Andy Burnham has said it is “possible” a future Labour election manifesto could promise a new in-out referendum on the European Union.
The prime minister told the BBC a referendum “wouldn’t be the right thing to do right now” but the UK needed to “consider the options” for its relationship with the EU as “where we are isn’t good enough”.
It comes after he pledged in his Labour conference speech on Tuesday to explore closer ties with the bloc at a summit later this year.
The move could set up a huge dividing line at the next general election, with the Conservatives accusing Burnham of trying to “reopen old wounds by restarting the battles of the Brexit years”.
As a candidate in the Makerfield by-election that propelled his return to Parliament, Burnham had promised not to “re-run” Brexit arguments and said he was “not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU”.
In an interview with BBC political editor Chris Mason, Burnham was challenged over whether he was reopening divisive arguments about rejoining the EU, despite promising not to in May.
In response, the PM said: “No, I’m not proposing that, am I? I am saying that in a context when we’re looking at a 10-year plan for Britain, Britain needs to consider the options as to where we will be.
“That is way before you even get to anything that’s put before the public, this is about now just looking at what are the broad options for our relationship.”
He suggested these options could include staying “exactly as we are”, a closer relationship similar to that being discussed by the EU and Canada or rejoining the EU customs union.
However, Burnham stressed that “to leap back to a proposal and a referendum on it wouldn’t be the right thing to do right now”.
Pressed over whether including an in-out referendum in a future Labour manifesto was a possibility, Burnham said: “Yes, things are possible. I think where we are isn’t good enough.”
Asked earlier on BBC Radio 4’s Today if he wanted the UK to rejoin the EU, Burnham replied that he wanted to “look at the options”.
The PM added that he had previously advocated such a move within his lifetime, whilst acknowledging it was “not necessarily the case that that is now”.
French President Emmanuel Macron said it would be “very good news” if the UK wanted to rejoin the EU, while Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said his country would welcome Britain back “with open arms”.
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey said his party had put forward “concrete plans to boost our economy, strengthen our defences and cut people’s taxes by joining the single market and a customs union”.
He added: “Talk is cheap. Burnham must stop with all the ‘maybes’ and get negotiating that better deal for Britain today.”
The party’s Europe spokesperson Al Pinkerton said last week there is “no rejoin on the table”, adding Britain would effectively be treated as a “fresh entrant state” if it wished to join the bloc again.
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice accused Burnham of “trying to sneak us back into Brussels via the back door”.
Tice said: “He says Brexit has done more harm than good but what’s done real harm is a Labour government that can’t deliver growth, can’t control migration and now wants to outsource the job to Brussels.”
He added Reform would “never let this betrayal go unchallenged”.
In his Labour conference speech on Tuesday, Burnham blamed Brexit for a loss of control over both immigration and the economy, telling delegates he did not believe the current relationship was “good enough”.
He told activists he wanted to use the rescheduled summit later this year to lay out “different options” for the UK’s long-term relationship with Europe.
He promised to “find consensus” on an option to clarify the UK’s position, although did not offer further detail of how this would be measured.
In response to Burnham’s conference speech, Conservative deputy leader Alex Burghart said: “Labour cannot pin the blame for their disastrous economic decisions on a vote that happened over a decade ago.
“Besides, they are already dragging us into the European Union via the back door with their EU reset.”
Green Party leader Zack Polanski said: “All Andy Burnham offers on repairing our relationship with our biggest trading partner is a promise to keep our options open.
“The Green Party is very clear that we should rejoin the customs union to start reversing the damage, and full membership of the EU remains the best option for the UK.”
Andy Burnham Raises Prospect of Brexit Referendum in Labour Election Manifesto
Andy Burnham has reignited debate over Britain’s relationship with the European Union after suggesting that a future Brexit referendum could be a possibility in Labour’s election manifesto. The prospect raises difficult questions for the Labour Party, which must balance changing public attitudes towards Brexit with the political risks of reopening one of the most divisive issues in modern British politics.
Any suggestion that Labour might consider another referendum would attract considerable attention. Brexit continues to shape discussions about economic growth, immigration, trade, public services and Britain’s position on the international stage. Although the UK formally left the European Union in January 2020, disagreements over the consequences of that decision remain a significant feature of political debate.
For Burnham, the question is not simply whether Britain should reconsider its relationship with Europe. It is also whether Labour should make that question part of its future electoral programme, potentially forcing voters and political opponents to confront an issue that many politicians have previously tried to move beyond.
The precise meaning of the reported suggestion is important. Discussing a possible referendum is not the same as committing to one, and a referendum on a particular aspect of Britain’s relationship with the EU would not necessarily mean holding another vote on full membership. The details would determine how significant any proposal might be.
Why Brexit Remains a Political Issue
The 2016 referendum produced a narrow majority for leaving the European Union, with approximately 52 per cent of participating voters supporting Leave and 48 per cent supporting Remain. The result reflected a deeply divided electorate, with differences between regions, generations, industries and communities.
Supporters of Brexit argued that leaving would restore national control over laws, borders and trade policy. They also believed the UK could establish independent arrangements with countries around the world and reduce its reliance on EU institutions.
Opponents warned that leaving the single market and customs union would create additional barriers to trade, complicate supply chains and reduce opportunities for some businesses. They also expressed concern about the loss of freedom of movement and Britain’s diminished influence within European decision-making.
More than six years after the UK’s formal departure, those competing arguments continue to influence political discussion. Some people believe Brexit has delivered important benefits, while others argue that its economic and administrative costs have been greater than expected.
There is also a substantial group of voters whose views are more pragmatic. They may not want to reverse Brexit entirely but would support closer cooperation with European countries if it improved trade, reduced bureaucracy or made travel and professional exchanges easier.
This distinction matters for Labour. Public dissatisfaction with aspects of Brexit does not automatically translate into support for rejoining the EU, and voters may have different opinions about trade agreements, regulatory alignment, migration arrangements and full membership.
Burnham’s Position and Labour’s Dilemma
Andy Burnham has remained a prominent figure in Labour politics because of his role as Greater Manchester mayor and his influence in discussions about regional economic development. His comments on Brexit therefore have the potential to generate debate well beyond Greater Manchester.
However, the political significance of his remarks depends on the exact proposal and whether it reflects an agreed party position. An individual politician raising an option does not establish that Labour’s leadership has decided to adopt it.
The party faces a difficult strategic calculation. It must respond to voters who believe Brexit has damaged the economy or limited opportunities while avoiding the impression that it intends to disregard the result of the 2016 referendum.
Labour also has to account for voters who supported leaving the EU and continue to regard that decision as a matter of democratic sovereignty. Some may be willing to consider practical agreements with Brussels but would oppose another referendum on membership.
A manifesto commitment to a referendum could therefore have consequences in both directions. It might appeal to people who want a fundamental reassessment of Britain’s European relationship, but it could alienate others who believe the issue has already been settled.
For the party, the central challenge would be explaining exactly what voters were being asked to decide, why another vote was necessary and what practical outcome it was intended to achieve.
Would Another Referendum Mean Rejoining the EU?
One of the most important questions is what a proposed referendum would actually concern.
A referendum could theoretically address several different issues. It might ask whether the government should pursue a closer relationship with the EU, whether Britain should participate in a particular European arrangement, or whether the country should seek to rejoin the bloc.
Those options are not interchangeable.
Rejoining the EU would involve negotiations with European institutions and member states, followed by the necessary domestic and European approval processes. The terms of membership would have to be established, and the UK could not simply assume that every arrangement it previously enjoyed would automatically be restored.
A vote on closer cooperation, by contrast, could concern a narrower agreement covering trade, research, security, energy or professional qualifications. Such an agreement might be possible without reopening the question of full membership.
Before assessing the political implications of Burnham’s reported comments, it is therefore necessary to establish whether he was referring to a referendum on rejoining the EU or a different form of European relationship.
Without that distinction, the debate risks becoming a clash between broad slogans rather than a discussion of specific policy choices.
The Economic Argument for Closer European Ties
Economic considerations are likely to feature prominently in any future debate.
The EU remains an important trading partner for the UK, and businesses in many sectors rely on cross-border supply chains, common standards and predictable customs procedures. Additional paperwork and regulatory differences can increase costs, particularly for smaller companies that lack the resources to manage complex international requirements.
Supporters of closer ties argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could help British exporters, encourage investment and make it easier for companies to operate across European markets.
Industries such as manufacturing, agriculture, food distribution and professional services may have particular interests in the arrangements governing trade with the EU. Research institutions and universities also have an interest in maintaining international collaboration and access to scientific programmes.
However, the economic case is not one-sided. Brexit supporters argue that regulatory independence allows Britain to design policies suited to its own circumstances and negotiate agreements beyond Europe. They also maintain that the UK should focus on making its domestic economy more competitive rather than revisiting constitutional questions.
The economic effects of any future agreement would depend on its terms, implementation costs and the response of businesses and trading partners. Claims that closer ties would automatically deliver a dramatic economic recovery, or that any change would inevitably undermine British sovereignty, would require careful examination.
For voters, the useful question is not simply whether Europe is good or bad for Britain. It is which specific arrangements would produce measurable benefits, what they would cost and what obligations they would create.
Immigration and Freedom of Movement
Immigration would almost certainly be a central issue if Britain considered rejoining the EU.
Freedom of movement was one of the most contentious aspects of the UK’s membership, and concerns about immigration contributed to the Leave campaign’s appeal in 2016. Some voters continue to believe that leaving the EU gave Britain greater control over who can live and work in the country.
Others argue that European migration supported important sectors of the economy, helped employers recruit workers and gave British citizens opportunities to live and work elsewhere in Europe.
A return to EU membership would raise questions about the rules governing movement between member states. The precise arrangements would be subject to negotiations and the applicable membership framework.
For Labour, the challenge would be explaining how its European policy would interact with its approach to immigration, public services, employment and border management.
It would also need to distinguish between European freedom of movement and other forms of immigration, including work visas, family migration and asylum claims. These systems have different legal foundations and should not be treated as though they were identical.
Any referendum campaign would need to provide voters with a clear account of the implications rather than relying on general promises about either tighter borders or greater economic opportunity.
The Political Risks for Labour
Reopening Brexit could create a significant challenge for Labour’s electoral strategy.
The party draws support from voters with different political histories and different views of the EU. In some areas, pro-European sentiment is strong. In others, leaving the EU remains an important expression of voters’ preferences about sovereignty and democratic accountability.
A proposal for another referendum could sharpen those differences. Political opponents might portray it as an attempt to overturn the 2016 result, while supporters could argue that democratic debate should respond to changing circumstances and new evidence.
Both arguments would be likely to feature in a campaign, but neither would settle the question of whether another referendum was justified. That assessment would depend on the proposed question, the evidence of public opinion and the practical alternatives available.
Labour would also have to consider whether Brexit should take priority over other issues that affect voters’ everyday lives, including the cost of living, housing, healthcare, taxation and economic growth.
Even people who support closer relations with Europe may prefer politicians to concentrate on domestic problems. Others may regard the UK’s relationship with the EU as fundamental to addressing those problems.
A manifesto would therefore need to explain how any European proposal fits within a wider economic and social programme.
What Would a Referendum Campaign Involve?
If a future Labour government proposed a referendum, the process would require substantial preparation.
The government would need to define the question, establish the legal framework, explain the available options and provide credible information about the consequences of each choice. Depending on the proposal, negotiations with European institutions could also be necessary before voters could make an informed decision.
The wording of the question would be particularly important. Voters would need to understand whether they were choosing between existing arrangements and a negotiated alternative, or deciding whether Britain should seek to rejoin the EU.
A referendum held before the terms of a proposed agreement were sufficiently clear could leave voters uncertain about what a particular result would mean in practice.
The campaign would also need to address the lessons of 2016. Political debate during that referendum was marked by competing claims about economic forecasts, sovereignty, immigration and public spending. A future vote would benefit from transparent evidence, clear definitions and realistic explanations of uncertainty.
Democratic legitimacy depends not only on holding a vote but also on ensuring that voters understand the decision being put before them.
Britain’s Relationship with Europe Is Still Evolving
The UK’s departure from the European Union did not end its need to cooperate with European countries. Trade, defence, intelligence, scientific research, energy security and environmental policy all involve questions that cross national borders.
Britain and the EU can negotiate agreements in particular areas without necessarily reopening membership. The challenge is deciding how much cooperation is desirable, what commitments are required and how those arrangements affect domestic decision-making.
For some politicians, closer ties offer a way to address practical problems associated with Brexit while respecting the referendum result. For others, only a more fundamental reconsideration can resolve the difficulties they believe departure has created.
These different positions reflect a genuine policy debate rather than a single question with an obvious answer.
Burnham’s reported suggestion that a referendum could be possible in a Labour election manifesto therefore raises several issues that would need to be clarified before its significance could be assessed. The key questions are what the referendum would cover, whether Labour’s leadership supports the idea, and how any proposal would be reconciled with the party’s wider policies.
Conclusion
The prospect of a Brexit-related referendum appearing in a future Labour manifesto would reopen one of Britain’s most consequential political debates.
For supporters of closer European ties, it could represent an opportunity to reconsider the economic and diplomatic relationship between the UK and its neighbours. For opponents, it could raise concerns about democratic accountability and the possibility of revisiting a decision they believe should remain settled.
Neither the suggestion of a referendum nor dissatisfaction with Brexit establishes that Britain will rejoin the EU. Any such change would require a defined political proposal, public support and a process capable of producing a clear and workable outcome.
The debate also highlights the distinction between discussing closer cooperation and proposing full EU membership. Those choices involve different economic consequences, legal obligations and political commitments.
Ultimately, the significance of Burnham’s reported comments will depend on the details and whether they become part of Labour’s official policy. Until those details are clear, the possibility of a referendum should be understood as a subject of political debate rather than a confirmed commitment.
For Britain, the wider challenge remains finding a sustainable relationship with Europe that reflects democratic preferences while addressing the practical needs of businesses, workers and communities across the country.