Plenty of national security problems are plaguing the UK right now.
You’d think that British Parliament would be devoting their time to fighting that national security nightmare.
So what has Parliament just spent time debating? Whether or not to ban Donald Trump from entering their country.
In a rare bit of sanity from Piers Morgan in the Daily Mail, he had the following to say of the three hours spent debating whether or not to ban Trump.
[It was] Time that could have been spent debating terrorism, famine, nuclear weapons, the Middle East refugee crisis or the Syrian War.
But no, instead British law-makers have concluded their own time is best served seriously considering a proposal to ban a man who may end up being the next President of the United States
The reason they’re doing it is, of course, is because Trump recently called for a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. in the wake of an horrific mass shooting by two Islamic terrorists.
Like many, I didn’t agree with what Trump said and indeed, I wrote him an open letter at the time saying it was ‘dangerously wrong and bigoted’.
Does anyone else realize the hypocrisy in punishing someone for wanting to ban people from entering a country by banning that person from their country?
But to ban a foreign politician for expressing an opinion is utterly absurd. Particularly a foreign politician who stands an increasingly good chance of becoming leader of the world’s biggest superpower and Britain’s supposedly closest, most powerful ally.
Can you imagine a situation where President Trump, if he is elected, is actually banned? It would make Britain the laughing stock of the world, and confirm to Americans that we’re just as pathetically petty and small pond in our thinking as you’ve always suspected.
It would also cause serious, probably irreparable damage to Britain’s relationship with the United States.
The sheer hypocrisy in all this ‘Ban Trump’ nonsense is breathtaking.
Britain throws down the red carpet and blares out the royal bugles all the time for leaders of countries with heinous human rights records.
King Salman of Saudia Arabia can allow 50 people to be beheaded last month and nobody in the corridors of British officialdom batted a public eyelid. Yet he is treated like some kind of deity when he arrives in Britain in his fleet of gold-plated jets.
Russian President Vladimir Putin commits and spouts all manner of despicable, murderous, bigoted things and Britain welcomes him with State dinners at Buckingham Palace and handshakes outside Downing Street.
As for Chinese President Xi Jinping, there is barely enough room in my expansive sick bucket to cope with my involuntary spewing at all the sycophantic grovelling that goes on when he swings into my home country.
It’s always been like this.
I guess we should’ve expected a country that lacks an equivalent to our First Amendment to have thin skin.
[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]