Since the elections in Georgia on 26 October, thousands of Georgians have been protesting constantly in the streets, and many have faced brutal reprisals. Saba Buadze is an MP in the Lelo for Georgia party, one of four forming the pro-Western Strong Georgia coalition. He and his fellow opposition MPs are boycotting parliament in support of the protesters. I talked to him on Christmas Eve about what is currently happening in his country and his hopes and fears for the coming weeks.

Georgia, EU membership and the Russian playbook

Buadze says that an overwhelming majority, 90% of the public, supports the opposition parties’ aspirations for EU integration. The governing Georgian Dream party, which has announced Georgia will not pursue EU membership, won in elections that were, in his words, “rigged, falsified, with the official data manipulated”. This view is supported by international observers from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. As Buadze says:

The Georgian Dream party, which is controlled by the Russian-backed oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, has selected a pro-Russian former football player to replace the elected president Salome Zourabichvili. She has said she will not step down until new elections are held. According to Buadze:

Repression and the Georgian Dream party

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze recently said “President Zourabichvili will have to leave office on December 29. Let’s see where she continues her life – behind bars or outside”. Buadze believes “anything is possible at this moment, including the incarceration of the president, including the incarceration of political leaders, myself included. Members of the public have been already jailed”.

Zourabichvili spoke on Friday 27 December to Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart on their ‘The rest is politics’ programme. She would not say what she plans to do on 29 December, but it is to be hoped that increasing international pressure will help stay the ruling party’s hand. On Saturday 28 December, US Republican representative Joe Wilson tweeted: “As the only legitimate leader in Georgia, I am grateful to extend an invite to President Salome Zurabishvili to attend the inauguration of President Donald Trump. I am in awe of her courage in the face of the assault by Ivanishvili and his friends in the CCP and Iranian regime.”

As the situation becomes more tense, Buadze believes Georgian Dream is capable of anything, and the use of repressive methods will increase: “We are at the stage of autocracy, and we are going downhill now.” Over recent years there has been a process of state capture, with public institutions and branches of the government, including the judiciary, the constitutional court, and many others, falling into the hands of the Georgian Dream party:

Resistance in Georgia

There have been some optimistic signs of resistance. A few ambassadors have resigned and some civil servants have issued open statements in support of EU integration and “against the Georgian Dream decision to turn its back on the EU”. But this resistance is sporadic, and “we have to understand that over 12 years, Georgian Dream has done everything to gain total control over the civil service in Georgia, and to transform it into a party-serving machine. The judicial branch is fully in the pockets of Bidzina Ivanishviliand is a major service provider for the autocratic tasks that Ivanishvili is giving them”.

Buadze welcomes the sanctions and interventions announced by various Western countries, including the UK, though he says “I believe that they are a little too late, but it’s better late than never”. Emmanuel Macron’s direct intervention was a very clear and very important signal to the Georgian people that European leaders are directly concerned. He hopes Macron’s example will encourage other leaders to “participate in the process of saving Georgia from this Russian operation”. The presidents of Poland and the Czech Republic have also issued statements.

International pressure on Georgian Dream

On 18 December in Strasbourg, Zurabishvili told the European parliament that “Europe has so far only met the challenge halfway. It has been slow to wake up and slow to react. Much more could and should be done”. Buadze recognises that it is difficult for the EU to act, with Hungary and Slovakia wielding vetoes: “We have seen that Russian interference and the partners of Vladimir Putin are also to be found inside the European Union.” There are, he argues however, many other tools that countries and blocs of countries can use to get around the “deadlock” in the EU because of the Hungarian factor.

The UK was one of the signatories of the Vienna Mechanism letter that was sent to the Georgian ambassador to NATO on 20 December, with 28 other countries, including the US. Buadze believes that:

UK support for Georgia

Buadze spoke of the UK’s strong historic ties to Georgia dating to the period after the First World War, when British troops were stationed there to support the first republic until the Soviet invasion. British support resumed after the Soviet Union collapsed, and “has been manifested in many ways, financial, intellectual, cultural and media, over the years. This is part of the soft power that the UK exerts internationally”.

When the Red Army invaded Georgia in 1921, the republican government reached out to Britain and other Western forces for help. “Unfortunately, this call was left unanswered 100 years ago. I hope this time Georgia will not be left alone and I’m optimistic, because we have seen very close international involvement of our partners since this turmoil has started in Georgia.”

What will Trump do about Georgia?

Much now depends on the direction the new US administration takes. The Republican congressional leadership is making the right noises, but “we will have to wait for January 20 and what will happen afterwards”. Zurabishvili did speak informally with Donald Trump at the Notre Dame reopening ceremony, urging him “to see the urgency of US involvement in this process, because the US has been a very close and important partner for Georgia in the process of democratization and in the process of Western integration”.

The signs are hopeful and since we spoke, the US has announced sanctions against Ivanishvili, which have been widely welcomed by the Georgian protesters.

How can we help Georgian protesters?

Finally, I asked Buadze what democracy activists and media channels outside Georgia can do to raise awareness of the protests, without endangering the people there:

Ordinary protesters in Georgia fear reprisals if they speak out in the foreign media. Buatze says he has himself experienced police brutality. “But I am a political leader, so anything I say and do is public and out in the open.” Politicians, activists and all concerned for the future of democracies around the world will be watching Georgia over the coming days and wishing the Georgian people well. In Buatze’s words:

Democracy in Europe (the UK included) faces a level of risk and compromise unprecedented in most of our lifetimes. In the UK, we first saw these issues during the Brexit referendum campaign, when opaque businesspeople like Arron Banks, with hidden Russian connections, funnelled money into the Leave campaign. In the US now, multi-billionaire Elon Musk has facilitated Donald Trump’s return to the White House using his X social media platform to manipulate public opinion. He is now rumoured to be threatening to influence British politics by funding Nigel Farage’s Reform UK Ltd Party.

On 3 December Grassroots for Europe hosted a webinar entitled “Europe’s democracy in deeper danger” to discuss the threats of foreign influence in national politics, social media manipulation, and dark money. The speakers included Peter Geoghegan, an Irish investigative journalist with a particular interest in US-UK-Russian dark money and influence, and author of the Sunday Times bestseller Democracy for Sale and the newsletter of the same name.

The main subject of Geoghegan’s talk was the recent Sunday Times report that Musk was considering making $100mn donation to Farage’s Reform Party. Musk had denied the rumours, but it now emerges that Farage and Musk have been holding talks at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida this week and, according to Farage, “the issue of money was discussed”. That this could even be possible demonstrates how vulnerable our democratic politics are to outside influence, and how urgent the need for reform is.

Transparency rules on political donations

Geoghegan explains that Britain’s transparency rules on political donations are extremely weak, making it easy for foreign multi-billionaires to play politics here. Until 2000 there were few rules concerning transparency in campaign funding. Since the Blair government’s Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, only British citizens, voters or UK based companies can fund campaigns, with thresholds above which donations must be disclosed, but there are no caps on the amounts that can be donated.

These rules were drawn up in the pre-internet age so there was, in any case, little foreign interference in other countries’ politics. Donations were made to parties or candidates, and they were made public, so we could see what was happening.

The Brexit referendum was the real turning point when it came to money in our politics. This was the first referendum in the UK in 40 years, and in a very different climate. The leave.eu campaign was bankrolled by the self-styled ‘bad boys of Brexit’, including Banks, who was later found to have had multiple meetings in the Russian embassy before the Brexit vote. The money they spent was not part of the official Leave campaign, and they found many ways to circumvent spending rules.

The Russian Interference Report was long suppressed, and was heavily redacted when it was released, but the referendum clearly demonstrated how vulnerable the UK is to outside interference. The Conservative government did almost nothing about it. In fact, it actually made the system poorer, by stripping the Electoral Commission of its independence, while focusing on non-issues like voter ID, rather than the real risks to British democracy.

Big money and politics

In the meantime, there has been a huge rise in political donations. Seven or eight years ago, just £50,000 would buy entry to the Tories’ so-called Leader’s Group. Members would get to meet the prime minister and government ministers and be able to lobby them off the record for whatever they wanted. A significant number of individuals with Russian links became members. Geoghegan reports Conservative sources telling of Russian oligarchs attending meetings and openly lobbying for Russian interests.

In recent years, the amounts of money involved have increased dramatically, and donations of £5mn are now common. Donors tend to be motivated less by ideology and more by access to government. Clearly recognising that the Conservative Party were a ‘busted flush’, during this year’s general election campaign they funnelled really significant amounts of money to Labour and very little to the Tories.

Musk, however, is clearly very ideologically driven. He is a plutocratic billionaire who has effectively tipped the electoral scales in the US. Because of our weak election laws there is a real danger he could do the same in the UK. Anybody from anywhere in the world can give money through a UK registered company, including shell companies.

So-called ‘super PACs’ in the US can spend unlimited amounts of money outside the official campaigns, but there is some legislation controlling them. There is no legislation at all in Britain on third party campaigns that sit to the side of politics. There is currently nothing to stop an Elon Musk funding something like a Reform UK super PAC, involving far more money than the parties could ever manage to raise.

Fighting back for democracy

Geoghegan calls for new rules, including a cap on political donations, and legislation to prevent shell companies making political donations. A company with no reported, taxable profits in the UK should not be able to donate here. The maximum fine for breaking electoral law in the UK is currently £20,000, small change to such big donors.

The cross-party Committee on Standards in Public Life and other committees have all made proposals that would go a long way to curb these influences. But, argues Geoghegan, politicians and parties in the UK and elsewhere seem to have accepted broken politics, poor standards and a lack of transparency, all of which feed into a lack of trust in politics and anti-establishment sentiments.

We have been too slow to address the issues of electoral reform, dark money in politics, and disinformation. It’s time for politicians in the UK to wake up to these issues. The danger has been apparent since 2016, and if we don’t mobilise, we could soon be in a much worse place.

You can watch the video of Geoghan’s talk here:

On Tuesday 10 December, the newly formed Lords European Affairs Committee held its first public meeting. Giving evidence to the committee were newly appointed EU negotiator Nick Thomas-Symonds and Europe Minister, Stephen Doughty. Whether the committee are now any the wiser about Labour’s post-Brexit ‘reset’ plans is debatable.

📢Tues 10 Dec 4.00pm: @NickTorfaen, Minister for EU Relations @cabinetofficeuk, & @SDoughtyMP, Europe Minister @FCDOGovUK, are appearing before us – their 1st select committee appearance on #EU policy of this Parliament #reset #scrutiny
⬇️ Watch live on X https://t.co/udEZyPgYoS

— Lords European Affairs Committee (@LordsEUCom) December 5, 2024

Labour’s three pillars

Committee chair Lord Ricketts started the meeting by asking what, exactly, the government means by their oft quoted ‘reset’ of UK/EU relations. In response, Thomas-Symonds referred to Labour’s ‘three pillars’, as mentioned in their manifesto: security, safety and growth/trade.

Regarding the UK economy, the growth and trade commitments relate to government ambitions in just three areas: an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and visas for touring artists. Along with government aspirations on security and safety, these are worthwhile goals. But how much impact would they have on the prime minister and chancellor’s growth plans, and just when can we expect to see progress?

This is a fair report. It was symbolic, and that does matter, given recent, ahem, history. And Reeves is right to say that next year is what matters in terms of substance. But many businesses have already been screwed. So urgency is needed.
news.sky.com/story/very-s…

[image or embed]

— Chris Grey (@chrisgrey.bsky.social) 10 December 2024 at 21:08

Meetings with Europe

In recent months, UK ministers have been travelling to Brussels to extend a hand of friendship to our European neighbours, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves. This week, the chancellor became the first UK finance minister to join her EU counterparts for a “very symbolic and important” meeting. At the meeting, Reeves acknowledged the harm that Brexit deal had wrought on UK/EU trade, but re-iterated Labour’s nonsensical ‘red lines’, ruling out freedom of movement and any return to the single market and customs union. Although the visit was good for optics, and hopefully for rebuilding trust, Reeves admitted that for substance, we would have to wait until next year.

In July, Thomas-Symonds had his first meeting with EU Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič. He told the committee he would now be meeting with Šefčovič at regular intervals – perhaps as often as twice a month in the new year. However, the most “important next step” would be in setting the date for a UK/EU summit in the first half of 2025. The summit will signal the start of official negotiations between the bloc and the UK

Looking forward

When asked by the committee what we can expect by the end of this parliamentary term, Thomas-Symonds said he wanted to “look forward, not back” with regards to UK/EU relations. He described the forthcoming summit, and ongoing negotiations as a “new phase”, though was vague regarding any specific plans.

The committee then asked specifically whether the ‘reset’ process would be completed before the next election. Thomas-Symonds replied that he certainly hoped so, and that “we will certainly be looking to deliver benefits from the ‘reset’ by that point”. The so-called anticipated benefits were not named. Let’s hope they prove less of a fantasy than earlier Brexit-related promises.

Starmer’s lead EU negotiator opens door to a major concession in Brexit reset talks https://t.co/34QNSfhKws

— dave lawrence 🐟🐟🐠 (@dave43law) December 10, 2024

A concession on youth mobility?

Following the committee session on Tuesday, The Independent suggested that Thomas-Symonds had opened the door to a “major concession” in the Brexit ‘reset’ talks. Discussions of the EU’s youth mobility proposal began with the committee asking why the UK government had rejected the EU’s proposal on many previous occasions. The UK’s EU negotiator simply responded that it was “not in our manifesto”.

The proposed scheme – which would allow under 30s to travel and work more easily between the UK and EU – has long been on the EU’s wish list, with detailed proposals expected in a matter of weeks. Thomas-Symonds said that the government’s response would depend on precisely what the EU means by “youth mobility”, adding that the government were “not making any assumptions about EU asks”. We have, he said, to wait and see what the EU will “put on the table”. The EU, no doubt, are similarly waiting – patiently or otherwise – to find out what it is that the UK wants.

We can only hope that this government, unlike the last one, has a better understanding of how the EU works, and what is and isn’t possible within EU rules. As for whether Thomas-Symonds has opened the door to a major concession, see for yourself and make up your own mind. Just don’t hold your breath.

There’s been much made of the mass shift from X to Bluesky, and the reaction from the disruptors, abusers and far right has been telling. There is a sense of panic because they know something we don’t admit: we, the progressives, feed them, and that is where the opportunity lies.

Amused by the criticism of people leaving for Bluesky because they’re “snowflakes who can’t hear different opinions” from those who bragged that conservatives would flock to Parler and Truth Social. Then they saw how both platforms were whirlpools of shit created by grifters.

— Christian Christensen (@ChrChristensen) November 16, 2024

Although not a new idea, if enacted en masse, it could be one of the most powerful weapons that liberal progressives have. It doesn’t need any billionaire oligarchs’ funding – but more about that later.

How X went dark

Since Elon Musk bought X (formerly Twitter), the social media site has been turned into a platform for abuse, misogyny, conspiracy theories and racism. It was the site’s fast-moving, second-by-second news and its ecosystems of like-minded individuals, organisations, and followers built up over many years that held people there, but now the vilest abuse no longer gets taken down, and people can post blatant, dangerous misinformation and outrageous lies with little or no comeback. Free speech on X means freedom to abuse, threaten and lie with impunity.

We are not talking about robust debate here or differing opinions. I have been a pro-EU, anti-Brexit, and equality campaigner for many years. I engage with social media personally and have tweeted for the pro-EU group Bremain in Spain for many years, continuously engaging with opposing ideas and conflict. Still, X has now gone well beyond this and everyday discourse.

Here is a post from Dawn Butler, a black female Labour MP – these are not one-off, rare comments. She exposes these weekly. Warning – extreme racist language.

Another Block of the Week and it’s more people telling me to leave & ‘go back’.

This vile racism and abuse is a daily occurrence for me, mainly on X.

It’s why I’m becoming more active on other platforms. #ButlerBlocks pic.twitter.com/ISUQ7Kh1Pb

— Dawn Butler ✊🏾💙 (@DawnButlerBrent) November 22, 2024

You can be financially rewarded for abuse, disinformation and racism on X

Blue ticks on Twitter/X were once a sign of a trusted account. Twitter gave ticks to journalists and verified, trustworthy organisations. Now, anyone can buy a blue tick, which increases their engagement. Their replies float to the top of threads, and no matter the quality of a posts or response, they will be rewarded because they are paying Musk for the privilege. A paid account with 50 followers could get more impressions on a reply than one with 5,000. This system has created an unequal community.

Some users on X who spend their days sharing content that includes misinformation, misogyny, AI-generated images, and unfounded conspiracy theories are paid thousands. One man who was convicted of inciting racial hatred during the UK summer race riots was earning £1,400 a month from sharing his posts on X with his 90,000 followers. Imagine what Tommy Robinson gets with his one million followers.

A recent analysis showed that 74% of the most viral Israel/Hamas war disinformation posts came from ‘verified’ blue tick accounts. These people and accounts are radicalising minds with memes. It would be funny if it weren’t so deeply sad and dangerous.

Preach. The greatest danger to democracy has always been weaponized disinformation.

Why? Because "those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" – Voltaire

And no, free speech won't save us, Germans enjoyed free speech during the rise of Nazism –>

[image or embed]

— greenplanet.bsky.social (@greenplanet.bsky.social) 7 December 2024 at 04:37

The experience on X and Bluesky is like chalk and cheese. X is more like Donald Trump’s Truth Social, and Bluesky is more like the Twitter of old, as it was originally a research initiative within Twitter, with Jack Dorsey involved until earlier this year.

It feels like X but is fundamentally different. Bluesky launched in February 2023 as an invite-only service; however, it only started to take off after Trump’s election, garnering around one million users daily.

Whilst Musk, a self-proclaimed lover of ‘free speech’ who, after a Biden tweet outperformed his, had his posts on X boosted by algorithms to get 1,000 times more reach than anyone else’s (yes,his ego is that fragile), started corrupting the space with blatant misinformation. When this and interference exploded during the US election, it was a final straw for many. Even Musk’s artificial intelligence, Grok, labelled him as one of the leading spreaders of misinformation on the social media platform.

There is no debate, and there is no nuance. Often, replies are a stream of childish one-liners, bullying, derogatory remarks and, honestly, mainly downright stupid responses. It’s now a place where angry playground bullies, with little intellect but armed with grubby fingers and a keyboard, have been elevated above all.

Musk says he cares about free speech. But on X, he rigs the algorithm so his voice and the voices of those he agrees with are far louder than those he disagrees with. On X, he has unleashed a mob of fascist and dictator trolls to abuse and insult ordinary decent people into…

— NickReeves.bluesky.social #FBPE #NAFO (@nickreeves9876) November 14, 2024

X has become so bad that many organisations are leaving for ethical reasons. The Guardian were amongst the first, along with the Green Party and a surge of publishers . Bluesky doesn’t penalise link sharing, and publishers report 3- 4x higher engagement and conversions on Bluesky than on other platforms.

So, what can and should we do?

As much as possible, we need to starve those who have been elevated to their positions by supporting division, dehumanisation, deceit and racism, of the oxygen that enables them to push their political discourse, which, at its core, is intentionally constructed to inflame, anger and divide us as a society. Stop and remember that your interaction will bring them financial rewards and boost their engagement. Is that what we want?

All of us who use social media for campaigning know that crossing that divide and getting traction from ‘the other side’ gives us more reach and clicks.Well, it works the other way too. Without us, their spread and engagement would sink, and they would be left to preach in their hate bubbles, speaking only to their radicalised flock

Take on the media that platforms them

If we were to take this to the next level, we shouldn’t engage online with the media outlets that feature them. Let’s take the example of the BBC having Nigel Farage on Question Time for a record-breaking 38th time. Let’s face it: they don’t host him because of journalistic integrity, his intellect, or for balance, but because divisive people drive divisive commentary between opposing sides, and therefore clicks – and these days, it’s all about the clicks. BBC Question Time social media posts get the most traction from people who disagree with him being there in the first place.

Just look at the comments on this post (which include some you may find offensive). They are almost all from people who disagree with Farage being platformed again. The clips that are then generated from the show gain even more traction.

On the panel this week, leader of Reform UK Nigel Farage #bbcqt pic.twitter.com/pfpooMFk0E

— BBC Question Time (@bbcquestiontime) December 4, 2024

Take action, feel better about yourself

Bluesky has reminded us of how things used to be before the rage and division entered our politics. The users and abusers are not there in any numbers or with power. They can come but can’t get away with posting blatant misinformation, racism, misogyny or attacking the LGBTQ communities. We don’t miss them; everyone is saying how wonderful it is. The conversation is more intellectual, thoughtful and friendly, including disagreements. Here is where we find a calm reminder that things don’t have to be like they are.

The thing about Bluesky is – it’s just a vastly better product. It just… works. No ads, no bots, no hate, no abuse, no algorithms pumping out slurry & burying your friends. It’s fun. Actually fun over there.

I know this may not last.

But take the plunge. It’s great 🩵

— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) November 16, 2024

Ignoring antagonists is, I know, easier said than done. I am guilty as charged when it comes to engaging with divisive characters like Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate, Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, etc. I have written about some of them, and of course, some, including campaigners and journalists, need to stay informed of these people’s actions.

But I also recognise and admit I am emotionally triggered by abusive content and get drawn into calling out misinformation, racism, misogyny, lies, and corruption, all the while knowing and understanding that this is what certain inflammatory posts are meant to do. We are playing right into the hands of those seeking to provoke – becoming entangled in their game with their rules. Therefore the best thing to do is block or mute so you don’t even encounter the content in the first place. Ask yourself: “Am I responding to this because I am angry? Will my comment change anything or inform anyone’s opinion, or am I just boosting this post’s engagement?” 

When it comes to engagement with some of the more extreme followers of figures like Farage or Robinson; most of us know we aren’t going to change their minds. Those who have already fallen for what many would describe as their scapegoating and othering of minority communities can be very immune to alternative points of view – especially when expressed on social media

Our political environment is now consumed by rage and anger, and we must accept we are being played into fuelling it. By commenting, we will only drive engagement on such posts and cause an adverse emotional reaction in ourselves. So, give it a go. Block, mute, and disengage. It’s a guarantee that they will miss you a lot more than you will miss them and you will feel a whole lot better for it too.