Questions have been raised over Russia’s involvement in the 2016 Brexit referendum after Andy Burnham claimed it was “clear” Moscow had interfered with the vote.
Mr Burnham became the first prime minister to confirm Russia had interfered with the referendum as he revealed over the weekend he had asked about potential meddling upon his arrival to No 10 this summer.
He said the UK and its allies had been “too much on the back foot” when confronting Russian interference and “haven’t informed people sufficiently about the extent to which people are seeking to disrupt the political process from overseas”.
The comments have raised concerns over the outcome of the Brexit referendum and Britain’s vulnerability to Russian interference.
Here is what we know:
What did Andy Burnham say?
The prime minister told The Rest Is Politics podcast he had spoken to the German chancellor Friedrich Merz about the influence of Russia during a recent visit to Berlin.
“There is certainly misinformation, disinformation that is emanating from Russia into German politics,” he said.
“But I asked the question coming to Downing Street: was there interference in the 2016 referendum from Russia?
“And I’ve had the clear answer that yes, there was.
“I mean, these things are important now to put clearly on the record and help voters in Germany and France understand that some of this politics is instigated via our enemies, namely Russia.”
What happened and did it impact Brexit?
Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee found in 2020 that the government failed to fully assess the impact Russian state-run media and “troll” accounts could have had on the EU referendum
But speaking to Times Radio on Monday, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty declined to provide details of what form Russian interference took in 2016 and whether it had been successful.
He said: “I’m not going to get into the specifics of Russia’s actions against the UK, but what is clear is that Russia is attempting to interfere in democratic processes, not just in the UK but across Europe.”
Mr Doughty added that Russia was spending £1.5 billion on disinformation this year and called for a “whole of society effort” to respond to the threat Moscow poses to British democracy.
Asked whether interference could have changed the result of the 2016 referendum, he said: “The result is the result, and I think the prime minister has been very clear that he’s talking about attempts to interfere.
“The security minister has spoken about this before. I’m confident that both the British people and the British state are able to respond to and defend against these types of threats, but we need to be very honest that those threats exist.”
Later, Mr Doughty told LBC he did not think Russia’s attempts to interfere in the referendum had been successful.
“We know what the result was. I don’t think they’ve succeeded in their efforts.“I don’t think they’ve succeeded in their efforts to undermine our elections,” he said.
“The security minister’s been very clear that they’ve attempted but not succeeded, in his evidence that he gave previously on this.
“But the fact is that they are attempting to interfere, and we all need to be alert to that and respond accordingly.”
What now?
Speaking at the UN general assembly in New York last month, Mr Burnham hit out at Russian interference and has vowed to tackle it.
He said: “We have evidence that they tried to interfere with the 2019 general election. We also know that they have tried to stoke tensions and unrest in the wake of horrific events.”
Pro-EU campaigners have called for Britain to restore its EU membership in light of the revelation, and said it is important to have “public confirmation” of suspected interference.
“We have suspected for years that the 2016 referendum could have been subjected to interference because of how its result helped destabilise a united Europe,” Richard Kilpatrick, from European Movement UK said. “Disinformation played a role at the time and it is important to have this public confirmation of those suspicions.”
Naomi Smith, chief executive of Best for Britain said: “What is now more vital than ever is that pro-Europeans make it unmistakably clear: there is only one option on the table that could begin to repair that damage, and it’s restoring our EU membership and putting the UK back at the heart of Europe, as soon as possible.”
Did Russia Interfere with Brexit? Here’s What We Know After Andy Burnham’s Bombshell Claim
The question of whether Russia interfered in Britain’s decision to leave the European Union has returned to the centre of the political debate, following a fresh intervention by Andy Burnham. His reported comments have revived an argument that has never entirely disappeared from British public life: did a foreign power attempt to influence one of the most consequential votes in the country’s modern history?
Brexit was decided by a narrow margin in the referendum of 23 June 2016. Leave won with 51.9 per cent of the vote, compared with 48.1 per cent for Remain. The result reflected years of disagreement over sovereignty, immigration, economic policy and Britain’s place in Europe. But the possibility that hostile foreign actors sought to exploit those divisions has continued to attract scrutiny.
Any new claim deserves serious attention. Yet there is an important distinction between evidence that Russia tried to influence political debate, evidence that Russian-linked accounts amplified particular messages, and proof that such activity changed the referendum result. Those are three different questions, and they should not be treated as interchangeable.
What did Andy Burnham actually claim?
Burnham’s reported intervention has brought renewed attention to the relationship between Russian influence operations and the Brexit campaign. The precise wording and context of his alleged bombshell claim matter, however. Without a verified full statement, it would be premature to attribute a specific accusation to him or suggest that he has produced new evidence proving that Moscow determined the outcome.
The broader issue is well established enough to warrant investigation. Governments and intelligence agencies have warned that Russia has used online influence operations, misleading information and networks of apparently independent accounts to weaken confidence in democratic institutions and deepen existing political divisions.
The central question is whether any such activity was directed at Britain’s EU referendum, how extensive it was, and what conclusions the available evidence can reasonably support.
For voters who still disagree passionately about Brexit, the subject is especially sensitive. Some see foreign interference as a possible explanation for a decision they believe damaged Britain. Others worry that allegations of outside influence could be used to dismiss the legitimate views of millions of Leave supporters. A serious assessment must avoid both errors.
The referendum was a real political contest involving British voters, political parties, campaign organisations, newspapers and competing arguments about the country’s future. Investigating possible foreign interference does not mean assuming that every Leave voter was manipulated, just as accepting the result does not mean ignoring potential attempts to influence the public.
What evidence exists of Russian activity?
Concerns about Russian interference did not begin with Burnham’s reported remarks. In the years following the referendum, researchers, journalists and parliamentary bodies examined Russian-linked social media activity and the possibility that foreign actors had attempted to shape political conversations in Britain.
One of the main areas of concern has been the use of social media to spread divisive content. Online influence campaigns can involve coordinated accounts, misleading identities, provocative political messages and the amplification of existing disagreements. Their purpose may not be to persuade every individual to support one side. Instead, they can seek to increase distrust, intensify hostility and make it harder for citizens to agree on basic facts.
The Brexit debate offered obvious opportunities for such activity. Immigration, national identity, economic uncertainty and distrust of political elites were already prominent issues. An outside actor seeking to weaken social cohesion would not need to invent those disagreements; it could attempt to exploit arguments that were already taking place.
However, the presence of Russian-linked accounts discussing Brexit does not automatically establish that Russia controlled the Leave campaign or that the referendum was decided by foreign intervention. Online activity must be assessed in context, including its reach, timing, coordination and relationship to the broader campaign environment.
There is also a difference between an account expressing a political opinion and an organised influence operation. Establishing the latter requires evidence about who was responsible, how the activity was coordinated and what it was designed to achieve.
Those distinctions are essential if Britain is to learn the right lessons from the referendum rather than allowing speculation to replace evidence.