Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham provoked Brexiteer fury as he ramped up efforts to drag Britain closer to the EU. The Prime Minister said it would be a “dereliction of duty” not to get a better deal with Brussels, claiming it would boost economic growth and tackle illegal immigration.
Mr Burnham declared he will use an EU summit next month as a launchpad for restoring ties. But his latest salvo in the war on Brexit triggered widespread fury. Nigel Farage said the PM’s actions are an insult to the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum.
Nigel Farage (Image: Getty)
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.
Writing exclusively in the Daily Express – which successfully campaigned for Britain to leave the EU – he said: “The British people didn’t fight to break free from the EU just to crawl back on our hands and knees.
“We’ve won this argument before. We will do so again.”
Mr Burnham said he will meet European commission chief Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels on November 20.
He confirmed the two sides are looking at a deal to ease the movement of food and drink across borders – as well as a controversial youth “free movement” scheme.
Hinting he wants to go even further, Mr Burnham told MPs there was an “opportunity” to improve ties because the “status quo is not good enough” for Britain.
But he also stressed that he wanted the meeting to be the start of a “serious dialogue” about the future relationship.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused Mr Burnham of “unpicking” the existing UK-EU agreement, and told MPs: “He is not going to get a better deal.”
Mr Burnham’s statement came a fortnight after he used his first conference speech as Labour leader to open the door to Britain rejoining the EU.
He also failed to rule out a future Labour election manifesto including a promise to rejoin the bloc.
Last month, Burnham told the BBC it was “possible” a future Labour election manifesto could promise a new in-out referendum on the EU.
In response to a question from Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough and Father of the House, the Prime Minister suggested a second referendum would be needed to do so.
Ursula von der Leyen and Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)
Mr Burnham suggested he will not seek to rejoin the EU without another referendum.
He added: “I am not reopening the referendum. I respect the referendum result, as I have just said a moment ago,” he said.
“But what I will do is take a pragmatic approach when I can boost growth in the British economy, when I can increase cooperation to get a grip on the boat crossings across the Channel, I will do those things where I believe they can be in the country’s best interests.”
He said deals on the table could provide a £10 billion-a-year boost to the UK economy.
In her response, Mrs Badenoch mocked the Prime Minister for “blurting out everything he wants” from the EU in his address to the Commons, warning that is “not how you conduct negotiations”.
“His exact words earlier this year were, ‘the last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments’,” she added.
“And yet here he is unpicking the deal this country signed with the EU a decade after the referendum. He is not going to get a better deal.”
She added: “It’s not just that the EU are tough negotiators. He has already revealed his entire negotiating hand. He has just blurted out everything he wants in this statement, and I will tell you, tell him now, Mr Speaker, as a former trade secretary, this is not how you conduct negotiations.”
Former Tory Cabinet Secretary John Redwood told the Express: “Mr Burnham does so want to live in the past. If he is not campaigning against Margaret Thatcher for daring to win elections in the 1980s and transforming the economy, he is campaigning to reopen the conclusive Brexit vote of 2016.This is bad politics, bad for democracy and bad for our current economic prospects.”
Mr Burnham also insisted that he never claimed Russia swung the result of the EU referendum.
The Prime Minister made the comments after the Tory leader said he had “implied that the referendum result was illegitimate because of Russian interference” in his interview with the Rest is Politics podcast over the weekend.
Mr Burnham replied: “Can I just address the point that she said? I implied no such thing in my comments on the Rest is Politics podcast. I think she should go back and look again.”
In his interview with the podcast, Mr Burnham claimed that Moscow had interfered with the Brexit referendum in 2016.
He said: “I asked the question coming to Downing Street, well was there interference in the 2016 referendum from Russia? I’ve had the clear answer that, yes, there was.
“These things are important now to put clearly on the record and I believe help voters in Germany and France understand that some of this politics is instigated via our enemies, namely, Russia.”
A Conservative spokesman said: “There can be no doubt that his words to the Rest Is Politics were intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the referendum result.
“By not answering Kemi Badenoch’s question, Andy Burnham has all but conceded this was a deliberate ploy intended to sow more division, reopen the battles of the past, and bolster his own case for rejoining the EU.
“The Prime Minister should come out and clarify his words immediately.”
Andy Burnham Provokes Brexiteer Fury as He Ramps Up Efforts to Drag Britain Closer to the EU
Andy Burnham has reignited Britain’s Brexit debate after renewing calls for a closer relationship with the European Union, prompting criticism from those who believe the country should concentrate on making its post-Brexit settlement work rather than reopening old political divisions.
The debate comes at a sensitive moment for British politics. Questions about economic growth, immigration, public spending and the cost of living continue to dominate public discussion, while politicians remain divided over whether Brexit has strengthened Britain’s independence or created unnecessary obstacles to prosperity.
For Burnham and other supporters of closer European ties, the argument is that Britain should be prepared to reconsider its approach when economic circumstances change. They believe a more constructive relationship with Brussels could reduce trade barriers, improve cooperation and create opportunities for British businesses.
For many Brexiteers, however, the prospect of moving closer to the EU raises concerns about democratic accountability, national sovereignty and whether politicians are attempting to reverse the outcome of the 2016 referendum without a sufficiently clear mandate.
The controversy illustrates a fundamental question facing Britain: how can the country improve its relationship with its European neighbours without reopening the bitter divisions that surrounded its departure?
Burnham’s European Ambitions Face Renewed Scrutiny
Andy Burnham has become an important figure in discussions about Labour’s future direction and Britain’s relationship with Europe. His position has attracted attention because any prominent Labour politician advocating closer EU ties must confront the political consequences of revisiting an issue that continues to divide voters.
The 2016 referendum resulted in 51.9 per cent of voters choosing to leave the European Union, compared with 48.1 per cent who voted to remain. Britain subsequently left the EU in January 2020, with the transition period ending in December that year.
For supporters of Brexit, the result represented a decision to restore greater national control over laws, borders and trade policy. They argue that the referendum should be treated as a serious democratic commitment rather than an obstacle to be overcome whenever a different political leadership takes office.
Consequently, any proposal to bring Britain closer to Brussels faces questions about what precisely is being proposed. There is a substantial difference between negotiating agreements to make trade easier and pursuing a return to EU membership.
Closer cooperation could involve arrangements covering research, energy, security, professional qualifications or particular trading sectors. Rejoining the single market would raise more extensive questions about regulatory alignment and the movement of people. Full EU membership would involve a still broader set of legal, economic and political commitments.
Burnham’s critics argue that the public deserves clarity about where any proposed reset would lead. Without that clarity, they fear that limited technical changes could gradually become a route towards a much more fundamental shift in Britain’s constitutional position.
Supporters of closer ties counter that cooperation does not automatically mean rejoining the EU. They argue that the country can pursue mutually beneficial agreements while maintaining its status outside the bloc.
That distinction is essential to understanding the dispute. The political argument becomes far more intense when proposals for practical cooperation are interpreted as evidence of a plan to reverse Brexit altogether.
Why Brexiteers Are Angry
The anger among some Brexit supporters is rooted in the belief that the referendum settled the central question of EU membership. They contend that politicians should respect the result and concentrate on improving Britain’s economic performance within the arrangements already established.
For this group, reopening the debate risks sending a message that the outcome will never be accepted by those who opposed it. They fear that years of political argument could return, leaving businesses and households uncertain about the country’s long-term direction.
Sovereignty remains a particularly important issue. Brexiteers argue that leaving the EU gave Britain greater freedom to establish its own rules, negotiate trade agreements and determine its immigration policies. They believe these powers should be used effectively rather than gradually surrendered through new agreements with European institutions.
However, the practical value of those freedoms remains contested. Having the legal authority to make different rules does not necessarily mean every divergence is economically beneficial. British exporters may still need to comply with EU requirements when selling goods into the European market, while companies can face additional costs if regulatory systems differ.
This creates a difficult balance for policymakers. Greater regulatory independence can provide flexibility, but closer alignment may reduce friction for businesses trading with Europe. The best approach depends on the sector, the terms of the agreement and the wider economic consequences.
Brexiteers also question whether a renewed European debate would distract politicians from issues that matter more immediately to voters. Housing affordability, healthcare, taxation, public transport and immigration remain major areas of concern.
Their argument is that any government seeking to change Britain’s relationship with Europe should demonstrate that the proposed changes would deliver tangible improvements rather than simply satisfy a political preference.
The Economic Case for Moving Closer to Brussels
Those advocating closer ties with the EU argue that Britain’s departure introduced new barriers into a trading relationship that had previously operated under shared membership rules.
Businesses exporting goods to the EU must navigate customs and regulatory arrangements that did not apply in the same way before Brexit. The impact varies between industries, but additional documentation, compliance requirements and border procedures can increase costs, particularly for smaller firms.