Ian Hislop, "Andy Burnham says the Russians swayed the Brexit vote.. And the head of MI5 said the Russians attempted to sway the vote" "The British people had voted that way themselves" "The argument was not over whether they had tried because obviously the Russians had tried" "But we have our own bots, Bottist Johnson" Janet Street-Porter, "Now Andy Burnham says renegotiating the terms of Brexit is a jolly good thing" Ian Hislop, "And I think the climate has changed because now nearly everyone in Europe is far right" "It could be time for Reform UK to go full on and have us joining it" My view: The key distinction is that Russia’s attempts to influence the Brexit debate and whether they changed the result are separate questions. The ISC’s 2020 report said the government had not properly investigated those attempts; the committee did not assess their impact, and said it had not been given a post-referendum assessment. So we cannot confidently say Russia swayed the vote—or confidently say it did not. That uncertainty is the consequence of failing to investigate. The Guardian And the same applies to the rise of the far right across Europe. It doesn’t mean whole countries have suddenly become far right; it means political forces are gaining ground by exploiting real anger and insecurity. The UK should be a warning about where that leads. Brexit was sold as a cure for people’s frustrations. It has not fixed years of underfunding, weak public services or economic neglect. When people feel abandoned, their grievances become fuel for division. The far right points that anger at migrants, minorities and political opponents, while wealth keeps concentrating in fewer hands. Even when energy companies make extraordinary profits, governments too often fail to use temporary windfall taxes to return a fair share to the public and rebuild the services people rely on. A broken system gives the far right an audience—and leaves anger and hatred to shape the debate. If we want a different politics, we need to address the conditions that feed it: invest in public services, tackle inequality and give people a reason to believe cooperation can improve their lives.

George Monbiot explains why the UK should rejoin the EU, "There's a reason why Russia tried to intervene in the Brexit vote, they knew that it would harm the UK and the EU if we left" "They were very clear about that and boy have they been proved right" "It has damaged our economic life, our social and cultural life" "Wales alone has lost £1 billion net in regional and social funding which it would have received from the EU" "And it has greatly weakened the opportunities particularly for young people, to work abroad, live abroad, to have the freedoms we had before" "We could rejoin the Customs Union, or the Single Market, but if we did that alone we would be rule takers, we have to accept whatever the EU handed down because we would not be at the table negotiating and making decisions alongside other nations" "As an audience member pointed out, yes the EU is changing. But that's not a reason not to rejoin, but that's a reason to be there in case it changes into a direction we don't like. We can help it be the kind of EU that we want it to be" "I don't think there's any option but to rejoin fully" My view: Brexit was sold as a way to take back control. In practice, it has often meant giving up influence over decisions that still affect us. Our businesses have to navigate rules shaped in Brussels, but Britain has no vote in setting them. That is not meaningful sovereignty; it is distance from the table. Rejoining would give the UK a voice in the institutions where shared rules are debated and agreed. It would also restore a closer, more predictable relationship with our largest nearby market, making it easier for businesses to trade, invest and plan. Those gains would not erase every problem facing the country, but they would remove barriers we chose to put in our own way. The case is about more than trade. It is about making it easier for people to study, work and build lives across Europe; cooperating on research, energy, climate and security; and giving communities and regions access to shared opportunities. These are practical freedoms and partnerships that matter in people’s everyday lives. A halfway arrangement could reduce some friction, but it would leave Britain following many common rules without full representation in shaping them. If the UK wants influence over the direction of European cooperation, membership is the route that provides it. Rejoining would not mean surrendering every national choice; it would mean choosing to make some decisions together, with a seat, a vote and the ability to argue for the outcome we want. The question is not whether the EU is perfect. It is whether Britain is better placed to shape its future from within, alongside its neighbours, or to stand outside while decisions with consequences for us are made without us. After the experience of Brexit, there is a strong case for choosing influence, cooperation and closer ties again. And since Britain left, no other EU member state has followed it out. Instead, the Union has grown to 27 members, while 10 aspiring members are currently in the accession process. That does not prove the EU is perfect or that membership suits every country. But it does show that countries see real value in joining: access to a huge shared market, stronger economic links and greater stability. European Commission They are not signing up because the EU has no problems; they are choosing to take part in a shared project that can bring investment, opportunity and a stronger voice in decisions affecting their future. If countries across Europe are working to join, Britain should ask why it chose to walk away, and whether standing outside has made us better placed to shape what comes next.