Politicians of all political persuasions acknowledge that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. But they often disagree on who is allowed to exercise this hard-won civil liberty.

For the far-right – and Donald Trump’s America in particular – the right to free speech is reserved only for those who share the same undemocratic views. While touting the importance of free speech at every opportunity, President Trump, Vice President Vance, and their sidekick Elon Musk have done everything they can to limit opportunities for dissent.

Speak freely, but only if you agree with me

Whether it’s threatening journalists with prosecution, slashing funding for universities that allow peaceful protests, or attacking anyone who tries to protect their First Amendment rights, the Trump government attacks opinions that don’t align with its policy. This is despite Trump declaring, without a hint of irony, in his State of the Union address that he had “stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America”.

One of the latest casualties of Trump’s crackdown on “radical propaganda” is the cancellation of federal funding for the Voice of America. The international news organisation, which reaches hundreds of millions of people worldwide every week, was set up during World War II to counter Nazi propaganda. All 1,300 employees have been put on paid leave. This seems to be part of a broader trend to undermine independent media. But who needs a free, independent press anyway? Certainly not Trump, Vance or Musk.

Perhaps JD Vance could come back to Munich and give everyone in Europe a refresher of his gripping TedX Talk on "freedom of speech". ~AA pic.twitter.com/4pgep2BA1D

— Best for Britain (@BestForBritain) March 4, 2025

Europe in their sights

But the hypocrisy doesn’t stop at US borders. As if the attacks on democracy and freedom at home weren’t bad enough, the US government is also attacking Europe. While restricting the freedom of Americans to express themselves openly, JD Vance accused Europe, while attending a security conference in Munich recently, of depriving its own citizens of freedom of speech. For good measure, Vance also criticised European governments for ignoring the will of the people (now, where have I heard that before?) and for failing to halt the immigration of undocumented people. According to Vance, Europe has retreated from its “most fundamental values – values shared with the USA”.

JD Vance, "The entire idea of Christian civilisation that was formed in Europe"

"Europe is starting to limit the free speech of their own citizens"

"If Germany allows more immigrants come in from countries that are totally culturally incompatible with Germany, Germany will have killed itself"

[image or embed]

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog.bsky.social) 15 March 2025 at 15:18

No sooner had Vance attacked European values abroad than the insult was repeated on American soil. When a French researcher was expelled from the States for expressing a “personal opinion” on Trump himself, it sparked a diplomatic row.

The academic, who had his personal laptop and mobile phone confiscated, was on an assignment for the French National Centre for Scientific Research. He was accused of sending “hateful” and “conspiratorial” messages that reflected “hatred towards Trump” and could be “described as terrorism”.

How this fits with the CIA’s definition of terrorism – “the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective” – is anyone’s guess.

Seems that Trump’s boast to have: “brought free speech back to America” only applies if he agrees with what is being said.

www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/d…

[image or embed]

— Otto English (@ottoenglish.bsky.social) 20 March 2025 at 07:49

The UK must avoid making the same mistakes

While the threat to free speech and expression in the UK may not match the insane levels of undemocratic activity in the US, there are some worrying signs. For example, according to Human Rights Watch, the British government is failing to uphold our democratic freedoms, particularly the right to peaceful protest. Furthermore, legislation requiring universities to take “reasonable steps” to promote free speech – the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 – looks likely to be scrapped.

Our own far-right politicians, whether of the Reform UK or Tory variety, have also proven time and again that they are in favour of free speech – but only their own, not that of their opposition. Heaven help any minority or ‘woke’ commentator who expresses an alternative opinion.

Your voice matters. You have the right to say what you think and demand a better world. You also have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests.

Freedom of expression is a human right. Everywhere. pic.twitter.com/3k27ubQRHR

— Amnesty International USA (@amnestyusa) September 16, 2024

Freedom of expression is a basic human right that should be defended at all costs. We can only hope that our own government learns the lesson and doesn’t follow the far-right of the US or the UK down an undemocratic path.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr said the ability to speak one’s mind was no less a human right than is freedom from more painful and obvious abuses. Although the French writer and philosopher Voltaire may not actually have coined the phrase, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” it remains the acid test of such freedoms.

Even Musk said, back in 2023, “If we lose freedom of speech, it’s never coming back”. How ironic then that he, Trump and Vance are now trying so hard to take that right away.

We face growing threats to free speech. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves if we can afford to let this right be eroded by those who claim to protect it.

Dear Secretary of State for the Home Department,

I am writing in regard to the latest government proposals regarding asylum seekers. Your plans – which are both cruel and incomprehensible – aim to deny those already granted legal asylum the right to apply for British citizenship.

Preventing refugees from being granted British citizenship because they were forced to take a dangerous journey to find safety here, flies in the face of reason.

We urge Ministers to urgently reconsider.https://t.co/rbrJqj2TmN

— Refugee Council 🧡 (@refugeecouncil) February 11, 2025

The proposal to remove the right of citizenship from anyone who has “arrived illegally” or via a dangerous route, may have hit the headlines, but for all the wrong reasons. Not only will the plan further the demonisation of vulnerable refugees but seems destined to usher in a return of the ‘hostile environment’ – something we had hoped to have seen the last of with the demise of your Tory predecessors.

I can only assume this is yet another desperate Labour attempt to court right-wing voters, even as you visibly haemorrhage support from a public far more tolerant of freedom of movement than you are. What you may also have failed to notice is that the support you are losing is emanating from the left, not the right.

Yet more performative cruelty. This means someone who fled for their life 25 yrs ago, got refugee status in the UK, and has been part of their community here ever since – maybe married, had kids, started a business – can never be a citizen. That’s not right.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article…

[image or embed]

— Carla Denyer (@carladenyer.bsky.social) 12 February 2025 at 12:15

Flying in the face of reason

According to the Refugee Council, over 70,000 former refugees could be prevented from being granted citizenship by this new proposal. A decision, they say, that “flies in the face of reason” and for which there has been no debate in parliament. I therefore urge you to read the Council’s official statement, and to reconsider, as they have suggested.

With the exception of the far right, it would appear the idea is also unpopular in Westminster. Carla Denyer, co-leader of the Green Party has described the plan as “performative cruelty” and commented that it takes no account of how long or engaged an immigrant has been in British society. Human rights campaigner, Labour Lord Alf Dubs, described the move as “shocking” and “small-minded”. Not only was it “a mean-spirited gesture”, he said, but it “would not deter anyone”.

Even Labour’s own Stella Creasy says the move would deny a refugee “a place in our society” making them “forever second-class”. I assume that is not your intention.

This should be changed asap.

If we give someone refugee status, it can't be right to then refuse them route to become a British Citizen. To say they can have a home in our country, but never a place in our society and be forever second class. freemovement.org.uk/good-charact…

[image or embed]

— Stella Creasy MP (@stellacreasy.bsky.social) 11 February 2025 at 16:01

Concessions welcome but not enough

Many refugees granted asylum will have been in the UK for years, if not decades. Many will be married, with children, working or running businesses and well-integrated into British society. Those who arrived in the country as children could, at least in theory, be allowed to apply for citizenship. But in the current political climate, will immigration caseworkers be willing to take a stand and use those discretionary powers to make those exceptions?

Children are being exempted from the government's obscene ban on refugees becoming citizens. Progressives should keep pushing. Concessions are possible. Write to your MP.
inews.co.uk/news/politic…

[image or embed]

— Ian Dunt (@iandunt.bsky.social) 12 February 2025 at 19:53

While any concessions you would be willing to make would be welcome, I really can’t see how this sow’s ear of a policy could possibly be turned into a silk purse. Surely, it would be better to get ahead of the political, media and public pressure and dump this controversial policy now.

Have Labour lost the plot?

If one incomprehensible plan to outdo Reform UK and the Tories on immigration wasn’t bad enough, then there’s your inexplicable and expensive plan to film and share the deportations of failed asylum seekers. In a move that’s worthy only of Farage or Trump, it’s understandable why migration expert Zoe Gardner would ask “has Labour finally lost the plot?”. It’s a question that many of us have been asking ourselves, and one for which there seems to be only one answer.

Has Labour finally lost the plot & lost the progressives once & for all?

VIDEO DEPORTATIONS: Reform & Labour voters REACTION youtu.be/NAjl2Pe8z44?…

[image or embed]

— Zoe Gardner (@zoejardiniere.bsky.social) 12 February 2025 at 18:17

Not only is the whole approach dehumanising, but it could destroy trust within migrant communities. Surely the staggering cost of the scheme would be better spent on clearing the asylum backlog, fixing asylum accommodation issues and rebuilding migrant communities damaged by last year’s race riots.

Not what we voted for

After 14 years of Tory rule, a Labour government – especially one with a large majority – was a welcome relief. The country had high hopes of the much-hyped “change” that the prime minister repeatedly promised us.

We didn’t assume that things would change overnight. We weren’t expecting miracles. But we did at least hope the new government would distance itself from the policies of the right and far right.

We expected compassion, decency and common sense. We dreamt of an honest debate about the value of immigration to our society and our economy. We even dared hope for the introduction of safe routes for asylum seekers. Instead, we have had to deal with a government increasingly afraid of its own history and its own shadow.

I don’t doubt that there is genuine concern in government about the growth of the far right and the threat they present in the polls. However, jumping on the far-right bandwagon is not the answer – surely the demise of the Tory party is proof enough of that.

No, there is only one way to beat the Farages and Trumps of this world, and that is to expose them for what they are, and by demonstrating to the country – and the world – that there is a better way.

You must not allow compassion, decency and honesty to go out of fashion, or your party will inevitably suffer the same fate. And it will be nobody’s fault but your own.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Wilson MBE

Addicted to his own platform, free speech hypocrite and walking God complex Elon Musk, is clearly indulging in political interference on a vast scale. Search ‘ban X’ on BlueSky or X. You will see growing calls for governments to act against X for its role in disinformation and Musk’s recent attacks on sovereign nations and their elected politicians.

Musk supports free speech, his advocates say, but there are glaring contradictions amongst the ‘free speech’ warrior brigade. Firstly, their rampant hypocrisy. They support free speech when it works for them and attack those who use it to condemn them. The facts prove that Musk himself is a free speech hypocrite who has his own posts amplified by his algorithms x1,000, threatens to sue companies that refuse to advertise on his platform, and shuts down and censors accounts that disagree with him.

But his ‘free speech’ hypocrisy doesn’t register with his followers. Blatant misinformation is not ‘free speech’ either, and his supporters seem to have no issue either with this or his ‘foreign interference’ purely because it supports their cause.

Here is Nigel Farage giving us a masterclass in hypocrisy:

2024: Nigel Farage, "Elon Musk is fully behind us.. He wants to help us.. He is not opposed to give is money"

2018: Nigel Farage, "George Soros has attempted to change the political climate in Britain"

HT @adamjschwarz.bsky.social good finds 👏

[image or embed]

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog.bsky.social) 19 December 2024 at 23:16

Free speech is not free from consequence

Free speech is not free from consequence. The term has been hijacked and distorted by the populist hard right. What they desire is the ability to lie blatantly, spread fake ‘news’, use racist, sexist, and violent rhetoric, sway elections and government policy, and coordinate online and personal attacks on people, media and groups of people they disagree with. Well, that’s not how it works, and Musk is walking a tight rope, both personally, and by his flouting of various countries’ online safely laws.

There’s nothing to stop you saying someone’s committed a crime when they haven’t; you can request that people take violent action against someone; you can call for someone to be killed, or scream ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema. But all these things fall outside the allowed parameters of free speech and are criminal. The wider safety of communities and individuals must be considered, and these laws exist to protect us all.

Inciting violence is not free speech. Hate speech is not free speech. Sending false or threatening communications is not free speech. They are crimes, online or off.

Musk’s misinformation and misogyny

There is no function of X to report fake news anymore, which is intentional. For some time, Musk has been sharing misinformation and disinformation on X. As a result, universities and other higher education establishments, political parties, journalists and many police forces have joined a retreat among British institutions from the X social media platform. They have been declining further engagement, citing its role in spreading misinformation and content that promotes violence.

For example, US election analysis showed that Musk’s debunked and misleading election claims were viewed more than two billion times on X. And last December, he endorsed a post referring to Americans as ‘retarded’, in respect to the H-1B visa, and has even used the term himself.

It is also claimed that Musk, who has previously been accused of sexual misconduct, “knowingly and purposefully created an unwelcome hostile work environment based upon his conduct of interjecting into the workplace vile sexual photographs, memes, and commentary that demeaned women and/or the LGBTQ+ community” and other vile things mentioned here.

Musk’s attacks on Jess Phillips

Posting sometimes hundreds of times a day, the vast majority of Musk’s social media communications ignore factual evidence. And his continued attacks on Britain have been relentless since Labour came to power.

At the beginning of 2025, he attacked Keir Starmer’s safeguarding minister Jess Phillips, describing her as a “rape genocide apologist” and “an evil witch” who should be in jail. This was after Phillips rejected Oldham Council’s calls for a government inquiry into the so-called ‘grooming gangs’ scandal in Oldham, saying that Oldham should “take its own approach”. To date, there have been several local and national inquiries into group-based child sexual exploitation, including an “ongoing major enquiry” commissioned by Andy Burnham on behalf of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

Phillips has spent most of her career working with survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence and human trafficking. Before becoming an MP, she ran a women’s shelter. Speaking about Musk’s attacks, she said it was “painful” to watch child sexual exploitation becoming a “political football”. Many of Musk’s 200+ million followers believe what he tweets. This puts Phillips – who already receives an incredible volume of abuse and death threats – at risk of serious harm.

VD: “As a result of some of Elon Musk’s tweets, the threat to you has gone up?”

JP: “Yes…”@vicderbyshire speaks to Jess Phillips about Elon Musk’s attacks about her response to grooming gangs in the UK, adding his comments are “endangering” her.#Newsnight pic.twitter.com/WZhLPPKegu

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) January 7, 2025

Starmer and grooming gangs

Musk has accused Starmer, the UK prime minister, of “hiding terrible things” and has called for him “to go to prison” regarding grooming gangs. But nearly every aspect of his commentary in recent days has been false.

He claims that the story of grooming gangs has been covered up. While this was certainly the case when the offences first started being reported more than 20 years ago, the media have reported on it extensively for many years and there have been multiple inquires.

He claims Starmer failed to address it when he was director of public prosecutions. Yet Starmer dedicated his career to pursing offenders and as the Independent reports, “the Tories found no evidence [he] soft-pedalled on prosecuting the gangs who groomed and raped vulnerable girls”. Andrew Norfolk, the investigative reporter who initially did so much to uncover the story and won awards for it, said recently: “I want to put the record straight on this … It was Starmer who changed the rules to make more prosecutions possible.”

Starmer has admitted that mistakes were previously made, but he put provisions in place to correct them, and, under his tenure, went on to deliver a record number of convictions for sexual assault. He also worked hard to “challenge myths and stereotypes” that had prevented victims and survivors of sexual assault from being heard.

It’s evident that Phillips and Starmer have done more to protect women and girls than figures like Farage and Musk who appear to be attempting to use the victims for political gain.

Some commenting on child sexual abuse following some “intervention” from the USA

They might want to consider that Starmer left office with the highest number of convictions for child sexual abuse since records began

100s more abusers brought to justice
1000s more victims heard pic.twitter.com/txniZSnmmp

— nazir afzal (@nazirafzal) January 5, 2025

Why is Musk attacking Europe and Britain?

Musk has also attacked other European countries and leaders, particularly Germany, where he has voiced his support for Germany’s far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD), some sections of which have been designated “right-wing extremist”.

What is really behind these attacks? It’s no coincidence that the EU is cracking down on online misinformation. A law was enacted in 2022 to require companies that have at least 45 million monthly users to put in place systems to control the spread of misinformation, hate speech and terrorist propaganda, among other things, or risk penalties of up to 6% of global annual revenue or even a ban in EU countries. The UK is working on similar protective laws.

So Musk is not happy. But he’s also upset by the fact that Labour has said the UK government will continue to use X for official communications but will withdraw paid-for advertising on the platform. This happened after Musk attacked Labour and Starmer and was called out by the Telegraph for a fake story on ‘detainment camps’. Under the Conservatives, Whitehall departments spent £5.4mn on X adverts in 2022.

The man-child Musk is throwing a strop.

X has been restricted and banned in other countries

Caught between the restrictions of authoritarian regimes and the investigations of democratic countries, X has found itself blocked to some extent or other by 37 countries since 2015. Last year, Brazil’s supreme court ordered a nationwide ban on X after it failed to name a legal representative in the country and failed to suspend accounts for allegedly spreading misinformation.

So it’s certainly possible to ban X, particularly if Musk refuses to comply with local laws or if intelligence agencies deem him to be a threat to national security. Indeed, counter-extremism units in the UK are now probing Musk’s tweets, with experts saying Musk’s social media activity “comfortably sits within any definition of an extremist”.

Should the UK ban X?

There are differing opinions on this. Yes, Musk is a threat to democracy and his goading of the UK and Europe is intentional. It wouldn’t be surprising if his aim is indeed to force governments to take action against X; but we shouldn’t. Banning or restricting X will only give him and the others the ammunition they so dearly crave to say the UK is authoritarian or doesn’t believe in ‘free speech’.

What the UK needs to do urgently, along with other countries en masse, is to get to grips with social media companies in general to ensure they comply with online safety laws. The evidence that they have been corrupting democracies and allowing political interference in elections is abundantly clear. Their role in causing societal division is also apparent and only going to worsen.

Money talks – social media companies should be heavily fined and made to conform to existing laws. Governments should urgently look at enacting laws similar to those that publishers have to follow, while ensuring platforms have robust mechanisms in place to report and remove disinformation quickly. Until they do, the way these companies are run means there is currently no such thing as a free or fair democracy.

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.