Prue Plumridge prueplum@bsky.social

I’ve written about perhaps the most absurd Russiagate yet: Andy Burnham’s claim that Russia was behind Brexit. For the past decade, the British establishment — and Labour in particular — has been trying to neuter and, ideally, reverse Brexit. Under Andy Burnham, the project has acquired unprecedented momentum. In his first conference speech as Labour leader a few weeks ago, Burnham became the first prime minister to open the door to rejoining the European Union. On Monday, he told the Commons it would be a “dereliction of duty” to turn down a closer relationship with Brussels. It is in this context that Burnham’s latest Brexit “bombshell” needs to be read. Speaking on Rory Stewart’s and Alastair Campbell’s podcast, The Rest Is Politics, Burnham claimed to have “clear” evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 referendum — implying that Moscow had successfully tilted the vote towards Leave — while offering no details, let alone evidence. If anything is clear here, it is Burnham’s goal: to delegitimise the referendum result once and for all, and so pave the way for its reversal. And what better pretext than the Russian bogeyman? This fits a wider pattern. Since the 2016 Russiagate hoax, it has become standard practice among Western elites, especially in Europe, to blame every unwelcome election result — and above all every “populist” rebuke to their rule — on Russian “disinformation” and “interference”. The campaign has escalated dramatically since 2022. We are told that Russia has for years been running a vast influence operation aimed at manipulating helpless European voters, yet the evidence is scant or non-existent. The consequences, however, are not. In the EU, the permanent spectre of the Russian threat is being used to justify a rolling assault on democratic norms, from online censorship to the repression of dissent and interference in national elections. It is hardly surprising, then, that Burnham, Europhile that he is, should borrow a page — or rather a chapter — from the Brussels playbook. As is customary with sweeping claims against Russia, he offered no evidence. His statement was nonetheless amplified across the mainstream media, an allegation hardening into “fact” through sheer repetition. Indeed, pro-EU groups have duly called for Britain to rejoin in light of the “revelation”. But the reality is that over the years several investigations have looked at the issue of Russian interference in the Brexit referendum — and found nothing. It is of course possible that Burnham has been shown damning evidence buried for a decade. But how likely is that? Or is it more likely that he, like his European peers, is playing fast and loose with the facts — otherwise known as disinformation — for political gain? That he chose to make the claim on Alastair Campbell’s podcast, of all places, is itself a red flag. In September 2002, as Tony Blair sought to build support for war with Iraq, Downing Street published a dossier on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Citing a senior source, the BBC’s Andrew Gilligan later reported that Campbell, then Blair’s director of communications, had “sexed up” the dossier to frighten the public into backing the war. Its most notorious claim, repeated four times, was that Iraq could deploy WMDs within 45 minutes — wording that implied Britain or British forces were 45 minutes from attack, which is exactly how much of the press reported it. The intelligence in fact referred to battlefield munitions. Gilligan’s source turned out to be the weapons expert David Kelly, who died in disputed circumstances in July 2003 after being exposed. Burnham, it is worth recalling, voted for that war — one built on claims that could easily have been disproved at the time, and indeed were by many — and defended his vote for years afterwards. Given that record, some scepticism is in order, especially since his latest claim is, so far, equally unsupported. Read the article here: unherd.com/2026/10/why-rejoi…