The domes of St. Basil's cathedral sit on Red Square in Moscow, Russia, on Thursday, Nov. 10, 2016. Russia is realistic about limits on the prospects for an immediate improvement in relations with the U.S. after President-elect Donald Trump takes office, according to President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman. Photographer: Andrey Rudakov/Bloomberg
Seeking to exert influence over other countries is what governments do, via their embassies and other operations © Bloomberg

Allegations of Russian interference in the UK’s 2016 Brexit referendum campaign are coming thick and fast. They need to be carefully assessed, but kept in proportion.

If British laws were broken in a way that unambiguously involved the Kremlin or its proxies, that would be a matter of concern. However, UK and EU politicians should keep in mind the distinction between illegal activities and the deployment, no matter how ruthless, of political influence.

Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator, tweeted last week: “Putin’s agents tried to influence the US election. We need to know if they interfered in the #Brexit vote too.”

But seeking to exert influence over other countries is what governments do, via their embassies and other operations. In this respect the Russians are like the Americans, British, Chinese and everyone else. The question is whether the methods used are illegal or so flagrant as to be unacceptable to a host government.

Russia cultivated influential politicians, business figures and lobbyists in the UK’s anti-EU camp. Arron Banks, the chief financial donor to Leave.EU, a pro-Brexit campaign group, spoke last week of “a boozy six-hour lunch with the [Russian] ambassador where we drank the place dry (they have some cracking vodka and brandy)”.

Similarly, there is incontrovertible evidence of Russian interference in the US presidential election of 2016 and, to a lesser extent, in this year’s French presidential contest. Hacked emails were released by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks organisation, and lies and misinformation were peddled on social media.

However, Ivan Krastev, a Bulgarian political scientist, made a telling observation last week in The New York Times. “Russian leaders believe that Washington interferes in their domestic politics and that the United States intends to orchestrate a regime change in Moscow. So if they take that as a given, the Kremlin should be able to similarly meddle and to show the world that it has the capabilities and will to do so,” he wrote.

During the Brexit campaign, the audience ratings for Russia’s RT television channel were too low to justify complaints that pro-Brexit propaganda addled the brains of British voters. As for social media, consider a House of Commons committee report, “Lessons Learned from the EU Referendum”, published in April. It expressed concern about foreign cyber attacks aimed at influencing public opinion. It contended that “Russia and China use a cognitive approach based on understanding of mass psychology and of how to exploit individuals”. But it did not furnish indisputable proof of such attacks during the Brexit campaign.

Some Twitter accounts, suspended by the company last week because of their ties to a Russian “troll farm”, were active both in the US election campaign and during the UK referendum contest. However, only a handful of Twitter accounts were involved — far too few to shape public opinion to any meaningful extent. Facebook says it has not unearthed any co-ordination of advertising expenditure or political misinformation in the Brexit campaign from “known clusters in Russia”.

Hard evidence of Russian financial support for the Brexit camp would be a serious matter. But so far none has come to light.

Even if it does, it makes little sense to attribute the Brexit victory to Russian dark arts. The result’s origins lie in the miscalculations of David Cameron’s 2010-2016 Conservative government and in longer term British political and social discontent, which culminated in a collective howl of protest on referendum day.

Further Reading

Corporate UK has long looked outside Europe
“While corporate UK was strongly opposed to leaving the European Union, their strategies tell a slightly different story.” (LSE Politics and Policy blog)

The Three Musketeers of Brexit are failing
“Sooner rather than later, is it reasonable to ask if Davis, Fox and Johnson can deliver any concrete, measurable result? If the answer is ‘No’, May should return them to their natural habitat on the backbenches.” Denis MacShane, InFacts

Universities are part of the solution to dysfunctional Brexit debates
“Last week I found it almost impossible to advise one of my international tutees on her future career. Should she look for work in Britain? I had to admit I could not answer — I have never known a time of such uncertainty in this country, not to mention the heightened anti-immigrant sentiment that she now must face.” (Stephen Curry in The Guardian)

No One Knows What Britain Is Anymore
“I’ve lived and worked for nine years in Britain, first during the Thatcher years and then again for the last four politically chaotic ones. While much poorer in the 1980s, Britain mattered internationally. Now, with Brexit, it seems to be embracing an introverted irrelevance.”(Steven Erlanger in The New York Times)

Hard numbers

A graphic with no description

The first UK interest rate rise in a decade is not a “one and done” move, the BoE insists, but that is precisely how the market viewed it. The pound fell and two-year gilt yields dropped, holding below the new base rate, as investors branded the quarter-point rise in overnight borrowing costs to 0.5 per cent as a “dovish hike”.

Get alerts on UK business & economy when a new story is published

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2020. All rights reserved.
Reuse this content (opens in new window)

Comments have not been enabled for this article.

Follow the topics in this article