I had not seen a professional politician in a gesture of this magnitude for a long time. This is the position taken by the “Speaker of the British House of Commons”, John Berkow, regarding the protocolary possibility for President Trump to address the chambers of Commons of the British Parliament. In a recent session, he said that make a speech to the cameras is not an “automatic right,” but an honor that must be earned. He also recalled that along with Lord Chamberlain and the President of the House of Lords he has “the keys” that allow access to the Hall of Parliament. He added that it was already clear, because of the American president’s positions on sexism and racism that would not collaborate in the visit, but that after the Order that prohibits access to nationals of seven countries of Muslim religion, much less. At the end of his speech he clapped loudly the left side of the camera while the right side did not raise an eyebrow. To this side of the chamber he looked in the last part of his speech emphasizing the importance of Parliament respecting itself with a tone of reproach that seemed to show that these parliamentarians knew in advance what he was going to say and They had reproached him. It is best to listen:
Naturally, there have been rather bitter criticisms about his intervention. In the following video he is said to be “pompous,” “prick”, “twit”, ” or “pigmy,” that the invitation is from the crown and The President of Parliament can not be above the Prime Minister. In addition, the “commentator”, to the interviewer’s question, about whether it is “torie” says casually “was never a torie”. We do not know if he never was or never had the spirit of the Tories.
The level of insults to an institutional authority seems to indicate that the intervention has been greatly disturbed. An uneasiness that is also proportional to the courage that Berkow has had. It is absolutely exceptional that the criterion of someone supposed to be so constrained by the weaving of institutions could have prevailed. How did he get rid of them so he could say something like that? It is very surprising and worthy of mention. Unfortunately, we have to be surprised that legislative independence is exercised when, usually, executives, big posts salesmen, tend to contaminate even with the most absolute bias the parliamentary groups. There will be those who sell this as an institutional disturbance that gives the bad image of a united United Kingdom to the great American cousin.
It is in the nature of half of the human beings to admire the negative leadership, the little exemplary, the bully, the threatening and inconsiderate. In the other half, the admiration of exemplary leadership, noble, conversational and educated. The former seek in their champion who, in the Hobbesian way, protects them, without great effort on their part, from the supposed evils usually related to selfish claims of negative liberties. The other side hope that the ruler, in addition to a determined executor of the law and social programs, will be exemplary being who, even against his own interests or inclinations, will be able to represent an honest vision of the social image that he promotes towards a better society. A objective that is more a criterion for institutional discipline than an attainable target as a result of a transformation of human nature impossible to carry out to remain properly a human being.
Honor this little great man, Berkow, who reconciles us with institutions. Maybe someday we’ll hear something like that from our docile and transient presidents of chambers or governments.
In short, it is a disgrace that when someone “sincero” arrives to us be like Trump and we have to flee and the alternative be the double or triple language of the “prudent” politicians who create us so great discomfort with the dissonance between what we listen and What we and they know. Perhaps our politicians have not finished believing something so elemental like that they are no longer addressed to an illiterate population, but to generations difficult to deceive. And all this without taking into account that not everyone knows how to write a law, but that everyone knows if it is unfair or not, proving that the perversion of language does not prevent the prevalence of thought. But the sample of civil cowardice is the abundance of those who does not know act like Berkow.
To conclude, it must be said that it is depressing that already in the funeral speech of Pericles 2500 years ago it was decisively affirmed what seems to be still unresolved by the cultural heirs of the Greeks:
“… we always keep the doors of our city open and we never resort to the expulsion of foreigners …“