Foreign funding became, in this room, less a technical question about APPG rules than a test of who Parliament should answer to. Yes won by nearly seven to one, and the lopsidedness was matched by the debate: most of the serious argument came from those demanding a ban.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case put the issue in blunt constitutional terms: “Our politicians should be governing for our benefit”. Another highly rated voice said simply, “There should be no meddling in UK internal affairs by foreign governments”, while other supporters treated funding, lobbying and influence as variations on the same problem. Some widened the principle to companies, NGOs and domestic bodies, and others described APPGs as a “gravy train” vulnerable to malicious actors.
No offered a narrower, more transactional view. Its strongest case argued that embassies could fund dinners or overseas visits because “The money isn't going into the pockets of politicians”; another voter’s advice was, “Personally get what you can off them”. The two sides were largely talking past each other: No focused on whether support bought outcomes, while Yes treated the appearance and possibility of foreign influence as sufficient reason to exclude it.
That places the result inside the wider argument about sovereignty and parliamentary independence, but it also exposed a practical hesitation within the winning camp. One Yes voter conceded, “I doubt such a ban would work at all”, even while backing the principle; others invoked the irony of politicians claiming to reclaim sovereignty while accepting foreign interests, or demanded that foreign influence stay out of parties and elected representatives altogether.
The chamber was clear about the principle, less clear about the machinery: foreign support should be out, even if enforcing the boundary is the harder argument still.
9 Opinions
no foreign must ever enter UK politics, political parties or go to UK elected representatives
Personally get what you can off them . Doesn't mean you have to give what they are pushing for
APPGs are little more than interest groups and there is no harm - within reason - of the Polish or Chilean or Singaporean embassy funding a dinner for Parliamentarians or a trip to their country to foster understanding and cooperation. The money isn't going into the pockets of politicians.
APPGs are a gravy train for MPs. They need to be circumscribed in rules which prevent their exploitation by malicious actors.
You say funding or lobbying, but somehow I hear bribing. All funding by external bodies (NGOs, Companies or other organizations both domestic and foreign) of any work in the UK parliament should be banned.
There should be no meddling in UK internal affairs by foreign governments
How is there any other answer? Ironic that the likes of Farage who pretend to be 'taking back sovereignty' are so keen to sell it off to foreign interests.
I doubt such a ban would work at all. But in principle, it would be a good thing to try and stop foreign meddling.
Our politicians should be governing for our benefit, not for the benefit of foreign governments.