Andy Burnham unexpectedly reopened an old Brexit debate when he said he had been told after becoming prime minister that Russia had interfered in the 2016 EU referendum.
It was a contentious issue in the second half of the previous decade, but one that had largely been forgotten about as the UK finally adjusted to the reality of leaving the EU. Now Burnham’s comments have given the topic a fresh impetus.
What did the prime minister say, and why could it be significant?
The Russia topic came up as part of a wide-ranging interview Burnham gave to The Rest is Politics, excerpts of which were released on Sunday, in which he appeared to suggest he had been given new information about the Brexit vote.
“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,” he said.
The prime minister did not say whom he had asked, or set out in detail what the answer was. But his comments suggest he had been given new information of some kind, although he then switched to talking about Russian disinformation in general.
“These things are important now to put clearly on the record, and I believe, help voters in Germany and France understand that some of this politics is instigated via our enemies, namely Russia,” he said.
What could Burnham have been told?
It was hard to decipher from the interview.
One possibility is that he was given a summary of a recent assessment by the UK’s intelligence agencies. Another is that it was a relatively informal conversation with officials, where opinions were exchanged.
The difference is significant – if there was a fresh assessment it would run counter to the position established under a succession of Conservative governments in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.
Later on Monday, in the Commons, Burnham did not share any extra information, saying instead: “It is a matter of record that Russia has sought to interfere in elections, the 2019 general election, and we think it is inconceivable that this was the first time.”
What was the conclusion of previous inquiries?
There were no serious official investigations into Russian interference attempts in 2016, not least because the Conservatives had no appetite to order them. As time passed, it became increasingly difficult to do so.
The topic was addressed by parliament’s cross-party intelligence and security committee in its Russia report, published in July 2020, which took evidence in secret from the UK’s intelligence agencies before publishing a partly redacted report.
It concluded that the government “had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes”. No formal post-referendum assessment had been made, the committee added, and the UK intelligence community was accused of taking its “eye off the ball” when it came to the Russian threat.
What could have happened in 2016?
This is an old controversy with three main . First, that a “troll army” of state-linked Russian accounts tweeted about the referendum in the run-up to the vote, though estimates of numbers have varied wildly from 54 to 150,000 (many of which were deleted).
Second, that the Russian English-language media outlets RT and Sputnik published a large amount of anti-EU and pro-Brexit content, which had a wide reach. The digital campaign group 89up said the two broadcasters had published 261 articles that achieved 134m potential page impressions.
The third aspect were claims that Arron Banks, a donor to the pro-Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, had links to Russia. Leaked emails showed he met Alexander Yakovenko, then the Russian ambassador to the UK, three times – a figure he later revised up to four – and that he was offered the chance to participate in a goldmining deal in Russia.
A subsequent investigation by the National Crime Agency into £8mof loans Banks provided to Brexit campaigns run by Farage concluded the money was legitimately his and there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
But the EU referendum was also a complex, closely fought campaign in which many points of view were in play. The idea that one country, with an interest in weakening the UK and the EU, could have had a decisive influence in a vote of 33.5 million people is debatable.
So what’s going on?
The prime minister is making a broader argument that Britain needs to reconsider its relationship with the EU, arguing that Brexit has not delivered what was promised. Highlighting that there could have been Russian efforts to interfere with the vote raises questions about the outcome, though Downing Street insisted on Monday it regarded the result as legitimate.
Burnham has also proposed creating a National Centre for Information Defence to detect, attribute and disrupt disinformation coming from overseas – and it appears that his comments about Russian interference were also intended to justify that.
However, when he appeared in the Commons, Burnham was careful to limit his remarks. He emphasised that he had not said that Russia had altered the result of the Brexit referendum, only that the Kremlin had tried to interfere. But with little new to back up his initial statements about Russian interference, the prime minister risks being accused of exaggeration.
