Andy Burnham has spoken before about wanting to rejoin. (Image: Daily Express)
Labour have opened the door to a Brexit sellout after a minister repeatedly refused to rule out putting rejoining the EU on the ballot at the next election. During a heated Commons exchange, minister Hamish Falconer was pressed several times to directly rule out putting “rejoin” in Labour’s next election manifesto. But he refused, instead saying he wanted to “go further and faster” in improving the deal left by the Conservative Party.
Mr Falconer, who as Minister for European Relations is a key player in Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s EU reset plans, was directly asked by Conservative MP Alex Burghart: “Why is it so hard for the minister and the government to rule out rejoining the EU?” But the Minister dodged the question, saying only that he wanted to “improve” the Brexit deal – and again declined to rule out rejoining outright.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
The Daily Express recently launched our ‘Give Us A Proper Brexit’ campaign, demanding Whitehall stop dragging Britain back to Brussels by stealth.
We are calling for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR, slice up Brussels red tape and impose a protected fisheries area around the coast. The campaign has been backed by the Conservative Party, Reform UK and major figures from across the Leave campaign.
Speaking to this paper, Mr Burghart warned that Labour “wants to keep membership of the EU alive”, and cautioned Mr Burnham not to “turn back the clock to 2016” but rather start “looking to the future”.
He said: “When Kemi Badenoch was Trade Secretary she secured Britain’s membership of the world’s largest free trade bloc, the CPTPP.
“Only the Conservatives under Kemi will seize opportunities around the world and help us build a stronger economy and a stronger country.”
Fears that Britain could be dragged back under Eurocrat rule have only grown since Andy Burnham became Prime Minister.
An ardent remainer, who as recently as last year called for re-entry into the block “in my lifetime”, Mr Burnham refused to answer questions about his current position when doorstepped by this newspaper.
He toned down his pro-EU rhetoric when running for the Makerfield by-election, a victory that swept him into No10 just weeks later.
Makerfield voted to leave the EU by more than 65 per cent and Mr Burnham spent much of the election insisting that rejoining was not on the ballot paper.
Yet since his win the Labour government has proceeded with plans to “reset” relations with Brussels, and Cabinet ministers have themselves openly called to rejoin.
Mr Burnham refused to answer about his Brexit plans (Image: Daily Express)
In May this year Wes Streeting, who now serves as Defence Secretary, broke ranks to openly demand the country submit to Brussels once again.
He called for a “new special relationship with the EU” and claimed the country’s “future lies with Europe, and one day – one day – back in the European Union“.
Mr Burnham is now facing mounting pressure to cave to rejoiners and return to his old position of backing EU membership.
Britain’s most powerful union baron, the TUC’s Paul Nowak, reportedly told the Prime Minister the “time is now” for new ties with the EU.
Speaking to the Independent ahead of their conference next week, Mr Nowak urged Mr Burnham to forge a new deal with Brussels that he believes would ease the economic impacts of Brexit.
The government has previously said that there are no plans to rejoin the European Union, and are believed to instead be focusing on improving deals between the UK and the EU.
Andy Burnham, Brexit and the Debate Over Rejoining the European Union
The United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union remains one of the most controversial issues in British politics. Although the country formally left the EU in 2020, the political debate surrounding Brexit has not disappeared. Instead, questions about trade, immigration, economic growth and Britain’s future relationship with Europe continue to divide political parties and voters. The recent controversy surrounding Prime Minister Andy Burnham illustrates how difficult this issue remains. A government minister, Hamish Falconer, repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility that Labour could eventually include a commitment to rejoin the European Union in a future manifesto. This has led some commentators to describe the situation as a potential “Brexit betrayal”. However, the available evidence shows a more complicated picture. Burnham has expressed support for closer European relations and has previously spoken positively about rejoining, but he has also stated that he is not currently proposing that Britain rejoin the EU.
To understand the controversy, it is first necessary to consider Burnham’s previous position. In May 2026, while he was still Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham said that Brexit had been damaging to Britain. At the same time, he explicitly stated that he was not proposing that the UK should consider rejoining the European Union. He argued that constantly reopening the Brexit argument could leave Britain in a “permanent rut”. His position therefore combined criticism of the consequences of Brexit with a reluctance to immediately reverse the decision made in the 2016 referendum.
This position became more complicated as Burnham moved towards national leadership. After becoming prime minister, he promised to take a more ambitious approach to Britain’s relationship with Europe. His government said that it wanted to build on the previous government’s work to improve relations with the EU. However, Downing Street also confirmed that several important Brexit “red lines” would remain in place. These included not rejoining the European Union, the single market or the customs union, and not restoring freedom of movement.
The controversy intensified because of comments made by Hamish Falconer, the minister responsible for European relations. When Conservative MPs asked him whether the Labour Party could rule out putting EU membership back into its next election manifesto, Falconer declined to give such a guarantee. He said that the question of what Labour would include in its next manifesto would ultimately be a matter for the party. At the same time, he stressed that the government was not currently discussing rejoining the EU.
This distinction is important. Refusing to rule something out is not the same as announcing a policy to do it. Falconer’s comments therefore do not demonstrate that Burnham’s government has decided to seek EU membership again. Instead, they suggest that the government does not want to permanently close the possibility of a future change in policy. Such ambiguity can be politically useful because it allows the government to maintain flexibility while avoiding an immediate commitment.
Supporters of a closer relationship with the EU argue that Britain’s economic and strategic circumstances have changed since the 2016 referendum. Falconer himself has emphasised that the international environment is different from what it was a decade ago. He has referred to security challenges in Eastern Europe, economic-security concerns and disinformation. From this perspective, Britain may need a stronger relationship with European countries even if the government does not currently support rejoining the EU.
Economic considerations are also central to the debate. Brexit changed Britain’s trading relationship with the EU, which remains one of the country’s most important economic partners. Critics of Brexit argue that additional trade barriers have created costs for British businesses and reduced economic opportunities. Former prime minister John Major, for example, has argued that Brexit has imposed substantial economic costs on the UK. These claims are disputed in political debate, and the precise economic effects of Brexit depend on the measure and period being examined. Nevertheless, the economic relationship with Europe remains a major reason why some politicians favour closer integration.
The question of rejoining the EU is nevertheless considerably more complicated than simply improving trade relations. Full membership would involve accepting a much deeper political and economic relationship. It could involve issues such as freedom of movement, EU regulations and the institutional responsibilities associated with membership. These were among the issues at the centre of the original Brexit debate. Consequently, a government seeking closer relations with Europe does not necessarily have to support full membership.
Indeed, this distinction can be seen in proposals concerning the single market. Former Conservative MP Nick Boles has reportedly proposed a model under which Britain could obtain greater access to the EU single market while offering increased cooperation in areas such as European defence. The proposal would seek closer economic integration without necessarily requiring the UK to become an EU member again. Such ideas demonstrate that the debate is not simply divided between “Brexit” and “rejoin”. There are several possible models for Britain’s future relationship with Europe.
Burnham’s own political history makes the situation particularly interesting. His earlier comments suggested that he regarded Brexit as damaging but did not want to immediately reopen the question of membership. Later reports indicated that he had expressed a long-term case for rejoining the EU. ITV reported in May that Burnham believed there was a long-term case for rejoining, while also saying that he would not advocate it in an upcoming by-election.
These statements can appear contradictory, but they can also be interpreted as a distinction between long-term opinion and immediate political policy. A politician may believe that rejoining could eventually be beneficial while simultaneously believing that attempting to reverse Brexit immediately would be politically divisive or impractical. Burnham’s comments about avoiding a “permanent rut” are consistent with this approach.
The controversy also illustrates the difficulty Labour faces in defining its European policy. Labour must balance voters with different attitudes towards Brexit. Some voters strongly support leaving the EU, while others believe Brexit was a mistake and want closer European integration. A government that explicitly commits to rejoining could therefore face opposition from voters who believe the 2016 referendum result should be respected. On the other hand, refusing to consider any future change could alienate voters who are concerned about the economic consequences of Brexit.
For Burnham, there is also a question of political credibility. If he previously criticised Brexit and later supported closer European integration, opponents could argue that he was changing his position for political reasons. Supporters could instead argue that politicians should be able to reconsider policies when circumstances change. Neither interpretation can be established simply from the minister’s refusal to rule out a future manifesto commitment.
The Conservatives have used Falconer’s comments to question Labour’s intentions. Their argument is essentially that voters deserve to know whether Labour would seek to reverse Brexit if given another term in government. This is a legitimate political question because a manifesto can contain major policy commitments affecting the country’s international relationships. However, until Labour actually adopts such a policy, claims that the government intends to rejoin the EU remain speculative.
There is also a wider democratic question. The 2016 referendum produced a decision to leave the European Union, and the UK subsequently left the EU. A future government could theoretically propose a different policy, but such a decision would involve significant political and constitutional questions. Whether a future change should require another referendum, parliamentary approval or an election mandate would itself be a matter of political debate.
The most recent evidence therefore suggests that Burnham’s position is more nuanced than the phrase “Brexit betrayal” implies. He has acknowledged criticism of Brexit and has indicated support for closer relations with Europe. His minister has refused to permanently rule out a future commitment to rejoin. At the same time, the government has confirmed that it is not currently seeking EU membership and has maintained important Brexit red lines.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Andy Burnham and Brexit reflects the unresolved nature of Britain’s relationship with Europe. The key issue is not simply whether Britain is “in” or “out” of the EU, but what type of relationship the country should have with its European neighbours. Burnham’s government appears to favour a closer relationship while maintaining that Britain will not currently rejoin the EU, the single market or the customs union. At the same time, the refusal by Hamish Falconer to rule out a future manifesto commitment has kept open the possibility of further change.
Therefore, describing the situation simply as a “Brexit betrayal” overlooks important distinctions between present government policy, long-term political possibilities and individual politicians’ personal views. The available evidence indicates that Burnham’s government is seeking greater cooperation with Europe while, for now, maintaining the principal Brexit red lines inherited from the previous Labour government. Whether those boundaries remain in place in the future will depend on Labour’s future manifesto, political circumstances and Britain’s evolving relationship with the European Union.