Should Donald Trump be banned from visiting the UK? The candidate for the Republican presidential nomination hasn’t actually booked a trip here, but MPs are debating two petitions – one calling for him to be banned, and the other calling for him not to be banned – for three hours in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Paul Flynn, who is opening the debate, discussed the matter with the SNP’s Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh on the Today programme this morning. Flynn doesn’t like Trump, but doesn’t think you should ban him, while Ahmed-Sheikh thinks the American politician’s views have ‘consequences’ and that therefore he should be banned. She told the programme:
‘If we wish to be taken seriously, the same rules should be applied, regardless of who you are, because otherwise what we’re saying is, if you’re a prospective presidential candidate, it’s alright to say what you want. Well, it isn’t alright, when there are consequences and there has been universal outrage across the world at Donald Trump’s remarks.’
This is interesting, because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does say that if you’re a prospective presidential candidate (or a cleaner on the minimum wage), it is alright to say what you want. Americans stress this point: they say what they please, and they think bad ideas ought to be defeated through argument rather than bans.
This American idea of Liberty, as Dan Hannan argues in his wonderful book, was actually made in Britain – from the intellectual traditions. Many of them are Scottish: David Hume and Adam Smith were rather keen on all of this. It’s odd that the SNP is now suggesting that freedom of speech should be more restricted than it is currently in this country, though Ahmed-Sheikh also seems to suggest that Trump is enjoying undue leniency that others who take the same view don’t.
Aside from the arguments about Trump himself, there’s also a question about whether MPs should be bothering to debate such a thing when the three hours that they’ll spend in Westminster Hall won’t make a jot of difference to government policy. They will not leave at 7.30 knowing that they have succeeded in banning Donald Trump or in not banning Donald Trump, depending on which petition they prefer. MPs are often bombarded with complaints from constituents when they don’t see them in the Commons Chamber debating something that those constituents think really matters. They often have to reply explaining that the debate was a non-binding opposition day debate that would have made no difference to what the government was up to. Few constituents notice Westminster Hall proceedings, but if they did, their MP would have to explain that these debates, like Opposition Day ones in the main Chamber, don’t make any direct difference to government policy. Sure, the petitions system is a way of ensuring that the issues that at least 100,000 people are interested in are discussed in parliament, but it’s not actually a way of guaranteeing that anything will happen.
MPs are always expected to be in about ten different places at once. Their constituents want them in the Chamber but also attending local events. Their whips want them voting on – but not examining too closely, lest they depart from the agreed line – legislation and giving speeches in the Chamber that help their side. Their colleagues on select committees expect them to turn up and help them pick over the details of a policy, or savage an unfortunate minister or official. Given all these demands on their time, surely a debate on a politician whose next visit isn’t yet booked must be reasonably low down the agenda? Perhaps the real question for MPs at this afternoon’s debate is not whether Donald Trump should be banned, but why they’ve bothered to turn up at all.
Comments