If you listen to what EU leaders actually say, it is a lot more positive than this. Firstly, because the benefit is not all one way. The UK rejoining makes the EU stronger as well as the UK. Secondly, because EU politicians actually believe in European unity, not just transactionalism.

All the commentators saying sagely that "rejoining will be tough" need to take a long hard look at how the UK is doing right now with Brexit in place. Living with Brexit is tough – and it stays tough forever until we get rid of it. Rejoining is, by comparison, a known process with an end point.

Funny how both Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson echo Kremlin talking points about Russian Brexit meddling being a ‘lie’, exactly as they did a decade ago blaming the EU for Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine

Russian interference isn't just about 2016, in any case. It's still going on now. It will still be going on in future elections and referendums. We need to raise awareness, be on our guard and demand tough government action to stop it.

People say we won't win Rejoin by looking back at the last referendum. And that is true. We've argued it ourselves in the past. There is no mechanism to 'void' the referendum and undo it. But let's allow a day or two to mark that we have all been correct for 10 years about Russian interference.

When history is written, Russia's role in Brexit will be seen as part of its long-term hybrid warfare. You can date the beginning to the launch of Russia Today UK in 2014, the same year as Russia's invasion of Crimea. Russia's playbook is to boost and fund anything that can unsettle its enemies.

So your reason is "there would be a never-ending debate otherwise"? There'll be a never-ending debate either way. A referendum may be a better way to settle it, but it might not end up that way. It is in any case 100% not a requirement under any actual *rule* in existence.

We are contesting the notion that there is any constitutional requirement or other rule that there needs to be a new referendum. You are perhaps implying that the EU would require it, but that's also just a supposition. Feel free to cite any evidence you have that a referendum is required.

Well, did we need a general election to change PM? A lot of people would say it's illegitimate/lacking a mandate. Yet it hasn't actually happened that way. We have a new PM and no election. Rejoin could happen with a referendum (still probably most likely), or could happen without one.

This is one of those things like "there should be a general election if the prime minister changes". Plenty of people agree with that. Maybe even a majority. But it isn't actually a rule.

"It takes a referendum to reverse a referendum" No, it doesn't. Having a referendum would probably be a good idea for perceptions of legitimacy, but it's not any kind of constitutional requirement. The original referendum was, constitutionally, advisory. It has no continuing standing.

Brexit broke Britain’s political system – and our economy to boot. That's why we've had the seven prime ministers and all that. If Andy Burnham leads us on the road to rejoin, he will be the prime minister who finally tackled the real problem, not symptoms and shadows.

Just been watching the Westminster Hall parliamentary debate on the petition signed by over 100,000 in favour of rejoining the EU. Only 2 of the 23 MPs who have spoken so far have opposed such a course of action. The tide is turning…

“New polling by European Movement UK shows nearly three-quarters of Labour voters want to see a promise to start talks on joining the European Union in the party’s next election manifesto… versus just 12% that said no.”

Ultimately this type of argument comes down to the idea that dodgy money in politics doesn't matter, because "people are not so easily swayed". But sadly, all evidence is that pumping millions into political campaigns does persuade, and does change votes. Be suspicious of anyone who denies this.

You may also spot some other little clues, like leading party members being sent to jail for taking Russian bribes.

If none of this makes any difference, why do they bother to do it? You don't need to persuade large numbers, just a few percent at the margins, especially in a close vote. Even just getting some people to turn out and others to stay home can have an effect.

Whenever Russian interference comes up, people make this facile case that foreign interference "can't change votes", or at least not enough to swing a result. But polluted information environments matter. Bot-filled social media makes a difference in how debates go. Dark money ad funding is real.