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.
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 faces a major political decision over Britain’s future relationship with the European Union, with the potential to reopen divisions that have shaped the country since the 2016 Brexit referendum. As calls grow for closer cooperation with Brussels, the Labour politician must consider how far Britain should go in changing its post-Brexit arrangements without undermining the democratic decision made by voters.
The debate is about far more than trade agreements or diplomatic meetings. It touches on national sovereignty, immigration, economic growth and the question of whether Britain has found the right balance between independence and cooperation with its European neighbours.
For some people, Brexit remains an essential expression of democratic control. For others, the years since withdrawal have exposed economic and practical problems that demand a different approach. Burnham’s next move could therefore become a defining moment in the continuing argument over Britain’s place in Europe.
A Decision That Could Reshape the Brexit Debate
Burnham has argued that Britain should be willing to examine whether its current relationship with the EU is delivering the best possible results. His position reflects concerns about trade barriers, economic performance and the opportunities available through closer cooperation.
The challenge is deciding what that closer relationship should look like.
One option would be to pursue limited agreements in areas such as food standards, energy, emissions trading and youth mobility. Such arrangements could improve cooperation without requiring Britain to rejoin the EU or abandon its independent political institutions.
A more ambitious approach could involve wider regulatory alignment and a closer economic partnership. This might reduce some barriers to trade, but it could also require Britain to accept rules developed at the European level in areas covered by an agreement.
The most far-reaching possibility would be to reopen the question of EU membership itself. That would involve a much more complex political process, including negotiations with European institutions and member states, detailed decisions about the terms of membership and a major debate about public consent.
These options are not interchangeable. A limited agreement does not automatically lead to rejoining the EU, and closer cooperation does not necessarily mean restoring freedom of movement. However, the choices made now could influence the direction of future negotiations.
Burnham’s task is to explain which path he supports and why.
Why Brexit Still Divides the Country
The referendum of 2016 produced a decision to leave the European Union, but it did not eliminate the underlying disagreements about Britain’s political and economic future.
For many Leave voters, the referendum was about restoring national sovereignty. They wanted elected British representatives to have greater control over laws and regulations, immigration policy and international trade. They also believed that leaving the EU would give the country more flexibility to pursue its own priorities.
Those arguments remain important to Brexit supporters, who may view renewed regulatory alignment with Brussels as a gradual return to arrangements they voted to leave.
Remain supporters and critics of Brexit have different concerns. They argue that leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement created new obstacles for businesses, workers and families. Some believe that the UK has sacrificed practical advantages without gaining enough in return.
There are also voters who do not fit neatly into either camp. They may support Brexit in principle while wanting fewer trade barriers, or they may oppose EU membership while favouring closer cooperation on security, research and energy.
This diversity of opinion makes the debate more complicated than a simple contest between Leave and Remain. A political proposal that appeals to one group may raise concerns among another.
If Burnham wants to build support for a new approach, he will need to address these differences rather than assume that the public has moved uniformly in one direction.
The Economic Argument for Closer EU Ties
The economy is likely to be central to any decision about Britain’s future relationship with Europe.
The EU remains a major trading partner for the United Kingdom. Since Brexit, businesses trading across the Channel have had to navigate new procedures and regulatory requirements in areas affected by the withdrawal agreement and subsequent arrangements.
For some companies, additional paperwork has increased costs and complexity. Smaller exporters can find it particularly difficult to absorb new administrative burdens, while businesses operating across several European markets may need to manage different requirements.
Supporters of closer cooperation argue that targeted agreements could reduce some of these difficulties. Greater alignment in selected sectors might help British businesses sell products into European markets and make cross-border supply chains easier to manage.
However, the economic case must be assessed carefully. Regulatory alignment can reduce friction, but it can also limit the UK’s freedom to establish different rules. The advantages would depend on the specific agreement, the obligations involved and the extent to which businesses actually benefit.
Brexit is also not the only factor affecting the British economy. Productivity, investment, global competition, energy costs and domestic policy all influence economic performance.
Burnham would therefore need to present concrete proposals rather than relying on broad claims that closer ties with Europe would automatically improve living standards. Voters would reasonably want to know which sectors could benefit, what changes would be required and how the government would measure success.
Immigration Could Become the Most Sensitive Issue
Any renewed discussion about Britain’s relationship with the EU is likely to bring immigration back into the political spotlight.
Freedom of movement was one of the most prominent issues during the referendum campaign. Supporters of Brexit argued that leaving the EU would allow Britain to exercise greater control over migration from European countries. Critics of withdrawal warned that ending freedom of movement would create difficulties for businesses and people who had relied on the ability to work or study across borders.
A closer relationship does not necessarily require a return to the pre-Brexit system. Britain could negotiate a limited youth mobility scheme, for example, with defined eligibility rules and time limits. Such an arrangement would differ from unrestricted freedom of movement across member states.
Nevertheless, even limited proposals can become politically contentious if voters suspect they could form the first step towards a much broader change.
Burnham would need to be precise about the government’s intentions. If he supports targeted cooperation, he should explain its boundaries. If he believes Britain should consider more extensive arrangements, he should set out the case openly and acknowledge the potential consequences.
Immigration policy also involves questions of labour demand, public services, border enforcement and integration. Those issues cannot be resolved simply by changing the terms of Britain’s relationship with Brussels.
A credible policy must explain how migration arrangements would work in practice and how they would relate to the government’s wider economic and social priorities.
The Challenge From Political Opponents
Burnham’s position could expose him to criticism from several directions.
Brexit supporters may argue that closer alignment would undermine the purpose of leaving the EU. They could question why Britain should accept European rules if it no longer participates fully in the institutions that make them.
Some critics may also ask whether the government is being sufficiently transparent about the long-term consequences of individual agreements. They may be concerned that a series of technical decisions could gradually reshape the UK’s relationship with Europe without a broader public discussion.
On the other hand, supporters of a closer relationship could criticise any cautious approach that produces only modest changes. They may argue that Britain needs a more ambitious economic partnership to address trade barriers and strengthen its position in a changing international environment.
Burnham would therefore face competing demands. Moving too far towards Brussels could alienate voters who regard sovereignty as a central benefit of Brexit. Moving too cautiously could disappoint those who believe the current arrangements are unnecessarily restrictive.
The political challenge is not simply to choose between two slogans. It is to explain the trade-offs, identify achievable objectives and make a convincing case for the chosen approach.
Could Britain Rejoin the European Union?
The possibility of rejoining the EU remains one of the most consequential questions in the wider debate, but it should be distinguished from negotiations over individual agreements.
EU membership would involve a comprehensive relationship with European institutions, common rules and obligations that go well beyond trade in particular sectors. Britain would need to negotiate the terms of accession with the EU and its member states, while also addressing the domestic political questions that such a proposal would raise.
There is no automatic route from a food-trade agreement or youth mobility scheme to membership. Each arrangement can be considered separately, although the overall direction of policy may influence future political choices.
For some supporters of closer ties, membership may eventually be worth debating again. Others believe that Britain can improve cooperation while remaining outside the bloc.
Opponents of rejoining argue that the referendum should be respected and that the government should concentrate on making Brexit work. They may also question whether another major constitutional debate would create uncertainty for businesses and public institutions.
Any serious proposal for membership would need to address these arguments directly. It would require a clear explanation of the expected benefits, the obligations involved and the democratic process through which such a decision would be made.
Sovereignty and Practical Cooperation
One of the central difficulties in the debate is that sovereignty and international cooperation are not always mutually exclusive.
Britain can make independent decisions while entering agreements with other countries. Trade deals, security partnerships and environmental arrangements all involve commitments that governments negotiate because cooperation can deliver benefits that are difficult to achieve alone.
The question is how much flexibility a government is prepared to exchange for those benefits.
A narrow agreement may involve relatively limited obligations. A deeper economic partnership may require more extensive alignment with shared rules. EU membership would involve a broader set of commitments and institutional relationships.
These differences matter because the phrase “closer ties” can describe arrangements with very different consequences.
Burnham’s decision should therefore be judged against the actual terms of any proposal, rather than assumptions about what cooperation must mean. The public needs to know which powers remain with British institutions, where shared rules would apply and how disagreements could be resolved.
Transparency would also help prevent legitimate policy negotiations from becoming confused with claims that Brexit is being reversed without public consent.
A Defining Moment for Britain’s Future
The decision facing Burnham is significant because it could influence the direction of Britain’s relationship with Europe for years to come. But the outcome is not predetermined, and the consequences will depend on the proposals put forward and the agreements that can realistically be negotiated.
A limited reset could deliver practical improvements while preserving the UK’s position outside the EU. A more ambitious partnership could offer additional economic opportunities but require greater alignment in selected areas. Rejoining the bloc would be a separate and substantially more far-reaching undertaking.
Each option carries potential benefits, costs and political risks.
For voters, the most useful debate will focus on evidence rather than dramatic labels. They should be able to compare the likely effects on trade, employment, immigration, regulation and democratic accountability. They should also be able to distinguish between what the government has formally proposed, what remains under discussion and what opponents fear might happen in the future.
Brexit remains divisive because it represents different things to different people: independence, democratic control, economic opportunity, lost access or an unresolved national argument.
Burnham cannot make those differences disappear with a single announcement. What he can do is set out a clear position, explain the choices involved and allow the public to judge the evidence.
Britain’s next chapter in its relationship with Europe will not be determined by rhetoric alone. It will depend on the substance of negotiations, the decisions of elected representatives and the willingness of the country to confront the difficult compromises that every long-term strategy entails.