Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by señor pedro, Jan 18, 2016.
Summary and analysis
Donald Trump has been roundly denounced by MPs from all parties in a debate in the British parliament. But most of those MPs who spoke were critical of the call in a petition signed by 575,000 people for Trump to be banned from the UK because of his proposal for Muslims to be prevented from entering the US and the debate, which took place in an annex outside the main Commons chamber, ended without a vote. One of the functions of a parliament is allow a nation to let off steam and effectively that is what happened this afternoon. Many of the speeches were passionate, and the best from someone in favour of Trump being banned probably came from Jack Dromey, a Labour shadow Home Office minister (although not on this occasion presenting the official Labour party view). Dromey said Trump would fuel extremism if he came to the UK.
“Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis,” he claimed.
But most MPs argued that a ban would be disproportionate and counter-productive, and there were particularly good speeches on this side from Labour’s Naz Shah and from the Conservatives Sir Edward Leigh, Victoria Atkins and Kwarzi Kwarteng. The government is firmly opposed to a ban and, summing up, the Home Office minister James Brokenshire said that the US was Britain’s most important partner.
It is in the UK’s interests that we engage all presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, even though we may disagree profoundly on important issues. Where there are clear differences of opinion, the most effective way to influence our America partners is through a frank and open exchange of views, in taking on those arguments. And today’s robust debate has, I think, provided a platform to do just that.
But this seemed a touch Panglossian. The debate did illustrate just how feared and extreme Trump is as a presidential candidate, although any British MPs who think that diatribes against him in the House of Commons will hold him back are probably misguided. Some MPs seemed to question the merits of having the debate at all. Paul Flynn’s opening speech was unfocused and rather rambling, but he made a very perceptive point when he questioned what the debate would actually achieve. “We may already be in error in giving [Trump] far too much attention,” he said.
NATO can have fun without us in it. Slimey Limeys.
The Brits should just do what Obama did and ignore the letitions
Ps: chengate, pedro