What is the basis in English law that allows Parliament to refuse Donald Trump from visiting?

1. What vote? Parliament held a debate on the issue but there was not, and was never intended to be a vote. Parliament was petitioned and the law requires that if a petition is large enough, Parliament must hold a debate.

2. As a matter of English constitutional law, Parliament can make or unmake any law. If it wished, Parliament could pass an Act which simply stated, "Mr Donald Trump has not be permitted entry into the United Kingdom" and that law would be enforced.

3. If he is excluded, it will be done under the UK's immigration laws, which allow the responsible Minister to prohibit entry into the country of people who are likely to do various bad things, including inciting racial or religious hatred, which is the most likely grounds for Trump to be excluded. Generally, however, people excluded are real nutcases - neo-nazis, Islamists and the like.

4. If her were excluded and subsequently elected it would be a bit embarrassing for the government, however embarrassment would not be a major problem for the UK, or indeed, the world, compared to the fact that Trump was elected.

The legal basis is the Royal Prerogative, and this applies not to Parliament, but to the responsible Minister, in this case the Home Secretary. Parliament is the legislature and cannot ban anything or anyone except by passing an Act. Which is not what it was debating.

However, Parliament can discuss whatever it likes, and there is a pledge to hold a debate on anything that gets enough signatures to an e-petition. As this topic did. The House of Commons does this under the guise of the motion "That this House do now adjourn" and in fact spends hours debating whether it should adjourn. It has been known to spend all day debating this. For the Commons to debate anything, it must be done as debating a motion, and the adjournment is a convenient device for debating something without having to vote on it. As the formal motion is whether to adjourn the meeting, all that happens if the motion is actually voted on and passed is that debate stops and they go home. In this case, at the end of the allotted time, they would have just decided not to vote and move on to the next topic.

This debate was in fact held in Westminster Hall, which is a kind of secondary chamber to enable the House to meet in two places at once. ALL debates in Westminster Hall are topical debates on the adjournment, which frees up the main chamber for legislation.

Meanwhile, as I said, this is an executive matter for the Home Secretary. Just being a massive jerk wouldn't be an acceptable reason, but stirring up religious hatred certainly is and that would give her a good excuse to refuse Donald Trump entry to the UK. As it happens, most people on the banned list are suspected Muslim terrorists, so he'd be in some interesting company. Another massive jerk who got put on the list was Fred Phelps, who was put on it with his equally idiotic daughter Shirley for planning to visit the UK with the express intention of causing public disorder by picketing a performance of "The Laramie Project".

If Trump is banned and is then elected President, we have the awkward situation of the UK not allowing the head of state of a friendly country to visit. Which would of course be highly embarrassing. So it's not going to happen - Theresa May (for it is she) is not that stupid as to put the UK in that situation. Maybe after he (hopefully) loses the election... but by then we'll all have moved on.

Anyone can be banned from entering the UK if they are accused of hate speech.

This is not the first time someone has been banned. Other high profile examples include U.S. pastor Terry Jones, who planned a Quran-burning protest, Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky and ex-Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Stephen "Don" Black as well as Julien Blanc who was barred due to his promoting sexual assaults against women

No country on earth allows a compleely open border. EVER government reserves the unlimited right to bar anyone from entry.

Your story is completely false, no such attempt has come before the House or Commons, but if they wanted to, they have every right to make such a decision. In fact, it does not even need to come before the House, the appropriate government ministries have the power on their own to deny entry.

There is a new law that says if a petition has over a 100,000 signatures it can be discussed in it's own parliamentary session. Which is what happened, it's still up to the PM and his ministers to have the final say though.

Well, yes, people can be banned- just as Paul McCartney was banned from the US for a while for a marijuana charge in Japan. Just because he's a jerk? I don't know. I believe the US has kept out people who were invited to speak at the UN because of their extreme views.

You have banned Muslim tourists who are British citizens who speak out against terrorism from entering the USA. Why would we invite Trump, who is clearly a racist, xenophobe and Islamaphobe as well?

ur a d1CK and that is why exactly I did not read your answer d!ck, you understand? I don't give a sh!t what you had back in your foken days, you fock, you understand you deep sh!t?

I've also blocked you, so next time I post a question you won't even see you focking imbecile you understand?