Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

Foreigners invest billions to determine which party the Swedish Social Democrats will be in coalition with. This matters a lot to the entire international community. I think half of all CIA resources go into this vital question.

[The Brain]

What exactly is the problem with an individual spending money on the Brexit campaign? Is it illegal to have private business motives for backing a political cause?

If you're doing so at the behest of a foreign power it may be a problem.

Then the UK takes a different view from Sweden. Sweden has been influencing elections in foreign countries for decades and foreign powers have influenced Swedish elections, without many eyebrows rising.

Tel me more.

What do you want to know?

I don't know what you are referencing, tell me more about it, I am curious.

For instance Swedish support for various regimes in the Third World, like that of Robert Mugabe. For instance Communists in the Swedish parliament taking directions from the Soviet Union.

[Jacob]

Swedish communists still take direction from the Soviet Union?

[Valmy]

For instance Swedish support for various regimes in the Third World, like that of Robert Mugabe. For instance Communists in the Swedish parliament taking directions from the Soviet Union.

I think you are stretching the definition of the concept of interfering with democratic elections

But you attitude does show how the current Russian tactics will soon become commonplace and seriously threaten the entire basis of liberal democracy as a system.

[The Brain]

Swedish communists still take direction from the Soviet Union?

The Soviet Union has ceased to exist.

[The Brain]

For instance Swedish support for various regimes in the Third World, like that of Robert Mugabe. For instance Communists in the Swedish parliament taking directions from the Soviet Union.

I think you are stretching the definition of the concept of interfering with democratic elections

But you attitude does show how the current Russian tactics will soon become commonplace and seriously threaten the entire basis of liberal democracy as a system.

Sending many millions to a specific political party in a foreign country is certainly influencing elections. I don't know if interfering is synonymous with influencing, I didn't say interfering.

My attitude that citizens are free to support political causes in their home country for whatever private reasons is a threat to liberal democracy?

[Richard Hakluyt]

For instance Swedish support for various regimes in the Third World, like that of Robert Mugabe. For instance Communists in the Swedish parliament taking directions from the Soviet Union.

I think you are stretching the definition of the concept of interfering with democratic elections

But you attitude does show how the current Russian tactics will soon become commonplace and seriously threaten the entire basis of liberal democracy as a system.

I think The Brain is right more or less; it is routine to interfere in other countries' elections via propaganda etc etc

Remember the time that the Guardian sent a letter to the elctors in some swing county or other in the USA for instance. Or the chains of communist bookshops that existed in the UK back in the cold war days.

What has changed is that the internet has empowered such interference; that and the hollowing out of the middle class over the past 30 years or so.

[Valmy]

I think The Brain is right more or less; it is routine to interfere in other countries' elections via propaganda etc etc

Remember the time that the Guardian sent a letter to the elctors in some swing county or other in the USA for instance. Or the chains of communist bookshops that existed in the UK back in the cold war days.

What has changed is that the internet has empowered such interference; that and the hollowing out of the middle class over the past 30 years or so.

I don't see how having communist bookshops or some newspaper doing something as reasonable examples comparable to what's going on now. This strikes me as some ridiculous attempt to normalize what is very and very destabilizing. I am very unconvinced by your arguments especially when all your examples are such weak sauce. The Guardian sending letters? Really? There is nothing so earnest and open about this.

I don't see what issues with the Middle Class have to do with anything either

[Tamas]

BUt The Brain is right. The only difference between Russia financing fringe elements and western governments and organisations financing democratic parties and NGOs is moral. Technically, it's the same thing.

But for me that difference is crucial.

[Josquius]

The big problems with Russian interference are

1: the dishonesty and directness of it.
It wasn't just RT telling us to vote leave. It was an organised campaign of trolls operating under fake identities actively interfering with online discussion to sow disinformation.
Not quite the same thing as local group taking money from Russia.

2: regardless of where the money originated spending rules were completely broken with it.
The brexit campaign set up a lot of sham groups which allowed it to artificially boost the amount it could spend.

3: this isn't just an election.
Brexit is far more serious than trump. Trump means America is going through some rocky years. Brexit means that and the end of the UK afterwards.

[Admiral Yi]

BUt The Brain is right. The only difference between Russia financing fringe elements and western governments and organisations financing democratic parties and NGOs is moral. Technically, it's the same thing.

But for me that difference is crucial.

He's not talking about financing political parties.  He's talking about Sweden sending aid money to single party dictatorships like Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

[Threviel]

BUt The Brain is right. The only difference between Russia financing fringe elements and western governments and organisations financing democratic parties and NGOs is moral. Technically, it's the same thing.

But for me that difference is crucial.

He's not talking about financing political parties.  He's talking about Sweden sending aid money to single party dictatorships like Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

I might be talking out of my ass, but Sweden has a history of financing socialist parties in Africa, ANC for example. I think Brain implies that Sweden financed Zanu-PF, not Zimbabwe.

[grumbler]

There is a clear difference between trying to overtly influence a party or process and covertly seeking to interfere with a party or process.  The first is acceptable behavior under international norms, the second is abnormal and unacceptable behavior (though it does happen a lot).  Treating the two as equivalent is the kind of moral equivalence that is getting the Western Democracies in so much trouble.

[The Brain]

BUt The Brain is right. The only difference between Russia financing fringe elements and western governments and organisations financing democratic parties and NGOs is moral. Technically, it's the same thing.

But for me that difference is crucial.

He's not talking about financing political parties.  He's talking about Sweden sending aid money to single party dictatorships like Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

I might be talking out of my ass, but Sweden has a history of financing socialist parties in Africa, ANC for example. I think Brain implies that Sweden financed Zanu-PF, not Zimbabwe.

Correct. Sweden supported several regimes in for instance Africa for ideological reasons. Details regarding the help given may or may not have varied a bit, but it was clear that Sweden supported a certain political regime and not just the country in general. Of course maybe not all of those regimes allowed opposition parties (Tanzania?), and there you could argue that Swedish support wasn't very important from a strict election perspective, but even there the major point still stands I think.

[garbon]

There is a clear difference between trying to overtly influence a party or process and covertly seeking to interfere with a party or process.  The first is acceptable behavior under international norms, the second is abnormal and unacceptable behavior (though it does happen a lot).  Treating the two as equivalent is the kind of moral equivalence that is getting the Western Democracies in so much trouble.

Yeah, hasn't the US been lambasted in the past, on the many occasions that it tried to covertly meddle/engineer regime changes?