Andy Burnham Torn Apart for Showing His ‘True Colours’ in Furious Brexit Row
Andy Burnham has found himself at the centre of a fierce political storm after reopening the debate over Britain’s future relationship with the European Union, prompting accusations from Brexit supporters that he is abandoning promises made to voters in order to secure political power.
The Prime Minister’s comments have reignited one of the most divisive arguments in British politics. After previously indicating that he did not want to reopen the Brexit debate while campaigning in the Leave-supporting constituency of Makerfield, Burnham has now declared that Brexit has done “more harm than good” and suggested that Britain should consider a range of options for its future relationship with Brussels, potentially including full EU membership.
The shift has drawn a particularly sharp response from Reform UK MP Suella Braverman, who accused Burnham of being disingenuous and showing his “true colours”. She argued that voters who supported leaving the EU deserved greater clarity about whether the Prime Minister intended to respect the result of the 2016 referendum.
The dispute has placed Burnham under pressure to explain exactly what he wants Britain’s relationship with Europe to look like and whether his government is prepared to move beyond Labour’s previous commitments against rejoining the EU’s single market or customs union.
For Brexit supporters, the controversy raises questions about political consistency and democratic accountability. For those who favour closer ties with Europe, it represents an opportunity to reconsider a settlement they believe has imposed unnecessary economic costs on Britain.
The remarks that reignited the Brexit war
Burnham’s comments at the Labour Party conference on September 29 marked a significant moment in the continuing debate over Brexit.
Addressing party delegates in Liverpool, he argued that Britain could not settle its long-term economic future without deciding how closely it wanted to work with its largest nearby trading partner.
He said Brexit had done “more harm than good” and promised to set out different options for the country’s future relationship with European partners.
The Prime Minister subsequently clarified that he was prepared to examine a broad range of possibilities. These could include maintaining the current arrangement, pursuing a customs union, seeking closer participation in the single market or eventually considering full membership of the EU.
However, Burnham has not announced a formal decision to begin accession negotiations, nor has he committed the government to an immediate return to the bloc. His stated position is that the options should be assessed, with their practical advantages and disadvantages considered before a decision is made.
Nevertheless, his willingness to discuss full membership has changed the political atmosphere.
For years, Labour sought to avoid reopening the central arguments of the referendum. Its 2024 manifesto ruled out returning to the single market, the customs union and freedom of movement. Burnham’s latest comments have raised questions about how far those commitments might now be reconsidered.
The distinction between examining an option and formally adopting it is important. But in a political environment where Brexit remains deeply divisive, even discussing the possibility of rejoining has proved enough to trigger a fierce reaction.
Suella Braverman’s accusation of hypocrisy
Braverman has been among the most vocal critics of Burnham’s position.
Speaking about his comments, she accused him of presenting one position to voters during the Makerfield by-election campaign and adopting a substantially different approach once he had secured election and entered Downing Street.
Her criticism centres on the timing of the change. Makerfield voted heavily for Leave in the 2016 referendum, and Brexit remains a sensitive issue for many people who believe that politicians should respect the decision made by the electorate.
Braverman argued that Burnham’s earlier statements suggested he did not intend to reopen the issue, whereas his conference speech indicated that full EU membership could once again become a serious subject of national debate.
From her perspective, the shift raises questions about whether voters received a complete picture of his intentions during the campaign.
The accusation is politically damaging because it goes beyond a disagreement about European policy. It challenges Burnham’s credibility and invites voters to ask whether his public commitments are likely to remain consistent when circumstances change.
However, the question of whether Burnham has broken a promise depends on the precise wording of his earlier statements and what voters reasonably understood them to mean. Saying that he did not want to reopen the Brexit argument is not necessarily identical to promising never to examine Britain’s future relationship with the EU.
Likewise, arguing that the existing settlement has been economically damaging does not automatically establish that full membership is the only solution he intends to pursue.
The dispute therefore turns partly on political interpretation. Braverman sees a contradiction; Burnham’s supporters can argue that reassessing policy in light of economic evidence is a legitimate responsibility of government.
The public will ultimately judge the issue by comparing his earlier statements with the policies he chooses to implement.
Why Brexit remains such a sensitive issue
The intensity of the response reflects the enduring importance of the 2016 referendum.
More than 17 million people voted to leave the EU, making Brexit one of the most consequential political decisions in modern British history. For many Leave voters, the result represented a demand for greater national control over laws, immigration, trade and political decision-making.
They may regard renewed discussion of full EU membership as an attempt to reverse a democratic decision that should have settled the question.
Others argue that the referendum did not provide a permanent answer to every aspect of Britain’s relationship with Europe. They believe governments should be able to assess whether the arrangements adopted after Brexit are delivering the economic and political outcomes promised to the public.
These competing views have shaped the debate for a decade.
Supporters of closer European integration point to trade barriers, administrative costs and difficulties facing businesses that operate across the Channel. They argue that a closer relationship could support investment and reduce obstacles to economic cooperation.
Brexit supporters counter that leaving the EU gave Britain greater freedom to determine its own rules, negotiate trade agreements and pursue policies without being bound by the bloc’s common institutions.
Both sides also disagree over immigration. Some Leave voters expected Brexit to provide greater control over migration, while critics of the withdrawal settlement argue that leaving the EU did not automatically solve the wider challenges associated with managing Britain’s borders.
Burnham’s comments have brought these disagreements back into focus because they suggest that the government is willing to reconsider the underlying relationship rather than simply make technical adjustments to existing arrangements.
Would rejoining the EU solve Britain’s economic problems?
One of the central arguments behind Burnham’s position is that Brexit has harmed Britain’s economic performance.
Supporters of closer integration argue that reducing barriers to trade with the EU could help exporters, improve business confidence and make Britain more attractive to investors seeking access to European markets.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that the post-Brexit trading relationship will reduce the UK’s long-run productivity by around 4 per cent compared with remaining in the EU. This is a long-term forecast based on economic modelling, not a calculation of the precise amount lost in every year since Brexit.
Nevertheless, such estimates form part of the economic argument for closer cooperation.
Critics question whether rejoining would deliver the benefits its supporters anticipate. Membership would involve financial contributions, obligations under EU rules and negotiations over the terms of accession. It could also reopen contentious debates over freedom of movement and the authority of European institutions.
There would be no guarantee that a return to membership would reverse all the economic effects associated with Brexit. Britain’s performance would continue to depend on domestic investment, productivity, taxation, skills, energy costs and international conditions.
The government would therefore need to explain not only why it believes Brexit has been damaging, but also how a different relationship would improve living standards.
A serious debate requires more than slogans about sovereignty or prosperity. It requires a comparison of the costs and benefits of the available arrangements, supported by credible economic analysis.
The political risks for Labour
Burnham’s intervention could have significant consequences for Labour’s relationship with voters who supported Brexit.
Some voters may welcome a more pragmatic approach if they believe the existing settlement has made trade and economic cooperation unnecessarily difficult. Others may regard any movement towards rejoining as a betrayal of the referendum.
This creates a challenge for a government seeking to present itself as focused on economic growth and national renewal.
If Burnham moves too cautiously, supporters of closer European integration may accuse him of failing to address the consequences of Brexit. If he moves too quickly, opponents may argue that he is ignoring voters who explicitly supported leaving the EU.
His government will also need to distinguish between different levels of European cooperation. Improving a trade agreement is not the same as joining a customs union, participating in the single market or becoming a full EU member.
Each option carries different implications for regulation, trade, immigration and political authority.
Burnham has said he intends to explain the options before the next stage of discussions with European leaders. That process could provide an opportunity to clarify his intentions, but it could also deepen disagreements within Labour and between the government and opposition parties.
For Reform UK and other Brexit-supporting politicians, the issue offers an opportunity to demand clear commitments from the Prime Minister.
For Labour, the challenge is to demonstrate that its approach is based on a transparent assessment of Britain’s interests rather than an attempt to avoid difficult political choices.
What about the democratic argument?
The most contentious question is whether reconsidering Brexit represents a rejection of the referendum result.
Braverman and other opponents of rejoining argue that the government should not reopen such a fundamental decision without giving voters a clear explanation and an appropriate opportunity to express their views.
Their argument is that a decision supported by millions of people should not be gradually reversed through a series of policy changes without an explicit public mandate.
Supporters of reassessing the relationship take a different view. They argue that governments must remain accountable for the consequences of major decisions and should be able to propose new arrangements when circumstances change.
Neither argument removes the need for democratic legitimacy.
If a government were to pursue full EU membership, the process would involve extensive negotiations and would have major implications for domestic policy. Ministers would need to explain their proposals, disclose the likely consequences and establish how the public and Parliament would be involved in deciding the country’s future direction.
Simply mentioning rejoining is not equivalent to implementing it. But the more substantial the proposed change, the greater the need for clarity about the mandate on which it would rest.
That is why Burnham’s next steps matter more than the rhetoric surrounding his conference speech.
A debate that is unlikely to disappear
The row over Burnham’s “true colours” shows how difficult it remains for British politicians to discuss Brexit without reopening old divisions.
Braverman’s criticism has placed the question of political consistency at the centre of the dispute, while Burnham’s supporters argue that the country should not ignore economic evidence simply because the subject remains controversial.
The Prime Minister has not yet committed Britain to rejoining the EU. Instead, he has signalled that several options should be examined, including the possibility of full membership.
That distinction will be crucial as the debate develops.
If Burnham eventually proposes a specific change, voters will be entitled to scrutinise its costs, benefits and democratic legitimacy. They will also be entitled to compare his proposals with the commitments he made during his campaign.
For now, the confrontation illustrates a broader problem facing British politics: how to respond to the consequences of Brexit while respecting the voters who supported it.
The answer will require more than accusations of hypocrisy or declarations that the referendum settled every question permanently. It will require transparent evidence, clear political commitments and an honest discussion about the trade-offs involved.
Burnham has reopened that conversation. Whether his approach wins public confidence will depend on what he proposes next, how convincingly he explains it and whether voters believe that his government is acting on a clear and democratically defensible mandate.
