Prime Minister Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)
Labour has been accused of “clutching at straws” over plans for closer ties with the EU under Andy Burnham. It comes as Hamish Falconer, the minister in charge of the Brexit reset, said Britain would look at the “art of the possible” within Labour’s manifesto red lines.
Sir Keir Starmer ruled out returning to the single market, customs union or freedom of movement. Mr Falconer told The Guardian: “We’re committed to our manifesto red lines, but all of my experiences as a negotiator and the art of the possible is in part shaped by the nature of the relationship between two people negotiating.
“I used to be a negotiator with the Taliban. With the EU, this is a negotiation with our friends, with whom we share our values and with whom we feel solidarity.”
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.
Mr Falconer added: “There’s also a whole range of areas in relation to services where I’d really like it to be progressed.
“Services is obviously an area where the EU itself is less closely integrated and there’s a lot of discussion within the EU about where to take the productivity challenge for them – that’s a challenge we can recognise here in the UK as well. So, particularly on services, I’m really interested in where we can go further.”
But Tory frontbencher Alex Burghart said Labour was “clutching at straws” and “remains fixated on the past”.
He said: “To fix the economy they need to open up the North Sea, cut public spending, cut taxes and regulation, get the national debt down and build the conditions for growth. None of this needs a deal with the EU which itself has low growth.
“Burnham and his team are going to give us a bad deal which hands control of our regulations to Brussels and doesn’t fix the problems at home.
“While Labour remains fixated on the past, only the Conservatives, under new leadership, are focused on delivering a serious plan for Britain’s future.”
The Prime Minister insisted he would not look to rejoin the EU when he was standing in the Makerfield by-election after previously admitting he would like to see the UK back in the bloc in his lifetime.
Brexit Fury as New Minister Admits Labour Is About to Drag the UK Closer to the EU Under Burnham
Brexit is once again threatening to become one of the most divisive issues in British politics, as fresh concerns grow that Labour could steer the United Kingdom towards a much closer relationship with the European Union. For critics of the government, the prospect raises an uncomfortable question: is Britain heading towards a gradual reversal of Brexit without voters being given a clear opportunity to decide whether that is what they want?
The debate has gained further attention amid speculation about Andy Burnham’s political ambitions and the direction Labour might take under his influence. Any suggestion that Britain could move closer to Brussels is likely to provoke a strong reaction from Brexit supporters, who regard leaving the EU as a democratic decision that must be respected. Others, however, argue that improving relations with European neighbours could help address economic pressures, trade barriers and the practical difficulties that have emerged since the UK left the bloc.
The controversy is therefore about much more than diplomatic relations. It touches on sovereignty, immigration, economic growth, parliamentary accountability and the future direction of the country.
It is important to distinguish political warnings and speculation from confirmed government policy. A closer relationship with the EU does not automatically mean rejoining the bloc, and proposals for cooperation can vary significantly in their legal and economic implications. Nevertheless, the prospect of a major change in Britain’s European policy is enough to reopen arguments that have divided the country for years.
Brexit remains a defining political fault line
The 2016 referendum produced a decision that transformed British politics. Millions of voters supported leaving the European Union because they wanted greater national control over laws, borders and trade policy. Others voted Remain, believing EU membership offered economic advantages and a stronger international position.
The years that followed did not settle the argument. Instead, Brexit became intertwined with disputes over the economy, immigration, public services and the credibility of successive governments.
For many Leave voters, the central promise was that decisions affecting Britain would be made in Britain. They believed departure would allow Westminster to pursue policies tailored to the country’s needs rather than negotiate compromises with European institutions.
For Remain supporters, the departure process brought new barriers for businesses, additional administrative burdens and reduced opportunities in some areas of trade and cooperation. They argue that closer ties with European partners could help ease those problems without necessarily restoring full membership.
Both positions contain political and practical questions that cannot be resolved through slogans alone. The challenge for any government is to explain precisely what relationship it wants with the EU, what that relationship would cost and what Britain would gain in return.
That is why suggestions of a shift under Labour are likely to attract intense scrutiny.
Why Andy Burnham could become central to the debate
Andy Burnham has built a political identity around his experience in government and his leadership of Greater Manchester. His supporters point to his emphasis on regional development, public services and devolving power away from Westminster. His critics question whether his preferred policies would require higher spending, greater central intervention or changes to Britain’s wider economic direction.
If Burnham were to gain greater influence over Labour’s national strategy, his approach to Europe would inevitably come under examination. Political opponents would want to know whether he favours limited cooperation, a more comprehensive economic partnership or a substantially different relationship with the EU.
Those possibilities are not interchangeable.
A government could seek agreements covering trade, professional qualifications, energy, research or security while remaining outside the EU’s political institutions. It could also pursue arrangements that require Britain to follow certain common rules or accept oversight mechanisms in specific areas. Each option would involve different compromises.
A full return to EU membership would be a much larger undertaking, requiring negotiations and a clear political mandate. It should not be treated as an inevitable consequence of improving relations with Brussels.
For voters concerned about Brexit, the key issue is whether ministers are being transparent about the destination they have in mind. They will want to know whether closer cooperation is intended to solve particular problems or whether it forms part of a longer-term ambition to reverse important elements of the departure settlement.
The economic argument for closer European ties
Supporters of a closer relationship with the EU argue that Britain cannot ignore the importance of its largest nearby trading market. Businesses operating across borders must navigate customs requirements, regulatory differences and paperwork that did not exist in the same form before Brexit.
Smaller companies can be particularly sensitive to these costs. For firms exporting food, manufactured goods or specialist products, additional documentation and compliance requirements can make overseas sales more difficult. Some businesses have responded by changing suppliers, reducing the range of products they export or concentrating on domestic customers.
A more cooperative arrangement with the EU could potentially reduce some of these obstacles, depending on the terms negotiated. Improved coordination might also help sectors that rely on research partnerships, shared infrastructure or workers with specialised skills.
Yet there are limits to what a closer relationship can achieve. Access to European markets depends on the rules of any agreement, and Brussels would not necessarily offer Britain all the benefits of membership without corresponding obligations. Certain arrangements could require regulatory alignment, financial contributions or mechanisms for resolving disputes.
The government would therefore need to explain not simply that closer ties could help businesses, but exactly which barriers it expects to remove and what commitments Britain would have to accept.
Economic growth is a legitimate objective. So is democratic accountability. Neither should be used to dismiss the other.
Sovereignty and democratic consent
For Brexit supporters, the most sensitive question is whether a closer relationship would gradually reduce the freedom Britain gained by leaving the EU.
Their concern is that individual agreements might appear limited when considered separately but collectively place Britain under increasing pressure to follow rules developed in Brussels. They fear that ministers could recreate aspects of the previous relationship without openly acknowledging the political consequences.
That argument deserves a clear answer from any government proposing substantial changes.
Ministers should identify which rules Britain would follow, whether those rules would be decided jointly or imposed externally, and what mechanisms would exist if the UK later wished to change course. They should also explain whether Parliament would have a meaningful role in approving major commitments.
However, sovereignty is not simply a question of whether Britain cooperates with other countries. Governments routinely enter international agreements because they believe cooperation serves the national interest. The real issue is the balance between shared obligations and independent decision-making.
A well-defined agreement could preserve considerable national autonomy. A more restrictive arrangement might involve difficult trade-offs. Voters cannot make an informed judgement unless those differences are explained honestly.
Claims that every agreement with the EU amounts to betrayal are too simplistic. Equally, claims that closer ties carry no implications for sovereignty would be difficult to defend.
Reform UK and the Conservatives see a political opportunity
The Brexit debate offers Nigel Farage’s Reform UK a potentially powerful political opening. Reform has built much of its appeal around immigration control, national sovereignty and the argument that established parties have failed to deliver the changes promised after Brexit.
If Labour appears to be moving towards closer European integration without a clear electoral mandate, Reform could present itself as the party prepared to defend the referendum result. Farage could argue that voters who supported Brexit are being asked to accept a gradual reversal through technical agreements and diplomatic negotiations rather than an explicit public decision.
That message could resonate with people who already distrust Westminster. It could also put pressure on the Conservatives, whose own record on Brexit remains complicated by years of internal divisions and difficult negotiations.
For the Tories, the challenge would be to demonstrate that they have a credible alternative rather than relying solely on warnings about Labour. They would need to explain how Britain can strengthen trade, improve productivity and cooperate with European neighbours while retaining control over national policy.
Reform, meanwhile, would face its own test. Opposing closer EU ties is a political position, but governing would require detailed proposals for trade, business regulation, security cooperation and diplomatic relations. Voters would expect practical answers, not merely declarations of principle.
The party that best explains the costs and benefits of each option could gain an advantage as the argument develops.