Thoughts on Bercow, Trump and state visits
Public
The Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, has ignited a huge row by saying he will oppose Donald Trump being allowed to address the Houses of Parliament during his State visit later this year. His comments in the chamber were applauded, but noticeably much more by Opposition MPs than by those on the Government benches.
Annoyingly, if predictably, the "debate" has devolved into a slanging match between the ultras on both sides. It's a good example of why Twitter is so bad for serious discussion of awkward issues. Since I have this forum available to me, here's what I think.
1) Donald Trump remains very unpopular in the UK, as he has been since well before his election; his approval ratings are somewhere in the minus 50s in most polls. As everyone knows, I dislike him too. His keeping his promises is not a plus to me if the promises themselves are bad. His job is to work for the US, of course, but Parliament's job is to work in the UK's interests. To that extent, my gut reaction was to cheer at the Speaker's comments.
2) However, John Bercow is not a very likeable man. He sometimes seems more interested in grandstanding than in doing his job of being the Commons' impartial arbiter. I don't think it was very sensible of him to make these comments, since it throws him open to the charge of being a partisan politician, something the Speaker here (as opposed to his opposite number in the US House) should never be.
3) Addresses to Parliament are always in the House of Lords, partly for reasons of pomp and circumstance, but also because by convention peers are not permitted in the Commons. As such, it's debatable whether Bercow actually has any practical power to stop an address going ahead, especially as his own moral authority is not very high (see point 2).
3b) Nevertheless, as far as Commons procedure goes, the Speaker's word is law. He can even have people detained. It's irrelevant how powerful the visitor might be, and in fact vital that this be so; those who don't appreciate this should read up a bit on the Civil War (ours).
4) Bercow's moral authority is further weakened by the fact that he made no protest when the President of China addressed Parliament a few years ago. Realpolitik, you may say. Well, yes -- but if that's the case, surely it applies to the American President in spades?
5) Some blame must also be attached to Theresa May. The Prime Minister's invitation to Trump, just a few days after his inauguration, looked fawning and over-hasty to a lot of people here, not just lefties. Bear in mind that it's by no means routine for a US President to get a State visit (as opposed to an Official one) at all. Eisenhower didn't. Johnson didn't. There are others.
6) May's moral authority is further weakened by the fact that she followed up her visit to Washington by going to see that well known champion of democracy and human rights, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
So, where are we? I'm not sure Bercow can easily be deposed: some Tories under William Hague tried that not so long ago, and it ended in failure and humiliation. But he has compromised the neutrality of his office. Ideally, he'd suddenly discover a yearning to spend more time with his family, or a long-term but minor illness. I don't think he's likely to go, though.
As for Trump, my personal preference would be this: let him come, but totally ignore him. No crowds at his parades, no discussion of his tweets, nothing. If we can't manage that, second preference would be to laugh at him. He's already shown himself to be ludicrously thin-skinned for a major politician, so dig in there and keep on digging. Whatever we do, don't make him feel important. Of course the US is more powerful than the UK, but that's not the point.
Update: This Politics Home story suggests that Trump isn't interested in making a speech to Parliament anyway, since he feels it would be seen as "ultimate establishment". What does he want instead? Er... high-profile photocalls with the Royal Family. Oh yes, very anti-establishment there!
The Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, has ignited a huge row by saying he will oppose Donald Trump being allowed to address the Houses of Parliament during his State visit later this year. His comments in the chamber were applauded, but noticeably much more by Opposition MPs than by those on the Government benches.
Annoyingly, if predictably, the "debate" has devolved into a slanging match between the ultras on both sides. It's a good example of why Twitter is so bad for serious discussion of awkward issues. Since I have this forum available to me, here's what I think.
1) Donald Trump remains very unpopular in the UK, as he has been since well before his election; his approval ratings are somewhere in the minus 50s in most polls. As everyone knows, I dislike him too. His keeping his promises is not a plus to me if the promises themselves are bad. His job is to work for the US, of course, but Parliament's job is to work in the UK's interests. To that extent, my gut reaction was to cheer at the Speaker's comments.
2) However, John Bercow is not a very likeable man. He sometimes seems more interested in grandstanding than in doing his job of being the Commons' impartial arbiter. I don't think it was very sensible of him to make these comments, since it throws him open to the charge of being a partisan politician, something the Speaker here (as opposed to his opposite number in the US House) should never be.
3) Addresses to Parliament are always in the House of Lords, partly for reasons of pomp and circumstance, but also because by convention peers are not permitted in the Commons. As such, it's debatable whether Bercow actually has any practical power to stop an address going ahead, especially as his own moral authority is not very high (see point 2).
3b) Nevertheless, as far as Commons procedure goes, the Speaker's word is law. He can even have people detained. It's irrelevant how powerful the visitor might be, and in fact vital that this be so; those who don't appreciate this should read up a bit on the Civil War (ours).
4) Bercow's moral authority is further weakened by the fact that he made no protest when the President of China addressed Parliament a few years ago. Realpolitik, you may say. Well, yes -- but if that's the case, surely it applies to the American President in spades?
5) Some blame must also be attached to Theresa May. The Prime Minister's invitation to Trump, just a few days after his inauguration, looked fawning and over-hasty to a lot of people here, not just lefties. Bear in mind that it's by no means routine for a US President to get a State visit (as opposed to an Official one) at all. Eisenhower didn't. Johnson didn't. There are others.
6) May's moral authority is further weakened by the fact that she followed up her visit to Washington by going to see that well known champion of democracy and human rights, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
So, where are we? I'm not sure Bercow can easily be deposed: some Tories under William Hague tried that not so long ago, and it ended in failure and humiliation. But he has compromised the neutrality of his office. Ideally, he'd suddenly discover a yearning to spend more time with his family, or a long-term but minor illness. I don't think he's likely to go, though.
As for Trump, my personal preference would be this: let him come, but totally ignore him. No crowds at his parades, no discussion of his tweets, nothing. If we can't manage that, second preference would be to laugh at him. He's already shown himself to be ludicrously thin-skinned for a major politician, so dig in there and keep on digging. Whatever we do, don't make him feel important. Of course the US is more powerful than the UK, but that's not the point.
Update: This Politics Home story suggests that Trump isn't interested in making a speech to Parliament anyway, since he feels it would be seen as "ultimate establishment". What does he want instead? Er... high-profile photocalls with the Royal Family. Oh yes, very anti-establishment there!