Andy Burnham with Von Der Leyen (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has today been handed a blueprint to deliver the ultimate Brexit betrayal to the British people.
The Prime Minister has already admitted that he will push for new post-Brexit deals with the EU at a summit next month, in a move Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch warned risks ‘unpicking’ the historic deal.
But in a shocking report published on Monday, influencial left-wing think tank IPPR said the changes in global politics of the past decade mean the UK should now make becoming an EU state its “medium-term” goal.
Harry Quilter-Pinner, IPPR’s executive director, said: “The world Britain built its post-Brexit strategy for no longer exists.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
“We are entering an age in which economic strength, security and political influence increasingly depend on scale, and Britain cannot manufacture that scale on its own.”
The report argued that Britain lacks the “scale” to deal with “Russian aggression, American unreliability and Chinese coercion” on its own, restricting the UK’s sovereignty and its ability to act.
The Government has so far been reluctant to choose between the US and Europe, insisting it can maintain strong partnerships with both.
But the IPPR report argued that such “hedging” was “a strategy for survival rather than success”.
IPPR associate director Laura Chappell said: “Whether it’s protecting households from swings in the cost of living, restarting industry, or keeping us secure, we lack the weight to act alone.
“In today’s world, we can’t take back control while being an outsider in Europe.”
But the think tank conceded that the Government would need to take time to build a case for membership, suggesting working with the EU on defence, manufacturing and democratic resilience as steps on the way to full membership.
Mr Quilter-Pinner said: “There is one option which is best for the UK’s relationship with Europe – membership of the EU.
“That does not mean announcing another referendum tomorrow. But this means starting work to move towards this destination, building political support at home and in Europe.”
Part of moving towards membership could include seeking inclusion in the EU’s “Made in Europe” scheme, which prioritises European firms for public contracts and subsidies.
So far, discussion has focused on including the UK’s car industry in the scheme, which the Government has said would be welcome, but is also likely to require alignment with EU tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, potentially putting net zero targets at risk.
But IPPR said a “more comprehensive – and less transactional – approach” was needed.
With the Brexit referendum now a decade in the past, IPPR said there was now a public appetite for EU membership.
Polling carried out for the think tank by Persuasion UK in June found 52% of people supported rejoining, while only 29% opposed.
Even among those Labour voters considering switching to Reform UK, some 54% supported joining the EU.
The think tank said old arguments about freedom of movement had lost “salience”, while claims of “betraying” the 2016 referendum also mattered less.
But it noted that concerns about contributions to the EU’s budget and replacing the pound with the euro could cause significant damage to support for membership.
A Government spokesman said: “The threadbare Brexit deal inherited by this government has weakened our ability to control illegal immigration, slowed growth and left businesses tangled in red tape.
“We are working on practical deals that pay off for British farmers and families and will support growth in every UK postcode, cutting back on paperwork and easing pressure on prices.”
Meanwhile, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is to meet EU commissioner Magnus Brunner in London on Monday for talks on migration.
Ahead of the talks, Mr Brunner said the UK’s contribution to tackling illegal migration was “indispensable”.
Pointing to a significant drop in illegal migration, including across the Channel, he said: “Anyone looking at the EU’s migration record today will find a different picture from the one many remember. We have put our European house in order.”
The think tank said old arguments about freedom of movement had lost “salience”, while claims of “betraying” the 2016 referendum also mattered less.
But it noted that concerns about contributions to the EU’s budget and replacing the pound with the euro could cause significant damage to support for membership.
A Government spokesman said: “The threadbare Brexit deal inherited by this government has weakened our ability to control illegal immigration, slowed growth and left businesses tangled in red tape.
“We are working on practical deals that pay off for British farmers and families and will support growth in every UK postcode, cutting back on paperwork and easing pressure on prices.”
Meanwhile, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is to meet EU commissioner Magnus Brunner in London on Monday for talks on migration.
Ahead of the talks, Mr Brunner said the UK’s contribution to tackling illegal migration was “indispensable”.
Pointing to a significant drop in illegal migration, including across the Channel, he said: “Anyone looking at the EU’s migration record today will find a different picture from the one many remember. We have put our European house in order.”
Andy Burnham Handed Brexit Betrayal Blueprint to Rejoin EU With Second Referendum
Andy Burnham has reignited one of Britain’s most divisive political arguments by opening the door to a future return to the European Union, prompting fierce debate over whether the country is being led towards another Brexit referendum. For critics of closer European integration, the prospect represents a betrayal of the 2016 decision to leave. For supporters, it is an opportunity to reconsider a settlement they believe has failed to deliver the economic and political benefits promised during the Brexit campaign.
The controversy has intensified as Burnham signals that Britain should examine every available option for its long-term relationship with Brussels. Rather than ruling out a return to membership, he has argued that the country must take a clear-eyed look at the consequences of Brexit and decide what arrangement would best serve its national interests.
The question now facing British politics is whether this review will remain an exercise in improving cooperation with Europe or become the first step towards a more dramatic reversal of the referendum result.
A Blueprint for Reopening the Brexit Debate
Burnham’s recent statements have placed the future of Brexit firmly back on the political agenda. He has argued that the existing relationship between Britain and the European Union is not good enough and that the government should consider a wider range of options than the limited agreements negotiated since the UK formally left the bloc in 2020.
The possibilities include closer cooperation through a customs union, participation in the European single market or, ultimately, an attempt to rejoin the EU entirely. These options would have very different implications for trade, immigration, regulation and national decision-making.
In his public remarks, Burnham has made clear that he does not regard full membership as a question that must be permanently excluded from discussion. At the same time, he has not announced an immediate referendum or committed the government to a formal application to rejoin.
That distinction matters. Examining an option is not the same as adopting it as government policy. Nevertheless, the decision to place EU membership among the possibilities has alarmed Brexit supporters, who fear that a process initially presented as a practical reset could gradually develop into a campaign to reverse the referendum.
For them, the danger is that the public will be presented with a series of incremental changes before being asked to accept a fundamental transformation of Britain’s relationship with Europe.
Could a Second Referendum Become the End Goal?
The possibility of another referendum is at the centre of the growing controversy. A new public vote could provide democratic legitimacy for a decision to rejoin the EU, but it would also reopen political divisions that have shaped British politics for more than a decade.
The 2016 referendum produced a clear majority for leaving the European Union, although the result was relatively close. The subsequent negotiations, political disputes and eventual departure transformed the country’s relationship with its European neighbours.
Supporters of a second referendum argue that voters should have the opportunity to assess the consequences of Brexit with the benefit of experience. They point to changes in public opinion and argue that a future election or referendum could establish whether the country wants to pursue a different direction.
Opponents respond that the original decision should be respected rather than repeatedly challenged whenever a government changes. They warn that another referendum could produce further instability, deepen regional and generational divisions and leave businesses uncertain about the country’s long-term economic arrangements.
Burnham has indicated that a referendum would not be the immediate next step. The government’s current priority is to pursue practical agreements with Brussels and assess the available options. He has also suggested that decisions about the longer-term relationship could become part of a future political mandate.
This leaves an important question unanswered: would voters eventually be asked to approve a specific, negotiated plan for rejoining, or would a general election become the principal mechanism for deciding the country’s European future?
The answer could determine whether the debate is regarded as a legitimate democratic reconsideration or an attempt to sidestep the political significance of the original referendum.
Polls Suggest the Public Mood Is Changing
The political calculations surrounding Brexit have become more complicated as polling suggests that public opinion has shifted since 2016.
A Guardian report published in October 2026 examined a survey by the Messina Group that found 52.4 per cent of respondents believed Britain had been wrong to leave the EU, while 29.7 per cent believed the decision had been right. The survey also found that support for a more ambitious European policy could potentially improve Labour’s electoral prospects.
However, these findings do not establish that a majority would necessarily vote to rejoin under every set of circumstances. Views about Brexit in principle can differ from opinions about the practical terms of membership, including immigration rules, contributions to the EU budget and the authority of European institutions.
The distinction could prove crucial for Burnham. A voter might believe Brexit has damaged the economy while remaining unwilling to accept every condition attached to EU membership. Another might support closer trade cooperation but reject a return to freedom of movement.
Political opponents will seek to exploit these differences, arguing that a government cannot assume public frustration with Brexit automatically translates into support for rejoining.
Burnham’s challenge will therefore be to explain precisely what a new relationship would mean, what Britain would gain and what it would have to accept in return.
Nigel Farage and the Reform UK Backlash
Few political figures have a stronger incentive to oppose a renewed debate about EU membership than Nigel Farage.
Reform UK has built much of its political identity around opposition to European integration, immigration and what it describes as the failure of established parties to listen to voters. Any attempt to revisit Brexit would give Farage an opportunity to present himself as the defender of the 2016 result.
He could argue that Labour is attempting to reopen a question that the public has already settled, diverting attention from the cost of living, public services, housing and immigration.
The strategy could be especially effective among voters who supported leaving the EU because they wanted greater national control over borders and legislation. Even if those voters are dissatisfied with the economic consequences of Brexit, they may remain deeply sceptical of a return to the institutions Britain left.
For Labour, the political risk is considerable. A pro-European strategy could appeal to voters who believe the country should rebuild its relationship with the continent, but it could also alienate constituencies where Brexit remains an important part of political identity.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and other Brexit supporters are also likely to challenge any move towards rejoining. They can argue that the government should focus on making Britain successful outside the EU rather than devoting political energy to reversing a historic decision.
The result could be a renewed contest in which Labour, Reform UK and the Conservatives compete to define what Brexit means for Britain’s future.
The Economic Argument for Closer European Ties
Burnham’s supporters argue that the economic consequences of Brexit justify a serious examination of the alternatives.
British businesses continue to face additional administrative requirements when trading with the EU, while differences in regulation can create costs for exporters. Sectors that depend on cross-border supply chains have an interest in reducing unnecessary friction, and companies operating in both Britain and Europe often favour predictable rules.
Closer alignment could help some businesses by simplifying trade and improving access to European markets. Cooperation on energy, scientific research, security and environmental policy could also provide benefits.
Yet rejoining would not automatically resolve every economic problem. Productivity, investment, skills shortages, infrastructure and domestic regulation would remain important factors in Britain’s performance.
There would also be significant negotiations. The UK could not simply restore its former membership arrangements by announcing a change of policy. It would need to apply for membership and secure the agreement of the EU’s member states, with the terms of any return subject to negotiations.
Britain would also need to consider the financial contributions, regulatory obligations and political commitments associated with membership. The precise conditions would depend on negotiations and could not be guaranteed in advance.
Consequently, any blueprint for rejoining would need to demonstrate not only that membership could bring economic benefits, but also that those benefits would outweigh the costs and constraints.
Immigration and Sovereignty Remain Major Obstacles
Immigration is likely to be one of the most difficult issues in any future debate.
Many Leave voters supported Brexit because they wanted greater control over immigration policy. Returning to the EU could raise questions about freedom of movement, border management and the relationship between domestic legislation and European rules.
Burnham has argued for a more pragmatic approach to European cooperation, including better arrangements for tackling irregular migration and improving access to law-enforcement information. These practical issues, however, are not identical to the question of restoring full membership.
Britain could negotiate closer cooperation in certain areas without rejoining the EU. It could also pursue specific agreements on security, migration and data sharing while retaining its current constitutional position.
A decision to rejoin would involve a much wider set of obligations and negotiations.
Sovereignty presents a related challenge. Supporters of EU membership argue that Britain would regain a voice in European decision-making rather than having to respond to rules developed by a bloc of which it was no longer a member. Critics counter that membership would require the UK to accept shared rules and limitations on unilateral action.
Both arguments would need to be examined honestly. A credible public debate would have to explain the trade-offs rather than presenting rejoining as either an effortless economic rescue or an automatic surrender of national independence.
Brussels Would Have Its Own Conditions
Even if a future British government decided to pursue EU membership, the process would not be entirely under its control.
The European Union would have to assess an application and agree on the conditions for admission. All existing member states would have a role in the process, and negotiations could prove politically and technically complicated.
European leaders may welcome closer cooperation with Britain because of its economic weight, military capabilities and strategic importance. Nevertheless, they would also want assurances that a returning member was committed to the European project for the long term.
The experience of Brexit would inevitably influence those discussions. EU governments would have reason to seek an arrangement that reduced the risk of another withdrawal after a change of government or a future referendum.
The UK would therefore have to persuade not only its own electorate but also European partners that a return to membership would be stable and mutually beneficial.
That makes any suggestion that Britain could quickly restore its former position unrealistic. Even a clear political mandate would mark the beginning of a process, not its conclusion.
A Defining Test for Burnham’s Leadership
The dispute over Brexit could become one of the defining tests of Burnham’s political leadership.
If he pursues closer European relations cautiously, he may reassure businesses and voters who want practical improvements without reopening every argument from 2016. If he moves towards an explicit promise to rejoin, he could energise pro-European supporters but expose Labour to an aggressive backlash from Reform UK and Brexit-supporting Conservatives.
Much will depend on the evidence produced by the government’s review, the terms available from Brussels and the public’s willingness to reconsider the issue.
Burnham must also decide how much detail to provide before the next general election. A vague promise to explore options may offer flexibility, but it could invite accusations that ministers are concealing their real intentions. A clear commitment to rejoin would provide greater transparency while creating a much sharper political dividing line.
The choice is not simply between Brexit and reversing Brexit. Britain could pursue several intermediate arrangements, each with different implications for trade, immigration, regulation and sovereignty.
Ultimately, the claim that Burnham has been handed a “Brexit betrayal blueprint” reflects the fears of those who believe the 2016 referendum must remain decisive. Whether the prime minister is genuinely preparing to reverse Brexit, however, will depend on the decisions he makes next rather than on the language used by his critics.
For now, the debate has returned to the centre of British politics. A second referendum remains a possible future scenario rather than an announced policy, but the prospect of rejoining the EU is no longer being treated as an option that can simply be dismissed.
The central question for voters is whether closer European integration would solve Britain’s current problems or create new ones. Before the country can answer that question, Burnham will have to explain what he wants Britain’s relationship with Europe to look like, what price it would involve and how the public would be given a genuine say in the final decision.