The ‘Russia Report’ reveals that the government failed to investigate Russian meddling in the Brexit vote, only “belatedly realising” the threat from Moscow.

The report is the result of an 18-month investigation by the former Intelligence committee chaired by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve.

The report states that there have been widespread allegations that Russia sought to influence voters in the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU: studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EU stories on RT and Sputnik, and the use of ‘bots’ and ‘trolls’, as evidence.

The actual impact of such attempts on the result itself would be difficult – if not impossible – to prove. However what is clear is that the Government was slow to recognise the existence of the threat – only understanding it after the ‘hack and leak’ operation against the Democratic National Committee, when it should have been seen as early as 2014.

As a result states the report, the Government did not take action to protect the UK’s process in 2016. The Committee added that it has not been provided with any post-referendum assessment – in stark contrast to the US response to reports of interference in the 2016 presidential election. They also say that there must be an analogous assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum.

“What is clear is that Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’: successive
Governments have welcomed the Russian oligarchy with open arms, and there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business, political and social scene – in ‘Londongrad’ in particular. Yet few, if any, questions have been asked regarding the provenance of their considerable wealth and this ‘open door’ approach provided ideal mechanisms by which illicit finance could be recycled through the London ‘laundromat’. It is not just the oligarchs either – the arrival of Russian money has resulted in a growth industry of ‘enablers’: lawyers, accountants, and estate agents have all played a role, wittingly or unwittingly, and formed a “buffer” of Westerners who are de facto agents of the Russian state.”

The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament issued the following points as part of a press notice with the report.

  • Russian influence in the UK is the new normal. Successive
    Governments have welcomed the oligarchs and their money with open
    arms, providing them with a means of recycling illicit finance through
    the London ‘laundromat’, and connections at the highest levels with
    access to UK companies and political figures.
  • This has led to a growth industry of ‘enablers’ including lawyers,
    accountants, and estate agents who are – wittingly or unwittingly – de
    facto agents of the Russian state.
  • It clearly demonstrates the inherent tension between the Government’s
    prosperity agenda and the need to protect national security. While we
    cannot now shut the stable door, greater powers and transparency are
    needed urgently.
  • UK is clearly a target for Russian disinformation. While the mechanics
    of our paper-based voting system are largely sound, we cannot be
    complacent about a hostile state taking deliberate action with the aim of
    influencing our democratic processes.
  • Yet the defence of those democratic processes has appeared
    something of a ‘hot potato’, with no one organisation considering itself
    to be in the lead, or apparently willing to conduct an assessment of
    such interference. This must change.
  • Social media companies must take action and remove covert hostile
    state material: Government must ‘name and shame’ those who fail to
    act.
  • We need other countries to step up with the UK and attach a cost to
    Putin’s actions. Salisbury must not be allowed to become the high water
    mark in international unity over the Russia threat.
  • A number of issues addressed in this published version of the Russia
    Report are covered in more depth in the Classified Annex. We are not
    able to discuss these aspects on the grounds of national security.

The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) is the committee of Parliament with statutory responsibility for oversight of the UK Intelligence Community. In its own words, Under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the accompanying Memorandum of Understanding, the ISC oversees the policies, expenditure, administration and operations of MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Defence Intelligence, the Joint Intelligence Organisation, the National Security Secretariat (NSS) and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism.

The Committee sets its own agenda and work programme, taking evidence from Ministers, the Heads of the intelligence and security Agencies, senior officials, experts, and academics as it considers necessary.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

85 COMMENTS

  1. Hardly surprising. At some point, the penny will drop and additional funding will be found to support our armed services to meet the level of threats we will face over the coming decade and beyond including cyber.

      • “Nandy: Government ‘far too slow’ to act against Russian threat
        Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy calls the report “quite damning”.

        She says it “paints a very bad picture” of the government, which was “far too slow” to react and act against the Russian threat.

        Ms Nandy criticises a “lack of strategy” in government.
        She says it is time for the government to “wake up” and “take the gaping hole in our defences seriously”. Labour is calling for action, she says.”

        • Wow, Labour saying THAT? Do they mean it or is that just words too?
          Defence can mean many things though, not the conventional forces we all wish for.

          • True, but providing the country begins to understand the lack of investment in our defence the more chance we have of securing the much-needed funding we require to get the job done.

          • I agree Nigel. The subject of defence in the public eye is a good thing, epecially if there are votes in it and it makes HMG look bad. A novelty if HM opposition take defence seriously. Having said that, I remember Cameron, Fox, and all howling at the way Labour dismantled the military between 2004 and 2009, and look what happened! All words.

          • No, not a novelty….it was Labour that ordered the carriers that most on here are so proud of. And Cameron that would have gladly cancelled them. However, you are right to point out that both parties are duplicitous when it comes to defence issues!

          • Hi H.

            Yeah, agree, that word might need clarification.

            While those carriers were waved through by Gordon Brown, obviously as he was chancellor and they were largely built in his constituency, the rest of defence was being shredded, with not a peep of protest, apart from the fake ones on the Tory opposition benches! So ordering carriers should not excuse lack of interest elsewhere in defence matters.

            D Cameron and G Osborne. Equally useless. Agree, I recall G Osborne mentioning the contract being so tightly defined he could not “cancel the thingys”

            If Gordon B, Tony Blair, and the then Labour government were taking defence seriously, and thus not a “novelty” then we would not have been begging Denmark for helicopters due to so few being available.

            That is why I used that word. Indeed they are all as bad as each other. My comment was not pro to either.

          • In fairness Daniele, they were being constructed around the UK and assembled at Rosyth! As for helicopters, they have been an issue since the Falklands (when we had loads)….

          • Assembled. Exactly. Amongst the endless cuts ( most of which were stealth cuts where only sados like me would notice, and not majority of the public who cared not ) Gordon cut 3 billion off of the rotary budget, which included SABR amongst other things. Which is why we ended up giving the RN existing RAF assets rather than replacing Sea King HC4 with new assets. Regardless whether the RAF wanted them or not.

            That we had to get 6 Merlin transferred quickly from a Danish order was due to too few assets.

            On the Falklands, what were the issues? I only remember that most of our support helicopters went up in smoke on Atlantic Conveyor.

            Even Johnson Beharry turned his back on him!
            They’re all hopeless!
            The one DS who at least was making the right noises got sacked by TM.

          • We didn’t have a lack of helicopter assets, we had a lack of helicopters that could carry useful payloads in the hot and high environment of Afghanistan. We then update Seaking MK4’s and Lynx AH9’s with composite rotor blades and new engines to help out. We had lots of helicopters back in 1982, most of them useless.

          • “While those carriers were waved through by Gordon Brown, obviously as he was chancellor and they were largely built in his constituency”

            In fairness, there was a hoofing big dockyard there already, its not like he spent millions putting it there. I seem to mind that ‘basin 2’ was the only in the running for the assembly of the carriers as it had been extended to refit the Hood. I’m pretty sure Gordon Brown wasn’t responsible for that.

          • Absolutely Daniele, the problems we currently have with the carriers, lack of ‘proper’ support for Carrier Strike for instance, can be traced back to stripping away everything that wasn’t needed for the Sandbox wars under Labour.

            The Carriers survived, but a good degree of the infarstructure (escorts, support ships etc), supposed to be wrapped around them was ripped away.

            Credit were it’s due….

            Labour actually did a great job to start with, ensuring for example, we briefly assembled a first rate amphibious capability, with brand new ships…

            The Tories came in and it got way worse, the 2010 Defence review caused massive damage to critical mass across the board and wiped out key capabilities, that’s never really been properly repaired.

            Credit were it’s due, they did start to repair some of the 2010 damage in 2015.

            This report should underscore the upcoming Defence review and be a driver for substantial additional funding.

            One of the looming issues is providing full carrier strike, they simply haven’t budgeted for this very expensive capability.

            I still think a slight of hand will take place (no matter what happens in the review) and Bulwark and Albion will be sacrificed and the Royal Marines diluted and shrunk, to divert money and assets to Carrier Strike.

          • Also understanding that defence spending isn’t a black hole, that ordering ships, planes etc that are built here means more work, means more jobs, leading to improved local economies.

          • To be honest, removing the far left “useful idiots” the traditional of labour as a workers party in the social democratic mould has not been anti defence. Soldiers sailor and the people that build the kit are all workers after all and the idea of a free society needs defence. I think the problem is when you get the far left involved or the far right. Personally I would like to see both Labour and conservatives kick the more extreme elements of both parties so we can have a five partly system (ignoring the greens who are in reality a single issue pressure group). Mad frothing at the mouth libertarian right, die hard communist, social democratic right and left with a purist centre party holding the middle. We could then all actually vote for a party we actually shared values with instead of half the population holding their noises to vote or not voting. We could then see a more constructive shared approach to governing as parties will need to form coalitions.

            Bizarrely this would give a chance for more stability as parties would need to consider the more long term strategic issues ( defence, health, transportation, protection of industry and shared values) instead of trashing each other and ripping up the last ten years work cus the other side did it.

          • Here here…parties within parties should be shown the door. If radical socialists or proto-fascists want a home, let them set up their own parties. But, given the success of the British communist party and Mosely’s BUFs its not surprising that they don’t. I’m all for the concept of the ‘broad church’ but when a minority seek to alter the entire character of a political party, they should be expelled!

          • Jonathan, that would be brilliant if it could work but I fear that so many of us see politics as drama and feel the need to pick a side and/or extract every ‘ooh and ah’ out of it. “how dare ‘THEY’ do X/Y/Z… its an outrage….”. Despite what we might think, I see us as quite a politically naive bunch, it should be boring not drama.

        • Nigel both political parties come out with a right load of twaddle on the basis that the public doesn’t know any better. The Russians try the same trick. The reality is that the public don’t really believe any of them and generally stick to their original deeply ingrained viewpoint which is not always built on facts. That however is democracy. Joe public can base their decision on whatever they like.

          Will the Russians try to influence? Probably. Will it make any difference? I doubt it. Can we disrupt it? Maybe Will an investigation afterwards do any good? probably not

    • Perhaps we can all agree now that Russia is a more immediate threat to the UK than China, for example, and one we should be taking more seriously? The Salisbury attack alone should have been a wake-up call.

      • On the contrary, Russian threat is purely political interference. The Chinese threat is economic, Diplomatic and strategic.

        Theres a reason the focus of the Navy is being switched from the Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific and we are returning east of Suez.

        • The Navy may be increasing its presence east of Suez, but I don’t think you could call that a switch of focus to the Pacific.
          The Russian threat might be political interference for now, but Putin is constantly testing to see what he can get away with. Who foresaw that the Russians would seize Crimea? Or dare to carry out a chemical weapon attack on a NATO country? Who knows what may be next?
          I’m not saying that China is not a threat, but Russia is the more immediate one for us. Russian submarine activity has been on the increase in the Atlantic, so I understand, and it should be obvious what threat that poses to an island nation.

        • China becomes a bigger threat to the UK if we choose to turn our backs on Europe and by necessity, look further afield including getting involved in long range geo-politics. Without Brexit I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have all the shenanigans we have now. It was a choice made by the British people. Whether many really understood the impact is up to debate.

      • You can have more than one threat to deal with.
        Russia now is too small an economy and country to take on NATO nations. What do you think its objective is, to take over the Western world?perhaps a slight increase in territory that elements believe they are historically entitled
        to, but any more is doubtful. Russia achieves a great deal with its asymmetric warfare model, but the real threat is clearly China.
        One thing done against China brings threatening and aggressive posturing. I believe they are only held in check by their knowledge that with their intelligent and forward thinking use of investment in democratic countries, they will ultimately hold too much control to do much about them.
        Money talks, as can be seen from our governments attitude of pandering to the oligarchs.

  2. What is really needed is for politicians to step up, across all parties, and put the country first. There needs to be more than just lip service to defence and security and that does not mean a clamp down on our freedoms (what’s the point of defence and security if we throw away our freedoms in the process!).

    In fact I would argue that greater tranparency and accountability applied to our elected representatives and Government minitisters would be a first step in the right direction – given successive Governments (of all political persuations) have welcomed the Russians into Londongrad!!! Perhaps if people saw more clearly how vulnerable we really are and the impact of the Russians so far, we might get some wider support for defence and security – even more chatter would be an improvement!

    Cheer CR

  3. So, “the government failed to investigate Russian meddling in the Brexit vote”. Goodness me, what a surprise….and what pray is the government going to do about it….Diddly Effing Squat! The whole issue was as bent as three pound note from day one. A shameful episode in our post-war history, and yet another sign of our decline as a respected nation.

    • It looks like our ‘ruling class’ are so far removed from us prols that they just don’t care. Whether its dodgy Russian dealings or drives for eye tests, they assume we’re mugs.

      • It’s not really about that, it’s about how does a democracy defend itself against totalitarian power groups be they internal or external. democracy is a hot house flower that needs absolute focus to keep it alive.

        If the Russians and Chinese are turning our voting habits we have to understand that and not go “well that’s just sore losers”.

        Remember Germany voted to become a totalitarian right wing dictatorship, because it did not guard against a subversive movement that was willing to use all means to come to power.

        And I’m not saying the vote for Brexit was either right or wrong ( I have confused views over the EU and I’m not even sure if i personally voted the right way). What we have to do is take seriously the fact hostile powers (Russia and China are hostile powers) do try and influence how we vote for their own benefit and we must guard against this and understand their aims, least we one day all vote in as leader a traitor to our values and nation (as Germany did).

        • Yes, an excellent response Jonathan. It’s a pity that some can’t see beyond their own small-minded agenda. Brexit was all about sovereignty…..so what does that exactly mean given the interference of foreign powers and shady money-grubbers!

        • Germany was an immature and unstable democracy. Even then it didn’t vote for totalitarianism – the Nazi’s didn’t win a majority.
          As for influencing elections and referendums, many organisations attempt to do that. Whether that’s corporate donors to the Better In campaign or trade unions financing the Labour Party. Not to mention newspapers and media, both traditional and mainstream.
          But you know, despite what people involved in these think and tell you, their influence is negligible.
          Newspaper circulation is plummeting, with it only read by a small proportion of the population. With online 10% of the U.K. have never been online and only a small percentage is active on one of the numerous social media platforms at and given time. The effect of anything other than a spending campaign the size of say Apple’s marketing is negligible.
          An academic study in the wake of the Brexit referendum showed that the vast majority of people voted the way they planned to before any campaigning began by either side. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of the public aren’t mindless sheep that can be easily swayed one way or another at the drop of a hat through a Tweet or Facebook advert.
          Most ideas of skulduggery simple arise from people having a social bubble with the same group think and projecting this onto the country at a large. I saw this from both sides, the middle-class Remainer professionals I worked with in London, and the working-class Leaver childhood friends in the North of England. If anything, the latter had a more rounded view of the UK as a whole.

          • Well said. The power of media influence is overrated. It will be interesting to see how the EU goes without UK. Some Dutch are already complaing about funding other EU countries. The latest bailout is really about France – which always gabbles about the European Project – using EU money to bailout its banks exposures in fragile countries. Happened in Greece and now in Italy and France…..

          • “An academic study in the wake of the Brexit referendum showed that the vast majority of people voted the way they planned to before any campaigning began by either side. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of the public aren’t mindless sheep that can be easily swayed one way or another at the drop of a hat through a Tweet or Facebook advert.”

            Spot on. Yet apparently a bus with 350 million on it was a reason. and HMG’s propaganda leaflets, which I still have, and went to every door, had no effect whatsoever! Strange!

            None of these stunts have a big effect. Dissatisfaction with the EU goes back decades. No stunts by plastic politicians or a biased remain government are going to change that. And didn’t.

          • Let’s agree to disagree Daniele. When the Murdoch press et al have had a downer on the EU for years and have consistently published front page splashes around the EU bad theme, indoctrination of the sheeples has taken place and now the cry is EU bad:
            Roaming charges are coming back;
            We have to pay massive medical insurance premiums for holidays;
            Potential visa charges;
            Queues at border;
            And one hundred other things.

            Come next January we’ll see how bad the EU is.

            Cheers from Latvia and stay safe.

          • Haha, when the others do it is indoctrination…

            Strangely you -and the author – don’t talk about UE interference in Brexit or in UK elections.

            It is a nice reflection how the author and many here like to be manipulated. Everyone interferes with everyone else.

  4. Of course the government didn’t do anything; in this case the government’s and Russia’s interests were aligned; both wanted Brexit.

    Not saying there was any collusion of any kind, simply that they both wanted it.

          • No he wasn’t. He jumped on to support the Vote Leave campaign at the last minute and as research shows, the vast majority who voted decided how they were going to vote long before the campaigning even began.
            But that besides the point.
            This report, from a committee chaired by Dominic Grieve was done before Boris became PM.

  5. It doesn’t matter if you are pro or anti Brexit, the problem here is that the government ‘forgot’ to ask MI5 to look into the possibility that the Russians were interfering. That surely constitutes scandal by omission.

    Also all these Russian oligarchs laundering money in the city of London, where does the money come from? It’s been syphoned off the Russian people through the corrupt business deals that privatised the old Soviet economy. Consequently we should confiscate it, put it in an investment trust and offer it back to the Russians when they again have a democratic and peaceful government.

    You give an inch to people like Putin and they take several miles.

      • 100m people and they stand for it, why?

        Its going to go to the dogs again when Putin retires (unlikely), is retired (quite possible), or just dies on his own accord (if he isn’t too powerful and hard to die).

        • Putin is now a dictator. What always happens to dictators? Hussein, Hitler, Gadhafi, Mussolini, Ceausescu etc…

          They don’t die in their beds.

          • Well, Stalin died on the floor of his apartment after a stroke. Perhaps the greatest villain in all history died, peacefully, in his own home.

          • Stalin and Franco did so it doesn’t necessarily mean Putin will be dethroned. What follows is more scary though, a huge power vacuum with nuclear weapons.

  6. So has all the cutting of our armed forces to dangerously ridiculous levels been quid-pro-quo for all that dirty Russian money the city laundered?

    We should be jailing all the politicians who allowed money laundering.

  7. So the Report found NO evidence the Russians interfered in the Brexit Referendum. The best they could come with is that the Govt ( remember this was May’s Remaoner Govt) was not looking. Implying that if it had been looking, the smoking gun, that would have invalidated the vote to Leave, would have been revealed.
    The BBC/Sky/C4, as could be expected, are directing all the attention on this failure to look as evidence of failure. But here’s something that is NOT being bellowed by the bias media.
    The Report was the work of the IS Committee from the 2017-19 Parliament. Of the 8 MP’s on this Committee, EVERY MP MEMBER WAS A REMOANER. The single Brexit supporter was not an MP, but an old boy from the Lords.
    Not only that, the Chair of the Committee was none other than Dominic Grieve. Anybody remember him. He was the fanatical Remoaner that tried everything possible, including engineering the circumvention of centuries of Parliamentary Precedent, to try and prevent the repeated electorial decisions of the British people from being implemented. Even with the Liberals standing aside it was no great surprise he lost his seat in 2019.
    Only the most bigoted Remoaner would try to deny that Grieve would have used all the power of this important Committee to try and find evidence of Russian interference. Evidence that could then be used to try to nullify and repeal the Brexit vote.
    But all these Remoaners could found NOTHING.

    • Have you even read the report or the article? The whole point is that the Government failed to even look so they wouldn’t find any evidence would they. Don’t let facts get in the way of a good capital letter rant though.

    • The Media isn’t bias….it is biased. I think that you have missed the point of this report…hugely delayed as it was! I rather think we ought to have another enquiry about political corruption in this country. This government (in particular) stinks to high heaven!

      • When used as a noun not as the verb it is grammatically correct to say bias. Typical of evasive Remoaners that cannot rebut the facts, the tactic is distract and criticise a peripheral issue. The IS Committee was composed of REMOANERS. Led by a FANATIC. The FACT is their report found NOTHING.

        • Not in your sentence structure it isn’t. ‘ But here’s something that is NOT being bellowed by the bias media.’ Usage of Bias as an abstract noun is grammatically incorrect in this sentence. You are using it as an adjective to describe the press, therefore it should be biased. To use the word Bias as a verb then it would be biasing…which is not appropriate to your sentence. To use bias as an abstract noun you would have to write ‘ the bias of the media…or the media shows bias’. You have still haven’t got it have you…read Rob’s missive above!

    • Dominic Grieve is a principled politician that put the good of the country before his own political ambitions. He unfortunately paid the price for it. British politics is the poorer for losing an honourable Conservative politician. The good old ‘well informed’ electorate seem to prefer the sickening two bit rubbish that congregates around the cabinet office….most of whom would sell there own grandmothers to further their cheap ambition. This is the worst government this country has had in a long-while…God help us!

  10. The key take away from this is that a conservative lead committee involving carefully selected ministers by the PM declared that the government played heads in the sand after knowing that it was happening and that our own security services considered it not to be their job to deal with it. The PM then did everything he could do to stop the report getting published.

    Reading between the lines and this is purely speculation, but it seems that Russia considers the UKs as a puppet of the US, which doesn’t have its own view on things and so is worth targeting.

    Would any election votes have changed if people had their eyes open to foreign influence, maybe a few although i suspect not enough to really change anything but Russia clearly thought they could influence enough or wouldn’t have bothered.

    Could we have stopped the influence from happening, probably not, but should the government have come clean with the people and at least tried to do something clearly yes.

    The report just demonstrates that our government and the security services completely let down the country in order to further their own self interests.

  11. Surely, this report and the implications of both Russian interference and Chinese human rights issues and their state-sponsorship of data-harvesting and interference, it is time for the UK to significantly improve the funding of our security and defence.

    Hovering around and fudging the 2% is not good enough. Of course, we need to cut our cloth accordingly and I think the MoD has been wilfully negligent in controlling projects properly, for governments both BLUE and RED. There has been some encouraging signs recently. The Tempest programme looks to be, at this this stage, following a much better profile.

    But, I sign a note of caution. All who read stories presented on this website will be able to recall repeated examples of illogical and seemingly wilfully ignorant at-best decisions made. MRTT assets ordered, designed and delivered systems only able to refuel half of the aircraft types currently flown by the RAF, Carrier design systems cats-traps changes which cost time and money enough to either build another carrier or full T26 fleet. The Boxer yes-no-yes. Chinook helicopters which could not fly without massive updates. Building carriers without the escorts or fleet support ships in place to protect them. The debacle over Cowsnest. The deplorable Snatch Landrover debacle. Report after report on how our ship building assets were going to disappear before we need them, then now we cannot build three ships for the RFA. Allowing the Chinese state to play a role in our energy future, including our Nuclear energy. Some seem to misunderstand that ships tend to cost more as they age or aircraft have limits to the number of hours they can fly before they need replacing. I could go on and on.

    Our service personnel do an incredible job and I thank them all.

    I thank all of the workers producing world class ships, submarines, aircraft, weapons, and space assets.

    I do do not want to bash our armed forces or defence workers.

    Let’s give them both the kit and the support of the country to do this.

    MoD must pick up the ball and get a grip on projects much , much better. If we are going to give them more – lets spend it more wisely.

    It is time to get serious on both Russia and China.

  12. Chaired by Dominic Grieve – well what a surprise. I wonder if this conclusion would have been the same if the Brexit referendum had gone the other way?

    Propaganda and sour grapes as ever from ”the blob”

      • As i understand he and the other conservative members are stance brexiters put in place by Boris to ensure this report got quashed, which clearly didnt’ go to plan.

          • Depends on how you define corruption, i suspect its not illegal just exploitation of power.

            The Russian interference was benefiting the governments position (wanting brexit) and resulting in more money flowing into the political parties (not just the conservatives) by Russian billionaires, so why counter it.

            I doubt our politicians were complicit with the Russians, as that would give them way too much credit, they just stuck head in the sand as it suited them.

          • Yes, I doubt that there was any direct collusion. But, being aware of what might be happening and not calling it out, is tantamount to collusion. I suspect that, in another age, such acts would be regarded as treason.

        • Irrespective of the politics around its publication, there are some stunningly focus-grabbing points raised. We all know that the goalposts have changed. We can also see the actions and policies of a dictatorship in Russia, single statehood in China and North Korea.

          Fund our armed forces to protect us.

          The single biggest thing we could do is to take the funding of all but the running of the CASD from the MoD budget. It was the single-biggest stab in the heart to the MoD.

          • This isn’t new, its been proven that the US through the CIA was interfering with elections all over the world in the past, the difference is its not electronic and so easier to do on large scale but the net effect is the same.

          • Yep, the classic case was the immediate post-war elections in Italy. The newly created CIA pushed millions of dollars on the opposition parties campaign funds in order to defeat the communists. The first of many!

  13. sooo… the Russians wanted brexit, so in the unlikely case they wanted the best for the U.K, they thought brexit would be a good idea. Unfortunately I don’t think this was their motive…

    • The Russians wanted the weaken the EU which the UK leaving does do. The question of does it weaken the UK was probably less relevant and more open for debate.

        • Yes, the complexity of geopolitics leads many a fool to end up dancing a tune that’s not to their liking, but very much of their making.

          I’m with Tolstoy (and Cnut the great) on this one, history is like a tide and no man can change it or turn it, no matter his power and influence. We are all moved by the tides and happiness come for understanding this and doing our best to preserve family and home, instead of playing high politics ( it’s a shame most leaders seam to lack this basic wisdom).

    • Everyone with an interest interferes with others.

      Countries and organizations that probably interfered in UK elections:

      European Union plus their individual countries in several degrees
      Russia
      China
      USA
      India
      Arab Countries
      Pakistan
      Commonwealth
      Ireland
      Israel
      Brazil

      Dozens of multinational ONG’s, organisations(some funded by Governments – UE is very fond of this tactic), Universities with foreign money donations , dozens of multinational companies.

      Who made the biggest impact was probably the UE because was who had most in cause.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here