To celebrate Britain being 365 days deep into the formal process by which it will leave the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May today embarked on a whistle-stop tour of the United Kingdom, where she’ll pitch her rosy vision to a group of textile workers in Scotland, lunch with Northern Irish farmers, and speak to Polish inhabitants of West London over tea. Not to be outdone, vocal Leave supporter Boris Johnson penned a piece for the tabloid, the Daily Express, which splashed his assurance that “a glorious view awaits!” against an ice-white image of the Cliffs of Dover. Despite the collective enthusiasm of May’s government, however, Britain is only midway through its messy divorce proceedings with Europe, with deals around defense, trade, and the complex issue of the Northern Irish border yet to be hashed out. And though May will present an outline of the proposed Brexit deal to Parliament at the end of the year, neither she nor Johnson have presented a clear vision as to what a British exit will actually look like.

In the absence of action, Brexit remains a cultural phenomenon more than a political reality. As with the election of Donald Trump, the June 2016 referendum exposed a bitter divide, with xenophobia masked as populism on one side, and a refusal to probe the nuances of the debate on the other. It is difficult to view any of the events that have shaken Britain since the vote—the election, the ascendance of Jeremy Corbyn, the Grenfell tower fire, multiple terrorist attacks—outside the broad lens of Brexit.

It is fitting, then, that just days before today’s anniversary, public attention was forcibly refocused on the technicalities of Brexit, and the playing field on which the referendum was fought. On Tuesday, Chris Wylie, the whistleblower who revealed how Cambridge Analytica harvested data from as many as 50 million Facebook profiles in its bid to boost Trump’s candidacy, delivered more than four hours of testimony to British lawmakers on how the political-consultancy firm may also have skewed the results of the Brexit vote. “If we allow cheating in our democratic process . . . What about next time? What about the time after that? This is a breach of the law. This is cheating,” he said. “This is not some council race, or a by-election. This is an irreversible change to the constitutional settlement of this country.”

His insights echoed the whistleblower Shahmir Sanni who, over the weekend, told the Observer that Vote Leave—supported by both Johnson and frenemy Michael Gove—had funneled a £625,000 donation through ostensibly independent campaign group BeLeave, and then passed it to the digital-services firm AggregateIQ (AIQ), which—as Gizmodo reported on Monday—created software for Cambridge Analytica. That donation, Sanni alleges, breached electoral rules because Vote Leave shared offices with BeLeave and essentially controlled the smaller organization. Rules require campaign groups that coordinate with each other to have a shared spending limit. Sanni also alleged that, after the Electoral Commission opened an investigation, senior Vote Leave figures began to delete traces of their presence in files shared by the two groups. Following Sanni’s decision to come forward, Downing Street released a statement, delivered without Sanni’s consent, from former Vote Leave official Stephen Parkinson (now May’s political adviser) publicly outing him as gay. (Brexit campaign director Dominic Cummings has described Sanni’s claims as “factually wrong and libelous.” Johnson called them “ludicrous.”)

Sanni and Wylie’s revelations provided useful ammunition to ex-prime minister and ardent Remainer Tony Blair, who claimed today that there is a “perfectly rational” case for a second Brexit referendum. (Reluctant to miss out on the festivities, he also seized the opportunity to give a speech in London, release a new policy paper on immigration, and give an interview to the Independent.) “I always say to people the likelihood is it happens, but it doesn’t have to happen, and the first place that’s going to decide it is Parliament and M.P.s should vote according to their conscience.” The next opportunity to reverse the vote could be in October, when May is set to present Parliament with an outline for the deal. Critics have argued that voters should get another say on Brexit, once the final terms are delivered, as so much new information has surfaced since the original 2016 decision. “Once those details are becoming clearer, as the government comes towards the end of the negotiations, then it ought to be up to the people to decide what path we, the country, take,” Liberal Democrat deputy leader Jo Swinson recently told BBC Radio 4. “There is still a real chance that we should be able to choose, if that’s what we want, a different path and not go down the Brexit route.” (Cambridge Analytica co-founder Alexander Nix, who was suspended as C.E.O. last week, has denied claims that his company worked on the pro-Leave campaign.)

The Scottish government also believes that Cambridge Analytica’s alleged involvement could prompt a second referendum. “There are very severe question marks about the conduct of the referendum and about the use of resources, and that is an emerging set of circumstances which throws many issues into question,” Scotland’s Brexit Minister Michael Russell told Business Insider on Thursday. “I don't know where that will lead. But I think it would be foolish not to accept that this is a factor which I think is going to grow larger and larger.” Senior government figures, he said, may have been aware of violations of electoral law. Could that actually prompt a do-over, given upcoming local elections that could weaken May’s position? Russell, for one, isn’t closing the door. “I think that’s possible.”