whose operations are located in districts where key government officials are elected, that is more like interference. Of course such boycotts are legal because there is no requirement to continue purchasing Harley Davidsons, Kentucky Bourbon, or even soybeans, but when such boycotts are done with the express intent of triggering government/policy changes, they are much more coercive than the free expression of opinion.

Emoluments has been a big issue since Trump's election, because foreign interests can influence local politics with gifts and payments. To the extent that free trade is used to set up networks of political-economic dependency, it is used for the sake of gaining political influence more so than it is used to actually procure trade for the benefit of trade alone.

It would be like me hiring you to work for me not really because I need or value the work you do, but because I want to be able to threaten your job or do other things to punish/reward you when you cater to my political interests.

It is ridiculous to complain about Trump or anyone else freely expressing political opinion when there are real forms of political manipulation going on between and within different countries and political jurisdictions. In fact, I would challenge anyone who complains about free speech to find any political jurisdiction in the world where autonomous home-rule exists 100%. I simply don't believe it exists anywhere. The world is too global and interconnected.

It's not just Corbyn but the Conservatives as well, who oppose that the US-president gets involved in their matters.
Mel Stride, the newly appointed Commons leader, said yesterday that while Trump was entitled to his opinion, he would not be picking the next prime minister of the UK: "The president of the United States of course is entitled to his opinion, but it’s not the case of him picking the next prime minister of our country. That process, as you know, will be one involving the parliamentary party and then the membership itself." (Source for quote: interview, BBC Radio 4’s Today programme)

So far 13 Conservative MPs have put themselves forward as candidates to replace Theresa May as party leader. About 100,000 party members and the MPs decide, who will become the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

That's a dumb things to say. Of course Trump isn't going to be determining any election outcomes. The voters are. What Trump may ultimately do is respond to bad political outcomes in a way that causes people to wish they had thought more carefully about their choice, but that would happen whether or not he even paid attention to the election beforehand.

Total political autonomy is a fiction.

livinglava wrote:

That's a dumb things to say. Of course Trump isn't going to be determining any election outcomes. The voters are. What Trump may ultimately do is respond to bad political outcomes in a way that causes people to wish they had thought more carefully about their choice, but that would happen whether or not he even paid attention to the election beforehand.

Only those voters who are members of the Conservative Party decide it. No-one else.

livinglava wrote:

Total political autonomy is a fiction.

Perhaps you get educated about the party system in the UK (and elsewhere) works?

Perhaps you get educated on how aggressive territorialism works.

livinglava wrote:

Perhaps you get educated on how aggressive territorialism works.

So you think that the UK's party system (and that of other European countries) is "aggressive territorialism"?