Andy Burnham is facing fury over his Brexit comments (Image: Getty)
If you think about hybrid warfare and espionage, I’m sure the mind is immediately drawn to bombs, wiretaps and honeytraps. But in the era of social media, poisonous narratives, bot farms and contested facts, information is becoming a weapon of choice for Britain’s enemies.
Russia and Iran pick contentious issues and create propaganda campaigns targeting both sides of a given issue. They exaggerate, manipulate and in many cases lie to exacerbate the fraying social fabric in the UK. The idea is to drive an ever-increasing wedge between different sections of society. Then confidence begins to collapse in the idea of the state.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
It’s what made Andy Burnham’s intervention on Brexit this weekend so astounding. It’s a vote that divided families, groups of friends and the nation as a whole in 2016. That continued through the negotiations with the EU, 2020 when we finally left and has continued as the PM continues to show a bit of leg to Brussels.
As Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, warned, Moscow and Tehran will not need a second invitation to wreak havoc. And the propagandists won’t have believed their luck, after attempting to influence the vote in 2016, that they are still being held up as some kind of master strategists. They are not. They are, as Sir Ken described, “opportunists”.
The Prime Minister’s political opponents have been telling me that Mr Burnham is “playing into their hands” precisely as they ramp up their assassination, terror, kidnap and arson conspiracies in the UK. The timing couldn’t be worse.
And one MP highlighted this section of the PM’s interview with The Rest Is Politics: “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.”
Sir Ken McCallum warned of the threat of Russian trolls (Image: Getty)
It jars with what Sir Ken told reporters on Tuesday. The intelligence chief said Russia tried to interfere in the vote, but said a distinction must be drawn between successful operations. Mr Burnham’s comments seemingly claim otherwise.
And the MI5 head, as he spoke to reporters on Tuesday, repeatedly warned that community cohesion is something Britain’s enemies are trying to weaponise. He said: “Our adversaries want to abuse our very freedoms to polarise us. Our cohesion counts.”
As Russia and Iran ramp up a myriad of operations here in the UK, the Prime Minister would do well not to wrap a present up for them, complete with a bow and a shiny label. Picking an issue that still casts a divisive shadow over British politics to play to the galleries is a gift the Russians and Iranians are unlikely to ignore.
Mr Burnham must not let the temptation of party politics come before national security again, or we may end up looking at an even more divided society. If he reverses Brexit, we certainly will.
Andy Burnham’s Brexit Blunder Is a Gift from Heaven to Vladimir Putin
Andy Burnham’s renewed focus on Brexit has opened another contentious debate in British politics, raising questions about national sovereignty, European cooperation and the potential consequences of reopening old political divisions. Critics of a closer relationship with the European Union argue that revisiting the Brexit question could distract Britain from more urgent domestic challenges and create opportunities for adversaries seeking to weaken Western unity.
Among the concerns raised in this debate is Russia’s potential strategic advantage whenever disagreements emerge between Britain and its European allies. Vladimir Putin’s government has repeatedly been at odds with Western governments over European security, the war in Ukraine and the future of the continent’s political order. Against that background, arguments over Britain’s relationship with Europe inevitably attract attention beyond Westminster.
However, describing Burnham’s position as a gift to Putin is a political interpretation, not proof that the Russian president would necessarily benefit from a particular British policy. Assessing that claim requires examining how Brexit has affected Britain’s international relationships, what Burnham’s proposals would actually involve and whether closer cooperation with the EU would strengthen or weaken the country’s security.
Why Brexit Remains a Sensitive Political Issue
Brexit transformed Britain’s relationship with the European Union and remains one of the most consequential political decisions in the country’s recent history.
Supporters of leaving argued that Britain should regain greater control over its laws, borders and trade policy. They maintained that decisions affecting the United Kingdom should be made by British institutions rather than EU bodies.
Those who opposed Brexit warned that leaving the single market and customs union could create additional trade barriers, reduce economic opportunities and complicate cooperation with European partners. They also expressed concern that Britain’s influence over decisions affecting the continent could diminish.
Years after the referendum, the debate has evolved. Rather than focusing exclusively on whether Britain should have left, politicians increasingly discuss the practical relationship the country should maintain with the EU.
Questions surrounding trade, security, migration, scientific research and defence cooperation remain important. The challenge is to determine where closer collaboration would be beneficial and where the United Kingdom should retain separate arrangements.
Andy Burnham’s interventions on Britain’s relationship with Europe have therefore attracted attention because they touch on a question that continues to divide political opinion: how should Britain balance national autonomy with the advantages of cooperation?
Andy Burnham and the Debate Over Britain’s European Future
Andy Burnham is the Mayor of Greater Manchester and a prominent Labour politician. His views on Brexit and Britain’s relationship with Europe have contributed to wider discussions about Labour’s political direction and the economic consequences of the country’s departure from the EU.
For supporters of a closer relationship with Europe, reconsidering aspects of Brexit is not necessarily the same as proposing that Britain should immediately rejoin the European Union. Different options exist, ranging from practical agreements on trade and research to closer cooperation in security and defence.
Each option would involve different obligations, benefits and political considerations.
Critics, however, may argue that reopening the Brexit debate risks creating uncertainty for businesses and reviving divisions that have already consumed considerable political energy. They may also question whether closer alignment would require Britain to accept rules over which it has limited direct influence.
The substance of Burnham’s position matters. A proposal to improve cooperation in a specific policy area is different from a proposal to reverse Brexit entirely.
Without examining the precise proposal under discussion, it would be misleading to treat every call for closer European relations as an attempt to undo the referendum result.
Nevertheless, the political debate illustrates how difficult it remains for Britain to settle on a long-term approach to its European neighbours.
Why Russia Features in the Argument
Vladimir Putin’s Russia has become a central consideration in European security discussions, particularly following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
The conflict prompted European governments to reconsider military preparedness, defence spending, energy security and cooperation with allies. Britain has continued to support Ukraine and has worked with European partners on a range of security issues.
In this context, Western unity matters because coordinated policies can make it more difficult for an adversarial state to exploit disagreements between allied governments.
Russia may benefit strategically when European countries disagree over sanctions, defence commitments or support for Ukraine. Divisions can complicate decision-making and make collective responses more difficult.
However, this does not mean that every disagreement between Britain and the EU benefits Moscow, or that every policy promoting closer European cooperation automatically weakens Russian influence.
The relationship between Brexit and European security is more complicated. Britain remains a member of NATO, maintains bilateral relationships with European countries and participates in international security initiatives despite leaving the EU.
The central question is whether particular arrangements improve or undermine practical cooperation.
If closer coordination allows Britain and European allies to share intelligence more effectively, strengthen defence industrial capacity or respond more consistently to security threats, it could provide advantages. If an arrangement creates unnecessary costs or weakens important capabilities, its value would need to be examined separately.
The outcome depends on the details rather than the political label attached to a proposal.
Could Brexit Have Weakened Britain’s Influence?
Leaving the EU changed the mechanisms through which Britain participates in European decision-making.
The United Kingdom no longer takes part in EU institutions as a member state, which means it does not vote on EU legislation or participate in the same way in decisions governing the single market.
At the same time, Britain retains substantial diplomatic, military and economic influence through other channels. Its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, nuclear deterrent, NATO membership and extensive diplomatic network remain important elements of its international position.
The economic consequences of Brexit are also a subject of continuing analysis. Changes to trade arrangements have introduced additional administrative requirements for many businesses trading with the EU, while the overall economic impact depends on a range of factors, including investment, productivity, migration and domestic policy.
These developments have implications for Britain’s ability to cooperate with European partners, but they do not establish that the country has lost all meaningful influence.
The question for policymakers is whether new agreements can improve cooperation while preserving the benefits that Britain sought through its departure from the EU.
A pragmatic approach would examine individual policy areas rather than assume that every aspect of the current relationship must remain unchanged or be completely reversed.
European Security Requires More Than Political Slogans
The argument about Putin highlights a broader challenge facing European governments. Security depends on practical capabilities, reliable partnerships and the willingness of countries to coordinate when their interests overlap.
NATO remains the principal collective-defence alliance for Britain and many European countries. The EU also plays a role in sanctions, economic security, support for Ukraine and aspects of defence cooperation.
Although these institutions have different responsibilities, their activities can complement one another.
Britain’s security interests are closely connected to developments across Europe. Threats to critical infrastructure, cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns and military instability can affect several countries simultaneously.
Effective responses may require intelligence sharing, coordinated sanctions, secure supply chains and investment in military equipment.
The Brexit debate becomes relevant when political arrangements make these forms of cooperation easier or more difficult.
However, the existence of disagreement does not automatically demonstrate a security failure. Governments may reasonably disagree over how to allocate resources or organise cooperation while continuing to work together on shared priorities.
The important measure is whether those disagreements prevent effective action against identifiable threats.
The Economic Dimension of Britain’s Relationship with Europe
The debate is not limited to military security. Britain’s economic relationship with Europe also influences its international resilience.
The EU remains an important trading partner for the United Kingdom. Businesses operating across borders must navigate the rules governing goods, services, investment and regulatory compliance.
Supporters of closer economic cooperation argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could help British companies trade more efficiently and encourage investment. They also suggest that cooperation on research, energy and industrial development could create opportunities.
Critics may respond that regulatory alignment can restrict the freedom to set separate standards or negotiate different arrangements with countries outside Europe.
Both considerations are relevant when evaluating a particular proposal. The economic effects depend on the sectors involved, the terms of any agreement and the balance between reduced barriers and new obligations.
Economic resilience can also have security implications. A strong industrial base, reliable energy supplies and stable public finances help a country sustain defence commitments and respond to international crises.
Nevertheless, it would be too simplistic to conclude that a closer relationship with the EU automatically produces greater economic or military strength. Policy design, domestic investment and implementation remain essential.
Does Reopening the Brexit Debate Help or Hurt Britain?
The answer depends on what reopening the debate means in practice.
A comprehensive attempt to reverse Brexit would raise major political, legal and economic questions. It would require substantial public discussion and agreement on the terms of any future relationship.
By contrast, targeted agreements designed to improve trade, research, energy cooperation or security could be considered without requiring Britain to rejoin the EU.
The distinction is important because political arguments often treat all forms of European cooperation as if they were identical.
Those who favour a closer relationship may argue that Britain should pursue practical arrangements that deliver measurable benefits. Those who oppose greater alignment may argue that maintaining regulatory independence is essential to the country’s long-term strategy.
Both approaches should be assessed against clearly defined objectives, including economic performance, democratic accountability, national security and the ability to cooperate with allies.
Burnham’s position should therefore be judged by the specific policies he advocates rather than by assumptions about what every discussion of Brexit must lead to.
The Political Risks for Labour
For Labour, European policy can be politically sensitive because the party must address the views of voters with different attitudes towards Brexit.
Some support closer ties with the EU because they prioritise trade, mobility and international cooperation. Others remain concerned about sovereignty, immigration and the possibility that closer alignment could recreate obligations they voted to leave behind.
A political leader who calls for a change in Britain’s European relationship must explain what the change would achieve and how it would affect these competing interests.
Labour must also consider its wider domestic priorities, including economic growth, public services and the cost of living. A debate over Europe can become politically distracting if it is not connected to clearly explained policy objectives.
At the same time, avoiding every discussion of the EU would not necessarily serve Britain’s interests. Trade, defence, research and international security continue to require decisions about cooperation with neighbouring countries.
The challenge is to establish a practical direction that can command public understanding and deliver tangible results.
A Question of Strategy, Not Just Brexit
The suggestion that Burnham’s Brexit position could benefit Putin reflects a wider concern about the relationship between domestic political divisions and international security.
Russia has an interest in disagreements that weaken cooperation among Western countries. That general strategic reality makes unity and effective diplomacy important, particularly in relation to Ukraine and European defence.
But the claim that a particular British politician’s position is a direct gift to the Russian president requires evidence about the proposal and its likely consequences. It cannot be established solely by the fact that the politician supports reconsidering aspects of Brexit.
Britain must decide how best to protect its interests in a changing international environment. That involves evaluating the practical benefits of cooperation, the costs of different arrangements and the importance of maintaining effective relationships with allies.
For Burnham, the challenge is to explain how his preferred approach would improve Britain’s position. For his critics, the challenge is to show why the alternatives would produce better outcomes.
For the wider political debate, the priority should be clear: national security arguments must be grounded in evidence rather than used simply as labels to discredit opponents.
Conclusion: Britain’s European Choices Have Long-Term Consequences
Andy Burnham’s position on Brexit has reopened questions about Britain’s future relationship with Europe and the potential implications for economic performance, diplomatic influence and national security.
Russia’s confrontation with Western governments makes European cooperation an important strategic issue. Divisions among allies can create difficulties, while effective coordination can help countries respond to common threats.
However, the relationship between Brexit policy and Russian interests cannot be reduced to a simple claim that closer ties with Europe are always beneficial or that reconsidering Brexit necessarily helps Putin.
The real test is whether particular policies improve Britain’s security, economic resilience and ability to work with its partners.
As the debate continues, politicians should explain their proposals clearly, distinguish between different forms of European cooperation and support their claims with evidence.
Britain’s future relationship with Europe will remain an important political question. The decisions made about that relationship should be guided by the country’s long-term interests, the practical needs of its citizens and the security challenges facing the continent.