He said as he entered No10 in the summer, he asked if Moscow had interfered in the 2016 vote on whether to leave the EU and was given “the clear answer that yes there was”.

However, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty this morning told LBC: “We know what the result was. I don’t think they’ve succeeded in their efforts.

“I don’t think they’ve succeeded in their efforts to undermine our elections.”

He added: “The security minister’s been very clear that they’ve attempted but not succeeded, in his evidence that he gave previously on this.

“But the fact is that they are attempting to interfere, and we all need to be alert to that and respond accordingly.”

Andy Burnham’s original comments come amid a push by his administration towards forming closer ties with the EU, undermining the result of the 2016 vote.

In a Commons address later today, the Prime Minister is expected to reiterate his argument from the Labour Party conference Brexit has done “more harm than good”.

He will call on all parties to support the Government’s approach in seeking a closer relationship with the EU, arguing such a move could help control immigration and boost growth.

A No10 source said: “Andy understands why some politicians don’t want to face up to the reality that Brexit has not delivered what they once promised.

“But it is time for a different conversation about what our long-term relationship should be. Sticking with the status quo and not working relentlessly to secure a good deal that boosts growth would be a major dereliction of duty.”

At the Labour conference in Liverpool last month, Mr Burnham said he would set out the “options” for Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe around the time of a UK-EU summit planned for the end of the year.

He has suggested those options could include rejoining the bloc.

Reform UK home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf described Andy Burnham’s expressed interest in closer ties with the EU as “awful”, having “U-turned on a key election pledge to not re-run Brexit”.

Mr Yusuf told GB News: “More people voted for Brexit in this country than have voted for anything for the history of this country in a single election. For him to be doing this now I think is really awful, but it’s why people have such a dim view of career politicians.

“They will say anything they can to get elected.”

Meanwhile, Shadow Energy Secretary Andrew Bowie urged Andy Burnham to “move on” from the Brexit debate altogether, and take advantage of being outside the EU rather than pivot back toward it.

He told the People’s Channel: “I think it’s very dangerous of the Prime Minister to seek to reopen the Brexit division that this country has moved on from. Frankly, what we need to do now is face the future and make the best of what we have right now.

“The huge opportunities afforded to us by being outside the European Union that people voted for in a legitimate vote in record numbers. We need to respect that vote.

“It was taken over a decade ago now. Come on, Andy, move on. It’s not 2016. It’s 2026. Let’s deal with the issues we’re facing today.”

Downing Street has conceded no Russian interference successfully affected the result of the 2016 Brexit referendum, in spite of the Prime Minister’s earlier claims.

A No10 spokesman said: “The Prime Minister accepts the result. We do believe the result to be legitimate”.

When probed on Mr Burnham’s use of “loose” language in his comments, they added that he “has been very clear”, and that “Russia has indeed attempted to interfere in a series of democratic events in UK and across Europe – they haven’t succeeded”.

They continued: “The prime Minister has been clear about the threat Russia poses in the information sphere. It is inconceivable they didn’t try to use the referendum to their advantage.

“The Prime Minister is clear the Brexit deal we have inherited leaves Britain worse off and we can do much better. This is not about leaping to a referendum.”

Andy Burnham’s Foreign Minister Contradicts Prime Minister on Brexit and Admits Russia Was ‘Unsuccessful’ in Influencing Leave Vote

Andy Burnham has suffered an early setback in his attempt to reopen Britain’s Brexit debate after his own Foreign Office minister publicly clarified that Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 referendum were unsuccessful.

Stephen Doughty’s intervention came less than a day after the prime minister said he had received a clear answer that Russia had interfered in the referendum campaign. The apparent difference in emphasis has raised fresh questions about what the government knows, what it is prepared to disclose and whether the issue should influence Britain’s future relationship with the European Union.

Burnham’s comments have already reignited political arguments that have remained unresolved since the referendum. But Doughty’s response has drawn an important distinction between a foreign power attempting to influence a democratic process and actually succeeding in changing its outcome.

Speaking to broadcasters on Monday, Doughty said Russian attempts to interfere had not succeeded. He also stressed that the referendum result remained the result, reinforcing the government’s position that the vote should be treated as legitimate.

The exchange places Burnham in a difficult political position. While the prime minister wants to highlight the threat posed by foreign interference, ministers must also avoid suggesting that the Brexit result was invalid without evidence to support such a conclusion.

A Rapid Clarification From the Foreign Office

The controversy began when Burnham discussed Russian interference during an interview with The Rest Is Politics podcast.

The prime minister said he had asked about possible Russian involvement after entering Downing Street and had received a clear answer that interference had occurred. He argued that successive governments had not done enough to explain the extent to which hostile states seek to disrupt political processes in Britain and other Western democracies.

Burnham’s remarks were significant because previous governments had generally used more cautious language when discussing the 2016 referendum. The established official position was that there had been no evidence of successful Russian interference in the vote.

Doughty subsequently reiterated that distinction. According to his account, Russian actors had attempted to interfere but had not succeeded in influencing the referendum outcome.

The minister’s statement did not necessarily contradict Burnham’s claim that attempts at interference took place. Instead, it challenged any interpretation that those attempts had successfully determined the result.

That distinction is central to the dispute. Evidence that a foreign state tried to influence voters, spread misleading information or amplify political divisions does not automatically demonstrate that its efforts changed how people voted.

The government must therefore explain what it means by interference and what evidence supports its assessment of the outcome.

What the Intelligence Report Actually Established

The argument over Russian involvement did not begin with Burnham’s latest comments.

In 2020, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee published a report examining Russia’s activities and the threat posed to British democratic institutions. The committee criticised the government’s approach to investigating possible interference in the Brexit referendum, arguing that ministers had not sought a sufficiently comprehensive assessment of Russian activity.

The report also examined the broader use of Russian state-backed media and social media activity to influence political discussion and exploit divisions within Western societies.

Its findings raised serious questions about the UK’s preparedness for foreign interference. However, the report did not establish that Russian activity had changed the result of the referendum.

This distinction has become particularly important because the referendum was decided by a relatively narrow margin. Leave secured approximately 52 per cent of the vote, compared with around 48 per cent for Remain.

The closeness of the result has encouraged continued debate about the factors that shaped the campaign. Nevertheless, a narrow margin alone does not prove that foreign interference was decisive.

To establish that conclusion, investigators would need convincing evidence linking specific interference activities to changes in voter behaviour on a scale sufficient to affect the result. Such a finding cannot simply be inferred from the existence of online disinformation or attempts to influence public debate.

Burnham has not publicly set out the evidence behind the assessment he says he received. He has also not established that Russian activity altered the referendum outcome.

Consequently, Doughty’s clarification may be understood as an attempt to prevent the prime minister’s statement from being interpreted as an allegation that the 2016 vote was illegitimate.

Why the Brexit Debate Has Reopened

The dispute comes as Burnham seeks a closer relationship between Britain and the European Union.

The prime minister has argued that refusing even to consider stronger European ties would be a serious failure of responsibility. His government is pursuing negotiations designed to reduce trade barriers, improve cooperation and strengthen economic relations with European partners.

These proposals do not necessarily amount to an immediate plan to rejoin the EU. Britain could negotiate agreements on food standards, emissions trading, research, youth mobility and other areas without becoming a member again.

However, Burnham has also indicated that rejoining the bloc should remain among the possible options for Britain’s long-term future.

That position has reignited divisions between those who believe Brexit has damaged Britain’s economic prospects and those who argue that leaving the EU restored important powers over national policy.

For supporters of closer European integration, the costs and complications of the post-Brexit settlement justify examining alternatives. They point to additional border procedures, difficulties experienced by some exporters and the loss of certain benefits associated with participation in the single market.

Brexit supporters counter that the UK has retained the ability to make independent decisions on immigration, regulation and trade policy. They argue that closer cooperation can be pursued without reversing the referendum result.

The disagreement is therefore about more than the historical question of Russian interference. It concerns whether Britain’s present relationship with Europe is working and what changes, if any, should be made.

Is Burnham Using Russia to Strengthen His European Strategy?

The timing of the prime minister’s remarks has prompted questions about the relationship between his security concerns and his ambitions for closer ties with Brussels.

Critics may argue that highlighting Russian interference risks reopening an old political dispute just as the government attempts to persuade the public of the economic benefits of closer European cooperation.

They may also question whether the prime minister is giving too much weight to a historical issue that does not establish the need to reverse Brexit.

However, the argument that foreign interference should be investigated does not automatically mean that the referendum result should be overturned. Protecting democratic institutions is a separate responsibility from deciding whether Britain should change its relationship with the EU.

Burnham has said that the public deserves a clearer account of attempts by hostile states to disrupt Western politics. Such concerns are relevant beyond Brexit, including elections, political campaigns and public debates across Europe.

The government could therefore address the security issue through a transparent explanation of its findings and stronger measures to counter disinformation, while conducting the European policy debate on its own merits.

That approach would allow ministers to discuss the threat posed by Russia without suggesting that the referendum result should be disregarded.

The Political Opportunity for Reform UK

The dispute also provides an opening for Nigel Farage and Reform UK, whose political identity remains closely associated with Brexit.

Farage has strongly rejected claims that Russian interference undermined the referendum. He has accused Burnham of misrepresenting the evidence and has pointed to Doughty’s remarks as support for the argument that Russian efforts did not determine the result.

For Reform, the central message is that the public’s decision in 2016 should be respected and that the government should concentrate on current economic and immigration problems rather than revisiting the referendum.

The party can also argue that reopening the Brexit question risks creating fresh uncertainty for businesses and investors. Companies planning long-term investments may want clear information about future trading arrangements, regulatory obligations and access to European markets.

Nevertheless, the question of foreign interference cannot be resolved simply by political disagreement. If credible evidence shows that hostile states attempted to manipulate democratic debate, the government has a responsibility to explain the threat and strengthen the country’s defences.

The important distinction is between acknowledging those attempts and claiming that they invalidated the result.

Doughty’s intervention gives opponents of Burnham’s position a clear argument: the existence of attempted interference does not establish that the interference succeeded.

Could the Dispute Damage the Government?

The immediate challenge for Burnham is maintaining a consistent public explanation.

If the prime minister says Russia interfered while his minister says the attempts were unsuccessful, the government must explain how those statements fit together. Otherwise, the disagreement risks creating confusion about the evidence and encouraging political opponents to accuse ministers of contradicting one another.

There is, however, a straightforward explanation that could reconcile the two positions. A foreign state can attempt to interfere in a referendum without successfully changing the result.

Governments regularly distinguish between hostile activity, successful operations and demonstrable effects. Cyberattacks can be attempted but prevented. Disinformation campaigns can spread without changing public opinion sufficiently to affect an election. Influence operations can target political divisions without achieving their intended objective.

The government should therefore clarify which activities it believes took place, what evidence supports that conclusion and why it assesses the overall result as unaffected.

It should also explain what information can be made public without compromising intelligence sources or national security.

A clear statement would help prevent the argument from becoming a contest of competing political assertions.

What Does This Mean for Britain’s Future in Europe?

The immediate controversy is unlikely to settle the broader debate over Brexit.

Britain’s economic relationship with the EU will continue to depend on negotiations, domestic policy decisions and developments in international trade. Changes to customs arrangements, regulatory cooperation or mobility rules could have practical effects regardless of whether the country ever seeks full membership again.

If Burnham wants to make the case for closer European ties, the strongest basis for that argument will be evidence about trade, investment, productivity, employment and the costs of existing arrangements.

Similarly, supporters of Brexit will need to assess the current settlement against its stated objectives, including sovereignty, economic opportunity and the ability to pursue independent policies.

The Russian interference dispute may influence the political atmosphere, but it cannot replace that substantive assessment.

A proper evaluation would consider which aspects of the present relationship are working, where businesses and households encounter difficulties, and what benefits or obligations would accompany proposed changes.

It would also need to recognise that EU membership is not a decision Britain can make unilaterally. Rejoining would require negotiations and agreement from EU member states, as well as the relevant domestic political and constitutional processes.

A Debate That Requires Evidence, Not Assumptions

The disagreement between Burnham and Doughty has exposed the difficulty of discussing foreign interference in a highly polarised political environment.

There are legitimate reasons to investigate attempts by Russia or other hostile states to influence British politics. Protecting democratic institutions requires governments to identify threats, explain what can be established and take appropriate action.

But those responsibilities do not justify assuming that every attempted operation succeeded or that the outcome of a particular vote was changed.

The available public record includes serious concerns about the investigation of potential Russian activity, alongside the government’s established position that there was no evidence of successful interference in the referendum.

Burnham’s latest remarks have brought that issue back into the spotlight, while Doughty’s intervention has reinforced the distinction between attempted interference and a demonstrable effect on the result.

For the prime minister, the next step is to explain the evidence behind his assessment and make clear how it relates to the government’s position on the referendum’s legitimacy.

For the wider political debate, the lesson is equally important: Britain’s relationship with Europe should be evaluated through evidence about economic performance, national interests and democratic choices, rather than through assumptions about what foreign interference may or may not have achieved.

The 2016 referendum remains a defining moment in modern British politics. Whether the country should move closer to the EU is a question for current and future democratic debate. Establishing what Russia attempted, and what effect those efforts had, is a separate question that deserves careful scrutiny and a clear, evidence-based answer.