The
Guardian view on Elon Musk and UK politics: interference in plain sight
Editorial
American
tech billionaires are no more entitled to meddle in British democracy than
other foreign oligarchs
Wed 18 Dec
2024 18.25 GMT
Under most
circumstances, a British politician seeking cash from a foreign oligarch would
make the approach discreetly. Recipient and donor would worry about the
relationship looking improper even if the deal could be done without breaching
UK electoral law.
Nigel Farage
has no such qualms. The Reform leader has boasted of his recent meeting with
Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. Nick
Candy, a former Conservative donor and now the Reform party’s treasurer, was
also present. Photographs and statements from the British visitors testify to
their eagerness that the meeting – and the fact that money was discussed –
attract maximum publicity.
Mr Musk has
denied reports that he is considering making a multimillion-pound donation to
Reform. But he has a proven appetite for meddling in British politics. He has
used his X platform to attack Sir Keir Starmer, amplify radical rightwing
rhetoric and post inflammatory remarks, including a forecast of civil war in
the aftermath of riots over the summer.
It is
inconceivable that a person of comparable influence from any country other than
the US could intervene so blatantly in British politics without it being a
matter of national scandal. If Mr Farage were not a possible beneficiary, and
the interventions were not aligned with his prejudices, he would probably lead
the outcry. He did not hesitate to denounce the then US president Barack Obama
for encouraging British voters to vote to retain EU membership in the 2016
referendum.
There is a
significant difference between commentary that is perceived as meddling in
another country’s politics and money that could make a material difference to
election outcomes. There are rules prohibiting foreign donations, but they are
not hard to circumvent. The UK-registered arm of Mr Musk’s business empire
could legally contribute to Reform’s campaign coffers. There is also no limit
on the amount that can be given. So it is quite feasible for a billionaire who
is not resident in the UK or registered to vote in British elections to put a
fat financial thumb on the scales of democracy.
Labour’s
election manifesto committed to “protect democracy by strengthening the rules
around donations to political parties”, but what that means in practice has yet
to be determined. No legislation to enact the pledge is being prepared. To the
extent that there has been any public debate about foreign disruption of
British democracy in recent years, it has dwelled on covert operations by
hostile states. The volume of Russian disinformation is increasingly recognised
as a hazard in online discourse. The recent scandal around Prince Andrew’s
involvement with a Chinese businessman accused of espionage has drawn attention
to the scale of efforts by Beijing to infiltrate UK institutions and influence
policy.
It doesn’t
make sense to include open interventions from the US – a democracy and a close
ally – in the same category as secret subterfuge by authoritarian regimes. But
that doesn’t mean there is no issue with American money distorting and
potentially corrupting British politics. Some traffic in policy and campaign
styles from Washington to Westminster is inevitable, given the historical
intimacy of the alliance and shared language. But cultural overlap does not
equate to common jurisdiction. American billionaires throwing their rhetorical
and financial weight behind political parties cannot, and must never, be
accepted or normalised as part of the transatlantic political dialogue.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário