After Labour's Stephen Kinnock outlines why it is better for the UK to rejoin the EU, especially in our current geo-political climate, a lady in the audience insults his father saying, "It is a corrupt, old boys network, and his family have done well out of the European Union" Stephen Kinnock later responds, "That's a disgraceful personal slur, my father - Neil Kinnock - is a patriot and has dedicated his life to public service, always standing up for what he believes in, and what is best for this country" Kinnock then asks her to name a Brexit benefit. She responds criticising CAP, says we can create our own farming model - but then admits it hasn't worked out very well 🤷‍♂️ My view: The exchange gets to the heart of the Brexit argument: it is easy to list the flaws in the system Britain left. The Common Agricultural Policy was often criticised for rewarding land ownership, creating bureaucracy and directing large sums to those with the most land. But pointing out those problems is not evidence that leaving solved them. Brexit was supposed to let Britain design support around its own priorities: backing food production, improving the countryside and giving farmers a clearer, fairer system. In England, the replacement was built around paying farmers for environmental work and other public benefits. But the transition has been difficult: direct payments were phased out while the new schemes were still being developed, and the Sustainable Farming Incentive was paused to new applicants in 2025, adding to uncertainty for farmers. There is a real case for reforming agricultural subsidies. But “we can make our own policy” describes a power Brexit gave the UK; it does not prove that the power has been used well. When the promised alternative is acknowledged to have fallen short, that is the question the Brexit case still has to answer. A personal attack may derail the discussion, but it cannot answer it.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy, "How do we deal with the fact that the head of MI5 says that Russia is the biggest threat, and our closest ally, Donald Trump, is regarding Putin with as a friend" Emily Thornberry, "It's as if Donald Trump's default position is to be sympathetic to Putin. He gets pulled back by allies and advisors, is on the same page for a while. And then floats back towards Putin again" "That is why there has been this realignment in the west, and closer alliance with powers of a certain size, where we know we need to stick together" My view: My view: If MI5 identifies Russia as the UK’s biggest security threat, but the US president repeatedly shows sympathy towards Putin, that creates a serious problem for the West. An alliance depends on trust: countries need to know that they share a basic understanding of the threats they face and will stand together when challenged. When Washington’s position appears to shift back and forth, that confidence becomes harder to sustain. This is not just about one comment or one meeting. Putin can exploit uncertainty between allies, testing how far he can go while countries debate whether they will respond together. The more divided the West looks, the greater the opportunity for Russia to weaken its resolve. That is why countries are building closer ties with one another. Britain’s security cannot rest on the assumption that the US will always take the same view or remain consistently committed. We need dependable partnerships, especially with our European neighbours, and the ability to act together when our security is at stake. Sticking together is not a gesture; it is part of how we deter threats.

Emily Thornberry, "It's measurable that there were attempts by Russia to interfere in the Brexit referendum" Victoria Derbyshire, "Is it? Where's the evidence?" Emily Thornberry gives one example of many then adds, "The trouble is, how do you measure whether that has an affect or not.. It's difficult to prove ten years later" "And we have to remember its in the context of a huge amount of lies" "Its rich coming from some people - Nigel Farage - saying that Andy Burnham is lying, when there were 350,000,000 lies being told on the side of a bus; or Boris Johnson saying people's wives would have bigger breasts if we left the EU" "There were a lot of lies told and it's very difficult to know on what basis people made decisions" "It's difficult to know if Russians were making up additional lies, or simply amplifying the lies already there" Victoria Derbyshire, "You think they definitely did?" Emily Thornberry, "The Russians definitely tried to interfere" "And the truth is, that over the last ten years, the Russians have got a lot better at it" "How do we now protect our democracy, to ensure the Russians don't interfere in the future and are effective" "I think that the majority of people in Britain know that leaving the EU was a mistake" My view: The past, the present and the future all raise the same question: how do we protect democracy when people can’t tell who is speaking online? In 2016, there were attempts by Russian-linked accounts and media to influence the political debate. That is not, by itself, proof that Russia changed the referendum result. But the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 report found the government had neither sought nor seen evidence of successful interference. Ten years later, proving how many people saw particular posts—or whether those posts changed anyone’s vote—is extremely difficult. That difficulty is exactly why the government should have investigated properly when the evidence was fresh. We cannot use the absence of a proper investigation as proof that there was no effect. Today, fake accounts and bots can post, like and comment at scale, making a coordinated campaign look like a groundswell of ordinary public opinion. The UK has the Online Safety Act, and Ofcom is responsible for enforcing its duties. But that does not mean every political account is verified, or that every interaction is independently checked. We still need to know how platforms identify coordinated fake activity, how much reach it gets, and whether foreign-linked networks are influencing what people see. No one is suggesting civil servants should manually inspect every account or every like. The job is to require platforms to keep reliable records, detect coordinated bot networks, disclose what they find, and allow independent scrutiny—with Ofcom able to demand evidence and enforce the rules. We also need clear, regular reporting on foreign interference, so the public and Parliament can see what is being detected and what action is being taken. After two years in government, Lisa Nandy and her colleagues have failed to deliver the level of scrutiny and protection people were promised. Saying we need a safer online space is not enough. The government must make platforms show who is shaping the conversation, and make sure an independent regulator can hold them to account.