We’re about to find out if Andy Burnham can make tough decisions. (Image: Getty)
Which is why he’s been putting it off. He knows how divisive this issue is, especially among the left-wing voters he’s trying to win back to Labour. Disappoint them and they’ll feel betrayed. Go the other way and he’ll be accused of putting short-term party politics ahead of the UK economy. It’s a rotten position for a left-leaning Labour PM to be in. But now it’s make-your-mind-up time.
Burnham has to strike a balance between tackling climate change and keeping the lights on, and there are no easy wins. He’s been accused of “dithering and delaying” over whether to approve fresh production at the Rosebank oilfield and Jackdaw gasfield in the North Sea. They have become symbols of the wider battle over Britain’s energy future, and after the summer we’ve had, the heat is on.
Burnham should have settled this weeks ago. Instead, he put it off until after last Thursday’s by-election in Holborn and St Pancras, triggered by Keir Starmer’s decision to quit Parliament. It was a big test for Burnham, as Green Party leader Zack Polanski was standing for the seat. Burnham was desperate to stop him, to put the resurgent Greens back in their box, and reconnect Labour with disillusioned voters on the left. He didn’t want to boost Polanski’s campaign by announcing new North Sea drilling.
Get personal finance news, money saving tips and advice plus selcted offers and competitions
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.
And it worked. Labour held the seat and Polanski is now on resignation watch. Burnham is free to move on, but he can no longer use the contest as reason to delay.
Former energy secretary Ed Miliband triggered a mighty row by blocking new North Sea drilling licences. He repeatedly argued that the policy wouldn’t cut a penny off household bills, overlooking the wider economic and strategic case for domestic production.
Rosebank and Jackdaw could produce substantial quantities of oil and gas over their lifetimes, although they’re not suddenly going to make Britain self-sufficient. They’ll bring other benefits that Miliband never mentioned. New investment would support jobs, generate tax revenues and revive Aberdeen’s flagging energy industry.
Drilling could also strengthen energy security by reducing reliance on imports, and lift Britain’s balance of payments too. We cannot simply transition to renewables overnight, but need oil and gas for decades. In that case, there’s a powerful argument for producing more of it at home.
North Sea gas has lower production and transport emissions than imported liquefied natural gas, so that’s another argument in favour. But there are arguments against.
Critics say new fields risk locking Britain into fossil-fuel dependence when it should be accelerating the shift to renewables. Approving Rosebank and Jackdaw will enrage environmentalists, who’ll be marching through the streets with banners saying the PM is killing the planet. It could even save Polanski.
But with winter looming, energy costs climbing and the Iran and Ukraine wars threatening supplies, most voters will think it’s madness to leave domestic resources untapped, while handing billions to Norway, the US and Qatar.
Labour allows imports of jet fuel made from Russian crude, boosting Vladimir Putin‘s war chest. Given that, it would be crazy to block our own. It might even cost Labour seats in the next election.
Burnham is in a bind. He can’t please everyone, and he can’t keep delaying. Bad luck. He wanted power, he’s got it. Now he has to make the tough calls that come with it.
Andy Burnham Now Has a Massive Decision to Make – It Could Divide Britain All Over Again
Andy Burnham is facing one of the most consequential decisions of his political career, and the choice he makes about Britain’s future relationship with the European Union could reshape the country’s political landscape for years to come.
The Prime Minister has reopened a debate that many politicians hoped Britain had left behind. Almost a decade after the 2016 Brexit referendum, Burnham is arguing that the country must take a fresh look at its relationship with Europe, examine the costs and benefits of different arrangements, and decide whether the current position is really serving the national interest.
His comments have placed the future of Brexit back at the centre of British politics. For some, a closer relationship with the EU represents an opportunity to improve trade, support economic growth and strengthen cooperation with neighbouring countries. For others, it raises concerns that politicians could gradually reverse a decision made by millions of voters without asking the public for a fresh mandate.
The central question is no longer simply whether Britain should cooperate more closely with Europe. It is how far Burnham is prepared to go, what concessions he would accept, and whether the public would support the direction he wants to take.
The decision that could define Burnham’s premiership
Burnham has indicated that the government should consider a range of options for Britain’s long-term relationship with the EU, including the possibility of rejoining the bloc. He has argued that Brexit has done more harm than good and that continuing with the existing arrangements without examining alternatives would be irresponsible.
That position marks a significant change in the tone of the national debate. For years, successive governments sought to move beyond the referendum and focus on other priorities. Although practical agreements with Brussels remained possible, a return to the question of EU membership was largely avoided by mainstream political leaders.
Burnham has now brought that question back into public discussion.
His challenge is to turn a broad argument about Britain’s future into a credible policy. It is one thing to say that every option should be examined. It is another to explain which option the government actually prefers, how it would work, and what the country might have to give up in return.
The Prime Minister must also consider the political consequences of making the decision. A limited agreement designed to reduce trade barriers could attract support from businesses and voters who want more predictable economic relations with Europe. A proposal to rejoin the single market, customs union or the EU itself would raise much more difficult questions about regulations, migration, sovereignty and democratic accountability.
Each option would involve different benefits and costs. Burnham cannot assume that support for improving relations with Europe automatically translates into support for reversing Brexit.
Why the November summit matters
The next major test will come on November 20, when Burnham is due to meet European leaders in Brussels for a UK-EU summit.
The meeting is expected to focus on practical measures to strengthen cooperation, including reducing unnecessary barriers for food and agricultural products, exploring a youth mobility arrangement, linking emissions trading systems and improving cooperation in the energy sector.
Such agreements could have direct consequences for businesses and consumers. Farmers and food producers have faced additional administrative requirements following Brexit, while companies trading across borders have had to adapt to changes in regulations and procedures.
Reducing some of those obstacles could make trade easier and potentially lower certain costs. Supporters of closer cooperation argue that Britain and the EU should be able to work together where doing so benefits both sides.
However, the summit will not automatically determine whether Britain rejoins the European Union. Negotiating practical agreements is very different from negotiating membership, which would involve a far wider set of political, legal and economic questions.
Burnham is therefore approaching a delicate balancing act. He wants to demonstrate that closer relations can produce tangible benefits while leaving open a longer-term discussion about the country’s future.
The danger is that expectations could rise faster than negotiations can deliver. If the government presents the summit as a historic breakthrough but returns with only limited agreements, critics may accuse Burnham of overpromising. If he pushes for more ambitious changes, opponents may argue that he is moving too quickly towards reversing Brexit.
The Conservatives see a political dividing line
The Prime Minister’s approach has already drawn criticism from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who has accused him of reopening the Brexit settlement and weakening Britain’s negotiating position.
The Conservatives argue that the referendum result should remain the starting point for government policy. From this perspective, Britain can pursue cooperation with the EU without moving towards membership or accepting arrangements that undermine the independence voters believed Brexit would deliver.
Badenoch has also questioned whether Burnham has been sufficiently careful in explaining his intentions before negotiations begin. The argument is that publicly discussing Britain’s possible future direction could make it easier for European negotiators to identify the government’s priorities.
Burnham’s supporters see the situation differently. They argue that refusing to examine alternatives would leave Britain tied to an arrangement that may not deliver the best economic or strategic results.
This disagreement goes beyond the technical details of trade policy. It concerns the meaning of the 2016 referendum and how a democracy should respond when public opinion, economic circumstances and political priorities evolve over time.
For the Conservatives, the question is whether Burnham is respecting the decision to leave. For the government, the question is whether respecting that decision requires Britain to avoid reconsidering its relationship with Europe indefinitely.
Neither side can settle that argument through slogans alone. The public will need clear information about the proposals, the possible consequences and the choices available.
Brexit remains an emotional issue
The 2016 referendum divided communities, families and political parties. Leave supporters often viewed the result as a demand for greater national control over laws, borders and economic policy. Remain supporters warned that leaving the EU could create trade barriers, reduce influence and make cooperation more complicated.
Those disagreements have not disappeared.
For some voters, reopening the question of membership will feel like an opportunity to correct a decision that they believe damaged Britain’s economy and international standing. Others will see it as an attempt by political leaders to overturn a democratic verdict because they dislike the outcome.
There are also many voters whose views do not fit neatly into either camp. Some supported Brexit but now want closer economic cooperation. Others opposed leaving but do not necessarily want Britain to return to the EU under any conditions. Some may prioritise reducing immigration, while others are more concerned about the cost of living, public services or employment.
That complexity makes Burnham’s decision particularly difficult. He must address a country in which there is no single definition of what a successful post-Brexit settlement should look like.
A government that focuses only on the most enthusiastic supporters of closer European integration risks alienating voters who remain sceptical. Equally, a government that refuses to consider any change could disappoint those who believe the current relationship is creating unnecessary economic obstacles.
Rejoining the EU would be a much bigger undertaking
The most ambitious option would be for Britain to seek EU membership again. But this would not be a simple reversal of the 2016 referendum.
Britain would have to apply to rejoin and negotiate with the EU’s existing member states. The terms would need to be agreed, and the process would involve extensive political and legal work. The United Kingdom could not simply demand the same arrangements it enjoyed before leaving.
Membership would also raise questions about the single market, the movement of people, regulatory alignment, financial contributions and the role of European institutions. These issues would require detailed negotiations and public explanation.
A return to the single market or customs union would be a different route, potentially offering closer economic integration without full EU membership. But these arrangements would also involve trade-offs, and they would not necessarily remove every barrier created by Brexit.
Maintaining the current relationship while pursuing smaller agreements remains another possibility.
Burnham therefore has several potential paths rather than one straightforward choice. The decision will depend on what the government believes Britain needs, what the EU is prepared to negotiate and what conditions the British public would accept.
The more ambitious the proposal, the greater the need for transparency and a clear democratic mandate.
What about immigration and national sovereignty?
Immigration is likely to become one of the most contentious aspects of the debate.
Opponents of closer EU integration may argue that joining the single market or rejoining the bloc could bring renewed obligations concerning the movement of people. Supporters may counter that cooperation with European countries could improve the management of migration and help address problems that cannot be solved by national policy alone.
The precise consequences would depend on the arrangement negotiated. It would be misleading to treat every form of closer cooperation as identical or to assume that a trade agreement automatically produces the same obligations as EU membership.
Sovereignty will be equally important. Brexit supporters may argue that accepting common rules limits Britain’s freedom to make independent decisions. Those favouring closer integration may respond that shared rules can make it easier for British companies to trade and give the country a stronger voice in tackling problems that cross borders.
The government will need to explain these choices in practical terms. Voters deserve to know not only what a proposal might deliver but also what it would require Britain to accept.
Burnham must decide how much he is willing to risk
The political calculation is formidable. If Burnham moves towards a more ambitious European relationship, he could attract voters who believe Brexit has not worked as promised. At the same time, he could face resistance from people who regard leaving the EU as a fundamental democratic choice.
If he limits his plans to small agreements, he may avoid some of the political risks but disappoint those calling for a more substantial change. If he rules out further integration, he could preserve continuity while leaving the broader debate unresolved.
The government’s immediate priority is likely to be demonstrating that practical cooperation can produce results. Better arrangements for food trade, energy and other sectors could provide evidence on which a longer-term discussion might be built.
But even successful agreements would not answer the central question: does Britain want a closer partnership with the EU, or does it ultimately want to seek membership again?
Burnham has opened that door, but he has not yet provided a complete roadmap for getting through it.
A decision that belongs to the country
The language surrounding Brexit often suggests that Britain must choose between two irreconcilable camps. In reality, the debate contains several distinct questions: how to improve trade, how to manage immigration, how to protect national decision-making, and how to cooperate with European neighbours on security and economic challenges.
Those questions deserve to be examined separately before being brought together into a national decision.
Burnham’s responsibility is to present the options honestly, explain the likely consequences and avoid implying that any route will deliver benefits without costs. His critics, in turn, will need to explain what they believe the current arrangements achieve and how they would address the difficulties associated with them.
The November summit will be an important opportunity to test whether Britain and the EU can agree on practical steps. It will not, by itself, resolve the deeper political argument over Brexit.
The Prime Minister’s massive decision is therefore not simply whether to sign a deal with Brussels. It is whether to keep Britain’s long-term European future open to fundamental change, and how to secure public confidence in whatever direction he chooses.
That decision could reshape party politics, revive old divisions and create new ones. It could also give voters a clearer opportunity to debate what kind of relationship Britain should have with its closest European neighbours.
The country does not have to be divided by the discussion, but the risk is real if political leaders treat it as a battle between enemies rather than a choice involving competing priorities.
Ultimately, the decisive question is not whether Burnham can win an argument against his opponents. It is whether he can explain a credible future for Britain, demonstrate what that future would cost and deliver, and allow the public to judge the options on the evidence.
Brexit changed Britain. The debate now returning to Westminster is about what comes next — and how much change the country is prepared to accept.