He added that it was important to put the information on the record so that voters in Germany and France “understand that some of this politics is instigated via our enemies”.

Mr Burnham visited German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin last week and pledged to “bring the UK closer to Europe“.

And after his Labour conference speech, he told GB News he could not “leave Britain out” of discussions around the UK’s future relationship with the bloc and insisted on the need to consider all options.

Now, speaking to Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell on the Rest is Politics podcast, he said: “I asked the question coming to Downing Street, well was there interference in the 2016 referendum from Russia? I’ve had the clear answer that yes, there was.

“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.

“I think we’ve been too much on the back-foot on that actually and we haven’t informed people sufficiently about the extent to which people are seeking to disrupt the political process from overseas.”

Mr Burnham has not ruled out a future manifesto pledge to rejoin the bloc, and has refused to say if another referendum would be needed.

He also claimed there was “certainly misinformation, disinformation that is emanating from Russia into German politics” after his conversation with Mr Merz.

Shadow Foreign Minister Wendy Morton said: “The threats from hostile nations come in different shapes and sizes, and attempts to interfere in our elections are particularly concerning.

“However, the result of the Brexit referendum is legitimate and its authenticity should not be questioned.

“The public made their decision and Andy Burnham’s attempts to turn back the clock to 2016 run against the best interests of our country.

“Measures to protect our democracy are welcome but they must not favour one side or the other.”

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said that while he was not going to agree with Mr Burnham on everything, his statement “needed to be said by a Prime Minister”.

He said: “After the Conservatives suppressed the truth for years, this took courage.

“We must do far more to protect our democracy from attack by the Kremlin and other hostile states, before it is too late.”

This is the first time the Prime Minister has directly claimed Russian interference since he took to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) lectern and announced the “National Centre for Information Defence” to improve Britain’s “community cohesion”.

Addressing the multinational assembly, he claimed Russia had launched an “industrial-scale assault by hostile actors on the information environment”.

Critics of the plan, including Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, accused Mr Burnham of launching a “Labour Ministry of Truth” with an “Orwellian-style message” as they drew comparisons to dystopian novel 1984.

Andy Burnham Claims Russia ‘Clearly’ Meddled in 2016 Brexit Referendum as PM Justifies Plans to Rejoin the EU

The debate over Britain’s departure from the European Union has returned to the centre of British politics following a controversial statement by Prime Minister Andy Burnham. He has claimed that Russia clearly interfered in the 2016 Brexit referendum, raising fresh questions about the integrity of one of the most important political decisions in modern British history. His comments have attracted considerable attention because they come at a time when his government is reconsidering Britain’s long-term relationship with the European Union, including the possibility of rejoining the bloc. While Burnham insists that the country must confront foreign interference in its democratic processes, his political opponents accuse him of reopening the Brexit debate for political reasons. The controversy raises important questions about national sovereignty, international security, democratic accountability and Britain’s economic future.

To understand the significance of Burnham’s statement, it is necessary to look back at the referendum held on 23 June 2016. British voters were asked whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave. The result was extremely close, with approximately 52 per cent voting to leave and 48 per cent voting to remain. The Leave campaign focused on national sovereignty, immigration control and the promise that Britain could regain control over its laws, borders and financial contributions to the European budget. Its supporters believed that leaving the EU would allow the country to make independent decisions and negotiate trade agreements with countries around the world.

However, the referendum campaign was also marked by intense political arguments, misleading claims and widespread controversy over the use of social media. Both sides attempted to influence public opinion through advertising, television appearances and online campaigns. Concerns subsequently emerged about whether foreign governments, particularly Russia, had attempted to manipulate British political discussions and influence voters through online misinformation.

On 11 October 2026, Burnham made his controversial statement during an interview with the political podcast The Rest Is Politics. He explained that shortly after entering Downing Street, he had asked officials whether Russia had interfered in the 2016 referendum. According to the Prime Minister, he received a clear answer that such interference had taken place. He said: “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.”

The statement marked a significant development because Burnham became the first British prime minister to publicly assert that Russia had interfered in the Brexit referendum. Nevertheless, he did not reveal who had provided the information, what intelligence evidence supported the assessment or how extensive the alleged interference had been. More importantly, he did not establish that Russian activities had changed the final result of the referendum.

The issue had already been examined by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee in a report published in July 2020. The committee criticised the British government and intelligence agencies for failing to investigate Russian interference in the referendum properly. It found that the government had not sought a comprehensive assessment of whether Russia had attempted to influence the outcome. The report also highlighted the activities of Russian state-backed media organisations and social media accounts that had circulated political messages during the referendum period.

However, the committee did not conclude that Russia had successfully changed the result of the referendum. It emphasised that the government had failed to establish the full extent of possible interference. This distinction is important because evidence that a foreign country attempted to influence an election does not automatically prove that it determined the outcome.

Burnham has used the controversy to make a broader argument about the dangers of foreign interference in democratic societies. He believes that Britain and other European countries must become more transparent about the activities of hostile foreign governments. During discussions with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin, Burnham raised concerns about Russian influence in European politics, particularly the activities of far-right political movements such as Alternative for Germany (AfD).

He argued that Russia was using misinformation and disinformation to weaken democratic institutions and increase political divisions. According to Burnham, European governments should work together to identify and counter these activities before they undermine public confidence in elections. His government has also announced plans to establish a National Centre for Information Defence to detect and respond to foreign information campaigns.

The controversy has become closely connected to Burnham’s wider ambition to reconsider Britain’s relationship with the European Union. In recent speeches, he has argued that Brexit has damaged Britain’s economic position and reduced its influence in international affairs. He believes that leaving the EU has created unnecessary barriers to trade, weakened cooperation with European partners and made it more difficult for Britain to respond to shared security challenges.

Burnham has therefore opened the possibility of Britain eventually applying to rejoin the European Union. Although he has not promised an immediate return to membership, he wants the country to examine different options for closer cooperation with Brussels. These could include improved trade agreements, greater cooperation on energy and security, youth mobility arrangements and, eventually, full EU membership.

The Prime Minister’s position represents a significant change in the political debate surrounding Brexit. For many years, major political parties were reluctant to discuss reversing the decision because they feared reopening divisions that had dominated British politics for almost a decade. Burnham, however, argues that political leaders have a responsibility to reconsider policies when evidence suggests that they have not delivered the expected benefits.

Economic concerns are central to this argument. Since leaving the EU, British businesses have faced additional administrative requirements when trading with European countries. Smaller companies have experienced difficulties dealing with customs procedures, regulatory differences and increased costs. Critics of Brexit argue that these obstacles have weakened Britain’s competitiveness and discouraged investment. Supporters of closer European integration believe that rebuilding economic relationships could improve trade opportunities and encourage long-term growth.

Nevertheless, Burnham’s position has generated strong opposition. Nigel Farage, one of the most prominent supporters of Brexit, has criticised the Prime Minister’s comments and rejected the suggestion that Russian interference should be used to question the referendum result. Reform UK argues that British voters made a democratic decision in 2016 and that politicians should respect the outcome rather than repeatedly reopening the debate.

Other critics have also questioned why Burnham has made these allegations without publishing detailed evidence. They argue that the Prime Minister must distinguish between intelligence assessments, political opinions and publicly verifiable facts. Although foreign interference is a serious national security concern, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the referendum result was illegitimate without convincing evidence.

The government has subsequently clarified that it considers the 2016 referendum result legitimate and that there is no evidence Russia successfully changed the outcome. This clarification is particularly important because acknowledging attempts at interference is not the same as claiming that the democratic decision of millions of British voters was invalid.

Russia has repeatedly denied interfering in Western democratic processes. The Kremlin has previously dismissed allegations of electoral interference as politically motivated. However, concerns about Russian information operations have continued to grow, particularly following investigations into online disinformation, cyber activities and attempts to influence political debates in several European countries.

Another important issue is whether Britain could realistically rejoin the European Union. Membership would require negotiations with all EU member states and agreement on a wide range of economic and political conditions. Britain might not automatically recover the special arrangements and opt-outs it previously enjoyed. Questions concerning immigration, the EU budget, financial regulation and participation in European institutions would all need to be addressed.

Furthermore, British society remains divided over European integration. Some people believe that returning to the EU would provide economic stability and restore international influence. Others remain concerned about national sovereignty, immigration and the authority of European institutions. Any future decision would therefore require extensive public discussion and a clear democratic mandate.

In my opinion, the most important lesson from this controversy is that democracy must be protected through transparency, reliable information and independent scrutiny. Foreign interference should be investigated regardless of which political party or referendum campaign might benefit from it. At the same time, political leaders must avoid using national security concerns to make unsupported claims about the legitimacy of democratic decisions.

Britain should also approach the question of European membership through careful economic and political analysis. Rather than relying entirely on arguments about the mistakes of the past, the government should explain how closer relations with Europe would improve trade, employment, security and living standards. Equally, those who oppose rejoining should be able to explain how Britain can address the economic and diplomatic challenges associated with remaining outside the bloc.

In conclusion, Andy Burnham’s claim that Russia clearly interfered in the 2016 Brexit referendum has reopened an important debate about foreign influence, democratic accountability and Britain’s future relationship with Europe. Although the 2020 parliamentary investigation criticised the government’s failure to investigate the issue adequately, it did not establish that Russia had changed the referendum result. Burnham’s comments have strengthened his argument for greater European cooperation, but they have also provoked criticism from politicians who believe that Brexit must remain a settled democratic decision. Ultimately, Britain must confront the possibility of foreign interference honestly while respecting the distinction between attempted manipulation and a proven change in electoral outcomes. Its future relationship with the European Union should be determined through informed public debate, reliable evidence and democratic consent.