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 Kwarsi 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.
Too late now.
That’s all from me.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
Paul Flynn, the Labour MP who opened the debate, is now wrapping up. (He gets the final word.) He says people have seen parliament at its very best. And they have seen the diversity of parliament, too.
He says he hopes this will enhance our relationship with our great ally, the US.
And that’s it.
Updated
Brokenshire says the home secretary takes a wide range of factors into account when deciding whether to ban someone. One factor is a person’s rights under article 10 of the European convention on human rights to freedom of speech.
The home secretary uses the power to exclude people to protect the community, he says. Those she has excluded include neo-Nazis, Islamist extremists and anti-Muslim hate preachers. She has excluded more hate preachers than any other home secretary, he says.
He says the home secretary also takes into account the importance of having good relations with the US. Britain thinks it is important to have good relations with Washington so that it can influence policy, he says.
James Brokenshire, a Conservative Home Office minister, is summing up now.
He celebrates the diversity of British society and celebrates the contribution made by Muslism.
He says banning Muslims ignores the fact that hatred can come from any section of community. And it ignores the fact that Muslims are victims of terrorism. More Muslims are killed by terrorists around the world than members of any other religious group.
He says the government is working to protect those at risk of radicalisation.
He quotes what David Cameron said about Trump.
Updated
Starmer says Trump's comments do not meet the tests required to justify banning him
Starmer says in 2005 new guidelines were set out explained what “unacceptable behaviour” could lead to the Home Office deciding that someone’s presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. They covered four behaviours; fomenting terrorism, provoking other acts of terrorism, fomenting other serious criminal acts and fostering hatred that might lead to community violence.
He says Trump’s comments were offensive, shocking and disturbing.
But he says he does not think that they pass the test to justify banning him.
He says free speech is not needed to protect good speech. The test of our commitment to free speech comes when considering offensive speech, he says.
Sir Keir Starmer, a shadow Home Office minister, is summing up for the opposition. Starmer used to be director of public prosecutions, heading the Crown Prosecution Service, before becoming MP and he is seen as a potential future Labour leader.
He says MPs are united in condemning what Trump said.
He says hate crime is going up. The number of crimes involving religious hatred has doubled in the last three years.
The increases are not uniform, he says. Incidence of hate crimes goes up after specific incidents, he says.
He says Trump is arguing that Muslims should be banned because he thinks they are all a threat.
That is not buffoonery. That is absolutely repugnant.
Kwasi Kwarteng, the Conservative MP, intervenes. He says he does not think Starmer is representing Trump’s views fairly. Kwarteng says he is not supporting Trump’s views at all. But surely Trump was saying that all Muslims should be banned because some might pose a threat, not because all pose a threat, he says.
Starmer says Trump’s comments “edge towards treating a whole community as a suspect community”.
Updated
Anne McLaughlin, the SNP MP, says Trump is the son of a Scottish immigrant. She apologises for that on behalf of the Scots.
But Trump’s mother was doing exactly what migrants coming to the US are doing today: heading in search of a better life.
She says Trump’s views run counter to the enlightenment values that unite Britain and America.
She says other MPs have opposed banning Trump. But they have not explained the difference between what Trump said and some of the hate speech that has led to other people being banned from the UK.
She says Trump called not just for Muslims to be banned, but for them to be registered and tracked too. She says she cannot see the difference between this and what the Nazis did to the Jews before the second world war.
And people says Trump might be President. But what would Britain do if the President of China banned all Christians.
Kwasi Kwarteng intervenes. He says Christians have been banned from Mecca for years. But we do not ban the King of Saudi Arabia.
McLaughlin says she does not necessarily support the government’s policy towards Saudi Arabia.
And she says the government should condemn the racist tweets that her colleague Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh has received as a result of her stance in this debate.
Updated
Kwarteng says banning Trump would get headlines around the world. It would increase his chance of winning in November. Then we would be in the “absurd” position of banning the future president of the US. That would be insane.
And people say Trump will not get elected. But the odds of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader were 200 to 1. The odds of Trump becoming president are much higher, he says.
Updated
Kwasi Kwarteng, a Conservative MP and a historian, says Martin Luther King would be surprised to hear some of the comments made today. There have been bans on people entering the US on the grounds of race in the past, he says. In 1882, a law was passed banning Chinese labourers and it was in force for 62 years. And in 1924, the Immigration Act banned Arab and Asian workers coming into the country.
He says imposing a ban on Trump would be the biggest boost to his campaign he could have.
And he recalls what happened in 2004 when the Guardian urged readers to write to Americans in Ohio urging them not to vote for George W Bush. The stunt backfired, and Bush carried Ohio, Kwarteng says.
(He’s right. It wasn’t our finest hour.)
Updated
SNP Corri Wilson says Trump ban would be 'catastrophic' for community around Turnberry golf course
Corri Wilson, the SNP MP, spoke in the debate a few minutes ago. She represents the area where Trump is investing in the Turnberry golf course (see 1.13pm) and she said she was opposed to a ban because of the impact it would have on the area. She has summarised her case on Twitter.
Trump Org investing £200m in Turnberry - materials sourced locally, using local produce in restaurants, employing 200 local people
— Corri Wilson MP (@CorriWilsonSNP) January 18, 2016
Constituency youth unemployment at 5% - Trump Turnberry home to 24 apprentices and around 80 other local 16-24 year olds
— Corri Wilson MP (@CorriWilsonSNP) January 18, 2016
Trump is a divisive character and I have no intention of defending the man
— Corri Wilson MP (@CorriWilsonSNP) January 18, 2016
Trump comments deplorable and certainly don't mirror the type of politics we aspire to in Scotland
— Corri Wilson MP (@CorriWilsonSNP) January 18, 2016
Delighted that over 500,000 have chosen to call Trump out on Muslim comments
— Corri Wilson MP (@CorriWilsonSNP) January 18, 2016
Being banned from UK will be minor irritant for Trump, but catastrophic for local community around Turnberry
— Corri Wilson MP (@CorriWilsonSNP) January 18, 2016
More than just Trump should reflect on the words of our bard...O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us
— Corri Wilson MP (@CorriWilsonSNP) January 18, 2016
Conservative MP Adam Holloway says Trump debate makes UK look 'totalitarian'
Back in the debate, Philip Davies, a Conservative backbencher, says that Trump has been waging a war against political correctness. Davies says he too campaigns against political correctness. And, as a Yorkshireman, he believes in blunt talking.
He says all MPs here will have constituents who disagree with Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims.
Davies says he disagrees with Trump’s idea but people are entitled to express their views. An opinion poll showed that 24% of people in Britain supported this idea. And, in the north, the figure was 35%.
He says MPs who speak up for minorities are reluctant to support the right of these 24% to express their views.
The SNP MP Tommy Sheppard asks Davies if he accepts there are any limits to free speech.
Davies says he does accept that.
The Conservative MP Adam Holloway intervenes. He says the very fact that parliament is having this debate makes Britain look “intolerant” and “totalitarian”.
This motion is actually embarrassing to the UK and makes us look intolerant and totalitarian. I feel we should almost apologise to the people of the United States. It is for them to decide on Mr Trump’s views, not us.
Davies says people are fed up with politicians not saying what they think. He says we should celebrate politicians who are willing to say things that are unpopular.
Updated
Here’s a statement about the debate from Sarah Malone, executive vice president of Trump International Golf Links in Scotland. She said:
Mr Trump is investing hundreds of millions of pounds into the Scottish economy and its greatest assets.
Until now, Turnberry has been unable to attract the huge investment required to secure its future and industry chiefs have applauded Trump International Golf Links, Scotland, which has attracted tens of thousands of much-needed overseas visitors to the region.
Both properties are critical to the golf, leisure and tourism sector in Scotland which we cannot afford to jeopardise.
Any attempt at a ban of this kind would force Mr Trump to abandon his plans for a further £700 million investment.
With the collapse of the oil price, the investment in Aberdeen has never been more important and Mr Trump is likely to spend more than he initially planned when the economy recovers.
It is absurd that valuable parliamentary time is being wasted debating a matter raised as part of the American presidential election. For the UK to consider banning someone who made a statement in America, about American borders during a US election campaign is ridiculous.
Here’’s my colleague Rowena Mason’s story about the opening of the debate.
Labour shadow minister Jack Dromey says 'Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis'
Jack Dromey, a Labour MP and a shadow Home Office minister, says Trump has the right to be a fool. But he has no right to be a “dangerous fool”, he says.
He says that he used to be chair of the National Council for Civil Liberties. He supports the right to free speech. But freedom of speech is not an unconditional freedom, he says.
He says people have been banned from the UK for hate speech and there is a uniquely awful threat facing Britain. We are seeing terrorism arrests at the rate of one a day. Good police relations with Muslim communities have been essential to combating this threat, he says.
He says the terrorists are trying to radicalise the vulnerable, particularly those with mental illness.
In the current febrile climate, Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis.
That is why he should not be allowed to come to this country, he says.
Imagine what would happen if he came to Birmingham or Glasgow and preached his message of hate, Dromey says.
He says having Trump in this country would undermine the safety of our communities. “That is not a risk I am prepared to take,” he says, adding that Trump should not be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shores.
I don’t think Donald Trump should be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shore because he would embolden the EDL [English Defence League, a provocative, far-right, anti-immigrant group] on the one hand and fuel the flames of terrorism on the other hand.
Donald Trump is free to be a fool. But he is not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain.
Updated
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, the Scottish National party MP, says that the Home Office has already banned 84 people on the grounds of hate speech. The government should make Trump the 85th person.
[Trump has] fuelled racial tensions across the world while undermining the national security of both the US and the UK ...
Using the powers vested in her, Theresa May has excluded people who have included serious criminals, far-right extremists, homophobic extremists and these rules should be applied consistently and equally to all. Because if they exist they exist for that very reason and we have a responsibility for peace and security to ensure whoever comes in and out of our country is treated in the same way.
Responding to the claim that the SNP government in Scotland used to be proud of its links with Trump, she says it was the Labour government in Scotland that first appointed Trump as a business ambassador for Scotland.
She says she feels strongly about this because Trump’s words applied to her, her family and her friends.
Updated
Victoria Atkins, a Conservative MP, says to be excluded from the UK, the Home Office must decide that their presence is not conducive to the public good.
She says the House of Commons library has produced a briefing note before this debate (pdf). She says it gives examples of some of the people banned from UK.
She says New York was named after a small hamlet in her constituency. She says that Trump’s plan for a ban on Muslims is bonkers, but we should have confidence in our values and defend free speech.
His comments regarding Muslims are wrong. His policy to close borders if he’s elected as president is bonkers and if he met one or two of my constituents in one of the many excellent pubs in my constituency then they may well tell him that he is a wazzock for dealing with this issue in this way.
Because I sense that my constituents in New York or in Tetney, in Minting or Mablethorpe, feel that their values are more than robust enough to survive anything that Mr Trump may say and that we in Lincolnshire, we in the United Kingdom, should have enough confidence in our values to allow him to say whatever he wants in New York New York, in New York Lincolnshire or anywhere else in the world. Because our British values are stronger than some amongst us here today appear to fear.
And she says her constituents would call him a “wazzock”.
Updated
The Labour MP Naz Shah is speaking now. She says Trump is a “demagogue”. She says she knows because she defeated a demagogue when was was elected MP for Bradford West. (Shah defeated George Galloway, the former Labour and then Respect MP best known to our American friends for this performance in the Senate.)
She says she respects the views of those who want to ban Trump. But she would not ban him, she says. She says she would invite him to Bradford and take him for a curry.
She says Trump wants her banned from the US, because she is Muslim. But she would not retaliate. She says Islam says that goodness is better than evil and that if someone does bad, you should do good in return.
So I will not allow the rhetoric of badness into my life, into my heart ... What I will do is challenge what with goodness. Because hatred breeds hate, and that is not something I will tolerate.
She ends saying it is Martin Luther King day and quoting him: “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”
Updated
Tom Tugendhat, a Conservative backbencher, says it is bad politics to intervene in an election in the US.
Labour’s Tulip Siddiq says Saddiq Khan, the Labour candidate for London mayor, would be banned from entering the US under Trump’s plan because he is a Muslim. Should MPs do nothing about that?
Tugendhat says American presidents do not have unlimited powers. They are bound by the constitution, and the decisions of the supreme court.
He says he thinks Trump is “crazy”. But he says he does not want to be the one to tell Trump he cannot come to the UK.
While I think this man is crazy, while I think this man has no valid points to make, I will not be the one to silence his voice.
Updated
DUP MP Gavin Robinson calls Trump a 'ridiculous xenophobe'
Gavin Robinson, a Democratic Unionist party MP, is speaking now. The DUP are the biggest party in northern Ireland, supported by Protestants who want to keep the link with Britain.
He says Trump is a “ridiculous xenophobe”.
And he mocks the SNP for inviting Trump to Scotland as a business ambassador.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, an SNP MP, intervenes to ask how the Scottish government (which used to fete Trump when he was investing in Scotland) was to know that Trump would say what he said.
Robinson says it was obvious that Trump was suspect. He lead the birther campaign against Barack Obama in 2008. And, when he got divorced some time ago, his first wife said that he used to stay up at night reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
He says Trump is a “buffoon”.
But he says he does not support Trump being banned from the UK.
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative backbencher, goes next. He says there was a story in the press this morning saying Tulip Siddiq was going to “trash” Trump. But her speech did not live up to that billing, he says.
Leigh praises Flynn’s measured opening speech. And he says he is not in favour of banning Trump. Trump could become leader of the US, he says.
And he is firmly in favour of free speech. There is no point only allowing free speech to those you agree with.
And this is about trying to “shut down the debate about immigration”, he says.
He says David Cameron’s article in the Times today made the point that Muslims need to learn from other immigrants about the importance of integrating.
Labour MP Tulip Siddiq says Trump should be banned from UK
The Labour MP Tulip Siddiq, who represents Hampstead and Kilburn in north London, goes next. She says Trump’s language is “poisonous”. There are laws saying people who are not conducive to the public good should not be allowed into the UK.
His words are not comical. His words are not funny. His words are poisonous. They risk inflaming tension between vulnerable communities.
Hate crime is being inflamed and stoked by the words that Donald Trump is using.
Philip Davies, a Conservative, says many of his constituents have said the same thing about Muslims that Trump said. Should they be excluded from the UK?
Siddiq says that is different. She is talking about the rule saying people can be excluded if their presence is not conducive to the public good.
She quotes offensive things Trump has said about women. And she says there is evidence that Trump’s language has been used to justify attacks on women in America.
A lot of his words mean there is real crime and real violence and that’s where I draw the line at freedom of speech.
Trump should not be given a visa to visit this multi-cultural country we love, she says.
Updated
Scully says there is a lot of fear about immigration. Trump’s word’s were probably born out of fear, he says. But he says that is no excuse for an aspirant leader.
He says we need to speak about the positive contribution immigrants make.
Paul Scully, a Conservative backbencher, goes next. Like Paul Flynn, Scully is a member of the petitions committee, the Commons body that decides which petitions get chosen for debate, and when.
He says 75 people have signed a petition inviting Trump to address parliament.
Today’s debate will not lead to a vote, he says. It is important for members of the public to understand that, he says.
Roger Gale, the Conservative MP who is chairing this session, says he will impose a six-minute limit on speeches because so many MPs want to speak.
Flynn quotes what President George Bush (the first one) said when he signed the Disabilities Act in 1990.
Democrats and Republicans, I salute you. And on your behalf, as well as the behalf of this entire country, I now lift my pen to sign this Americans with Disabilities Act and say: Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.
He ends saying the call for the wall of exclusion to come down is a good one.
Flynn says banning Muslims from the US would be 'an outrage'
Flynn mentions other offensive things Trump has said or done: mocking a disabled reporter; being offensive about women; being rude about Mexicans; and calling for Muslims to be banned.
He says he is old enough to remember the second world war. He thinks we are at a particularly dangerous moment. There are risks of a war between Muslims and people in the West. Some Muslims are attracted by the idea of a holy war.
Tommy Sheppard, a Scottish National party (SNP) MP, intervenes. He says he cannot think of anyone else proposing to ban people from entering a country on the basis of their religion. If Trump were to do this, what would be an appropriate response?
Flynn said a policy like that would be “an outrage”. It would be a denial of America’s history.
He says he would instead urge Trump to come to the UK. He would ask him to identify the so-called no-go areas in the UK Trump has spoken about. Flynn says he does not know where these places are. Trump could go to Brixton in south London, and see how well the races get on there, Flynn says. Or he could take up Jeremy Corbyn’s invitation to visit Islington. (See 4.21pm.)
Updated
Labour's Paul Flynn says MPs should not give Trump the 'halo of martyrdom'
Flynn says the problem with attacking Trump is that it gives him the “halo of martyrdom”.
Could I put it to the committee that the great danger by attacking this one man is that we can fix on him a halo of victimhood. We give him the role of martyrdom, which can be seen to be an advantage among those that support him.
A line will go out ‘here’s these foreigners interfering, telling us what to do’ and I think that’d be a grave error if we gave them that situation and allowed our deliberations today to be seen to be anti-American.
I think our best plan is not to give him that accolade of martyrdom in that way.
I think we may already be in error in giving him far too much attention in the way that this petition is singled on him but he has done some remarkable things which have caused a great deal of upset.
But parliament cannot ignore a petition signed by more than half a million people. The public should have a say in what is debated in parliament.
But Flynn says there is a danger MPs are already giving Trump too much attention.
Updated
Paul Flynn says no one intends any disrespect to the US.
The great difficulty that we’re in is, in showing disrespect for Mr Trump, it might well be interpreted by supporters and others in America as showing disrespect to the American nation.
This is not what we’re saying. It’s one individual that’s involved in this.
America has sacrificed more of its people in the name of democracy than any other country, he says.
Updated
Flynn says the government has given examples of some of the people who have been banned from the UK. One was a member of a gang. Another was a preacher accused of fomenting terrorist violence. Flynn says Trump has not done anything like that.
The petitioners have claimed that Trump’s language has encouraged attacks on Muslims in the US, he says.
He says in the past someone has been banned from the UK for using language deemed to encourage attacks on Muslims. That was the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. But Wilders challenged his ban, and it was overturned. So the ban became counter-productive because it just meant his views attracted even more publicity, Flynn says.
[Wilders] was banned by the home secretary in 2009 and what happened with Mr Wilders is he appealed to the court and won. The result was that he was allowed into the country, the publicity and attention he had for his Islamophobia was multiplied a hundred-fold by the ban and I believe that’s something that we should bear in mind.
Updated
Paul Flynn opens debate on banning Trump
The Labour MP Paul Flynn opens the debate. Flynn represents Newport West in Wales, and is a backbencher on the left of the Labour party.
He says the petition calling for Donald Trump to be banned from the UK has attracted more signatures than any other petition to parliament.
And he quotes from some of the government’s official response to the petition. Here is the response in full.
For good reasons the Government does not routinely comment on individual immigration and exclusion decisions.
The Home Secretary may exclude a non-European Economic Area national from the UK if she considers their presence in the UK to be non-conducive to the public good.
The Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values.
Exclusion powers are very serious and are not used lightly. The Home Secretary will use these powers when justified and based on all available evidence.
The Prime Minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with Donald Trump’s remarks. The Home Secretary has said that Donald Trump’s remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong.
The Government recognises the strength of feeling against the remarks and will continue to speak out against comments which have the potential to divide our communities, regardless of who makes them. We reject any attempts to create division and marginalisation amongst those we endeavour to protect.
In Britain the Society of Black Lawyers (SBL) has submitted a formal request to the home secretary to ban Donald Trump from entering the UK on the grounds of his “unacceptable behaviours”.
It believes that officials should use the Immigration Act 1971 to claim that Trump’s presence is “not being conducive to the public good” and to stop him from coming to the UK.
A SBL spokesman said: “Refusal of entry would inform Mr Trump that the UK does not subscribe to the racist stereotyping of people of colour and generalisation of people based on their religious views, nor do we assume a particular religion parallels terrorism.”
What Cameron and Corbyn say about Donald Trump
This is what David Cameron, the Conservative prime minister of Britain, said when asked about Donald Trump in the House of Commons before Christmas. The question came from Tulip Siddiq, a Labour MP who suggested Trump should be banned from the UK because of his comments about Muslims. Cameron replied.
I agree with her that it is right that we exclude people when they are going to radicalise or encourage extremism. I happen to disagree with her about Donald Trump. I think his remarks are divisive, stupid and wrong, and if he came to visit our country I think he would unite us all against him.
And this is what Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour party, the main opposition group in parliament, said when asked about this yesterday.
I think Donald Trump has some weird and frankly off-the-wall views.
I was asked about this some while ago and I decided to invite Donald Trump on his visit to Britain to come with me to my constituency because he has problems with Mexicans and he has problems with Muslims.
As you know, my wife is Mexican and my constituency is very, very multi-cultural so what I was going to do was go down to the mosque with him and let him talk to people there.
I don’t think you should ban people coming to Britain on that basis. I think he should come here, have a lesson in going to all our cities.
What Trump said about Muslims
Here is the Guardian story about Donald Trump’s call in December for Muslims to be excluded from the US.
And here is the statement his campaign put out at the time.
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”
MPs debate call for Donald Trump to be banned from UK
MPs in the British parliament will soon debate a call for Donald Trump to be banned from the UK because of his call for Muslims to be excluded from the US. The debate will start at 4.30pm UK time, and it could go on for up to three hours. This sounds like a remarkable development in the relationship between two countries which have mostly been close allies for the last 240 years, but the move is not quite as hostile as it sounds.
First, although MPs are holding the debate, and they will be in parliament, it is not a debate in the main chamber of the House of Commons. A few years ago MPs started using a mini chamber called Westminster Hall for minor debates. (Confusingly, this Westminster Hall is not the magnificent medieval hall known to tourists, but a rather drab room off it.) Second, MPs will not vote on whether Trump should be excluded from the UK. There probably won’t be any vote at all, and even if there is, it will be on a procedural matter (“That this House has considered” the matter etc), not on a ban. And, third, even if MPs did vote to ban Trump, it would not happen because the government is against the idea.
So why is the debate taking place? Because the House of Commons has a procedure that ensures online petitions that attract more than 100,000 signatures get debated in parliament. At the last count, almost 575,000 people had signed the one saying Trump should be banned from the UK. Technically MPs will also be debating a separate petition saying banning Trump would be “totally illogical” but that has only attracted 43,000 signatures.
In practical terms, then, this is a bit of a non-event. But symbolically, for what it says about the polarisation of opinion in the US and what relations between Washington and the rest of the world would be like in the event of Trump becoming president, this is a big moment. British politicians follow American politics quite closely but the senior ones almost never express an opinion in public about the US presidential elections because that is deemed as inappropriate. Yet, from David Cameron downwards, they have been happy to condemn Trump’s comments about Muslims, and this afternoon parliament has set time aside to allow MPs to do so formally. This has never happened before in modern times in relation to a leading presidential candidate and it shows just how extreme and unpalatable Trump is to the British political establishment.
Here is our preview story.
And here is video footage of Paul Flynn, the backbench Labour MP who will speak first in this afternoon’s debate, explaining what he is going to say.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on@AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
Updated
