The Trump debate in Parliament was a damp squib – and it's all your fault
About British MP's debating whether or not to ban Donald Trump from the UK.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/01/19/the-trump-debate-was-a-damp-squib-and-it-s-all-your-fault
Even by the standards of Westminster Hall debates, the Trump session was facile and long-winded. By the time it was over, parliament had plainly been brought into disrepute, albeit of the sort which it heaps on itself every day. At best, the debate made Britain seem actively hostile to free speech. At worst and I do mean the very worst someone might have actually tuned in and seen the quality of MPs' debating skills. It is very important for parliament's reputation that as few people see what goes on in it as possible.
There's been a bit of talk that this shows up the public petition system for what it really is a pointless bit of political theatre with no power behind it. That's partly true. A committee decides if the petitions are debated, and those that are have no direct repercussions there is no vote or change in the law. It just gives matters an airing.
But the petition system is actually quite good. Of course, it does not lead to legal change. It would be concerning and not far off mob rule if the public was directly able to have people barred from the country on the basis of the fact they don't like them. But even so, it is healthy to have a system where public opinion in this case that of half a million people triggers a debate in parliament. Its all part of the churn of national debate and it's useful for parliament to have a system for incorporating that into its proceedings.
The problem isn't the petition system. It's that the people signing petitions sign them about such silly things and that the members of parliament who represent them are so poor at basic reasoning and oratory. The petition system is basically the only thing working effectively. It's the quality of the public and politicians which is the problem.