Burnham Says Russia Interfered in Brexit Vote, but Result Stands
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said it is clear that Russia interfered in Britain's 2016 vote to leave the European Union. Reuters
He made the remark on The Rest is Politics podcast. He said that on arriving in Downing Street, the prime minister's London office, he asked if there had been Russian interference in the Brexit vote and was told yes. BBC
No 10 moved fast to set limits around the remark. A spokesman said Mr Burnham believes the referendum result was legitimate.
Pressed on the point, the spokesman said: "Yes we believe the referendum result was legitimate" and "The PM absolutely accepts the referendum result".
The spokesman added that it is inconceivable Russia did not try to use the 2016 referendum to its advantage. He said Mr Burnham believes Russian activity did not succeed in influencing the result.
There are three different tests here: an attempt, interference, and effect on votes. Think of it like shouting to distract a crowd at a match. It is improper, but it is not the same as rigging the score. No 10 is holding all three ideas together: Moscow tried, Moscow interfered, and the outcome stands.
Foreign Minister Stephen Doughty echoed the warning in broader terms. He said Russia had been attempting to interfere in a series of democratic events, without giving specific details about Brexit.
Mr Burnham also aimed his remarks beyond Westminster. When he said Russia interfered in the 2016 vote, he warned voters in France and Germany about Moscow-backed efforts. Reuters
The domestic reaction was swift. Nigel Farage called Mr Burnham a liar over the claims about Russian interference in Brexit. HuffPost UK
The broader context here will be familiar in Westminster. An incoming prime minister sees intelligence briefings denied to opposition leaders. What he then says in public about those briefings is itself a political act, with effects on diplomacy, public trust and party management.
In my view, the careful wording from No 10 points to the difficulty. Ministers want to talk about Russian methods without reopening the mandate for Brexit. Hence the pairing: a blunt allegation of interference, alongside an explicit acceptance that Leave won legitimately and Russian activity did not change the result.
Looking at what this means for the weeks ahead, the questions for the lobby, the political reporters based in Parliament, are narrow. What definition of interference is No 10 using? What, if anything, will ministers publish to support it? And how will European capitals receive public counsel from a British prime minister to French and German voters? Mr Doughty's reluctance to give specifics suggests the Government wishes to assert a pattern while keeping the underlying material private. That approach may limit political damage at home. It leaves open how far MPs, and allies abroad, will press for evidence.
