Labour’s election manifesto insisted the UK would honour the referendum’s results and stay out of the bloc.

But now, Mr Burnham has said an “honest discussion” over re-establishing the migration system.

The leader of Reform UK hit back after the Prime Minister told The Times the nature of immigration had been “different” since Brexit.

Writing on social media, Mr Farage said: “This is a total betrayal of Brexit Britain and his Makerfield pitch.

“He is also deluded to say immigration was different when we were members of the EU.

“We will fight this dishonesty.”

Mr Burnham admitted freedom of movement had “very significant challenges associated with it”, but claimed migration has now changed without the practice.

He told the newspaper: “Revolving door migration, where people would come and then go back, is different.

“The balance of migration has changed, hasn’t it, since then?

“I think we’ve just got to have an honest discussion about those things.”

Mr Burnham explained that his late father, Roy, took advantage of EU rules in the 1990s to work in Germany.

The Prime Minister said he left the UK to install the country’s mobile phone infrastructure.

He added: “And I think people have forgotten that, because in the 2000s onwards it [leaving the UK for work] was less of an issue, but it was an issue when in the Eighties and Nineties people did have to travel to find work.

“So I think we just need a rounded discussion about that. Freedom of movement has negatives associated with it.”

After Brexit, net migration into the UK spiked, largely because of the so-called Boriswave, which expanded visa routes, particularly for workers in the health and social care sector.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants entered the country through the points-based system.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has sought to crack down on migration by extending the minimum period of time required to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) from five years to 15.

But she risks sparking a Labour civil war and may yet water down her migration reforms.

Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh declined seven times in a Sky interview to say whether she agreed with extending the period for ILR, later saying it was “awkward” because she had promised to “never lie” when entering politics.

She later backed down on social media, saying: “I fully support our Home Secretary and the Government’s position on migration reform”.

Mr Burnham is also currently considering different “options” to bring the UK closer to the EU, including joining the single market, customs union, maintaining the current status quo, or rejoining the bloc entirely.

The long-delayed EU-UK summit is set to take place on November 20 in Brussels, with discussions to be held on “the defence and security partnership, energy, agrifood rules, climate, people-to-people contacts, and migration and law enforcement”, according to the bloc.

Nigel Farage Accuses Andy Burnham of ‘Brexit Betrayal’ Over Plot to Reimpose Free Movement With EU

Nigel Farage has launched a fresh attack on Andy Burnham over suggestions that Britain could reconsider its relationship with the European Union, accusing the Labour politician of risking a betrayal of the promises made during the Brexit referendum. The dispute has reignited one of the most divisive questions in British politics: whether the country should maintain its current immigration arrangements or move towards closer integration with Europe.

The controversy centres on the possibility of restoring some form of freedom of movement between the United Kingdom and the EU. Such an arrangement could make it easier for British and European citizens to live and work across borders, but it would also reopen difficult arguments about immigration control, national sovereignty and the economic consequences of Brexit.

For Farage and his supporters, the prospect represents a direct challenge to the result of the 2016 referendum. They argue that voters supported leaving the EU partly because they wanted Britain to regain control over immigration and establish its own rules governing who could enter the country.

Those advocating closer relations with Europe take a different view. They argue that the current arrangements have created obstacles for businesses, workers and economic cooperation, and that a more flexible relationship could provide practical benefits.

The dispute places Burnham under political scrutiny while offering Farage another opportunity to highlight the differences between Reform UK’s position and the approaches taken by Labour and the Conservatives.

Nigel Farage Reopens the Brexit Battle

Brexit remains central to Farage’s political identity. For years, he campaigned for Britain’s departure from the European Union, arguing that the country should have greater control over its laws, borders and economic decisions.

The 2016 referendum resulted in 51.9 per cent of voters choosing Leave, compared with 48.1 per cent voting Remain. The United Kingdom subsequently left the EU, formally departing in January 2020 before completing its transition period at the end of that year.

For many Leave supporters, the referendum represented a democratic decision that governments should respect. They believe that restoring freedom of movement would undermine one of the principal arguments used to justify withdrawal.

Farage has consistently presented immigration control as an important part of the Brexit settlement. From his perspective, allowing a return to broad rights for EU citizens to live and work in Britain would raise questions about whether the country had achieved the changes promised during the referendum campaign.

His criticism of Burnham therefore goes beyond a disagreement over one policy. It touches on a broader argument about the meaning of Brexit and the extent to which future governments should be willing to reconsider its consequences.

However, any proposal for closer European cooperation would need to be examined on its actual terms. Restoring freedom of movement would be a significant policy change, but other forms of cooperation with the EU would not necessarily require the same arrangements.

What Is Freedom of Movement?

Freedom of movement is a central feature of the European Union’s single market. It gives EU citizens broad rights to move to another member state to live, work and study, subject to the relevant rules.

Before Brexit, British citizens benefited from these rights across the EU, while citizens of other EU member states could move to the UK under the same general framework.

Following Britain’s departure, the system changed. European citizens arriving in the UK generally became subject to Britain’s immigration rules, with specific arrangements applying to people protected by the Withdrawal Agreement and other relevant provisions.

A return to freedom of movement would therefore require substantial negotiations and decisions about immigration policy, employment rights and the wider relationship between Britain and the EU.

Supporters of restoring these arrangements argue that they could improve opportunities for British citizens abroad and help businesses recruit workers. They also suggest that closer economic integration could make cross-border trade and professional cooperation easier.

Opponents argue that the change would reduce Britain’s ability to determine immigration policy independently. They also question whether the economic benefits would justify reopening an issue that has divided the electorate for years.

The practical consequences would depend on the precise agreement negotiated, including any safeguards, transitional arrangements or limits that might be included.

Why Andy Burnham’s Position Matters

Andy Burnham has become an important figure in discussions about Labour’s future direction and Britain’s relationship with Europe. Suggestions that he would support a closer relationship with the EU have attracted attention because of the potential implications for Labour’s Brexit commitments.

Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto ruled out returning to the single market, the customs union and freedom of movement. The party instead committed itself to pursuing closer practical cooperation with the European Union while maintaining the UK’s existing position outside those structures.

Any proposal to reconsider freedom of movement would therefore raise questions about whether Labour should retain its previous commitments or develop a different approach in a future manifesto.

The distinction between discussing a possible policy and formally adopting it is important. Political figures can explore alternatives without necessarily committing their party to implementing them.

Nevertheless, voters may reasonably expect politicians to explain how new proposals relate to previous promises. If a party changes its position, it must explain why it believes the change is necessary and what benefits it expects to deliver.

For Burnham, the challenge would be to demonstrate how closer relations with Europe could serve Britain’s economic interests while addressing concerns about immigration control and democratic accountability.

Immigration Returns to the Centre of the Debate

Immigration has remained one of the most politically sensitive issues in Britain since the Brexit referendum.

Supporters of stricter controls argue that governments should determine migration levels according to national priorities, including housing availability, public-service capacity and labour-market needs. They believe that public confidence depends partly on the ability to enforce immigration rules consistently.

Others argue that migration can support economic growth, fill vacancies and contribute skills that are difficult to recruit domestically. Businesses in several sectors have historically relied on workers from overseas, making immigration arrangements an important consideration for employers.

These competing arguments help explain why freedom of movement remains controversial.

A change to the UK’s arrangements with the EU could affect recruitment patterns, employment opportunities and the number of people eligible to move between countries. However, the effects would depend on the specific terms of any agreement and wider economic conditions.

It would be misleading to assume that every additional migrant would create the same economic or public-service impact. Likewise, it would be inaccurate to suggest that changing immigration rules would have no consequences for local communities.

A serious policy debate must examine the evidence, distinguish between different categories of migration and consider the responsibilities of government towards both residents and newcomers.

Reform UK Seeks to Challenge Labour and the Conservatives

Farage’s criticism also reflects Reform UK’s broader attempt to distinguish itself from the established political parties.

The party has built its political message around tighter immigration controls, reducing what it considers unnecessary government spending and challenging policies associated with the political establishment.

Brexit remains a useful point of distinction because it allows Reform to argue that the Conservative and Labour parties have not fully addressed the concerns of voters who supported leaving the EU.

By opposing the possibility of restoring freedom of movement, Farage can appeal to people who regard immigration control as an essential part of national sovereignty.

However, Reform’s position also invites scrutiny of its own proposals. The party must explain how it would manage immigration, meet employers’ needs and address the economic consequences of its preferred policies.

The Conservatives face a related challenge. They must demonstrate how their approach to Brexit and immigration differs from both Labour and Reform while addressing concerns about economic performance and public services.

Labour, meanwhile, must balance the potential advantages of closer European cooperation against the political significance of its previous commitments.

These competing approaches ensure that the Brexit debate is likely to remain an important feature of British politics.

Could Britain Benefit From Closer Relations With Europe?

The economic arguments surrounding Britain’s relationship with the EU extend well beyond immigration.

European markets are important to British exporters, manufacturers and service providers. Since Brexit, businesses have had to navigate new customs procedures and regulatory arrangements when trading with the EU.

Supporters of closer relations argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could improve trade, investment and economic cooperation. They believe that practical agreements could help businesses operate more efficiently without requiring Britain to reverse every aspect of its departure.

Critics counter that deeper integration could require Britain to accept rules or obligations that limit the independence it sought through Brexit. They also argue that any agreement must deliver clear economic benefits rather than simply prioritising closer political relationships.

Freedom of movement is only one element of this wider debate. Changes to trade arrangements, professional qualifications, scientific cooperation and security partnerships could be considered separately, depending on the negotiating objectives of both sides.

The government would need to assess the costs and benefits of each proposal and explain how any agreement would affect businesses, workers and households.

Ultimately, closer relations with Europe should be judged on their practical consequences rather than political symbolism alone.

Would Voters Accept Another Brexit Debate?

Any attempt to restore freedom of movement would likely generate intense political discussion. Brexit continues to carry considerable emotional significance for people who regard the referendum as a defining democratic decision.

Some voters may welcome the opportunity to reconsider the UK’s relationship with Europe, particularly if they believe that Brexit has created economic disadvantages. Others may view renewed discussion as an attempt to reverse a decision that should remain settled.

Public opinion is not necessarily divided into two permanent groups, however. Some people who supported Leave may favour specific forms of cooperation with Europe, while some Remain supporters may oppose particular arrangements involving immigration or regulation.

The question is therefore more complicated than simply asking whether Britain should be inside or outside the EU.

If a future government proposed a significant change, it would need to explain the details clearly, identify the likely consequences and establish how democratic consent would be obtained.

Farage’s criticism highlights the political risks of reopening the debate, but the ultimate response would depend on the substance of any proposal and the arguments presented to the electorate.

Conclusion: Brexit’s Future Remains a Political Battleground

Nigel Farage’s accusation that Andy Burnham could betray Brexit has placed freedom of movement back at the centre of Britain’s political debate.

For Farage and many Brexit supporters, restoring broad movement rights between Britain and the EU would undermine the objective of regaining control over immigration. Those advocating closer European relations argue that cooperation could create economic opportunities and reduce barriers facing businesses and workers.

The disagreement reflects a wider question about how Britain should balance national sovereignty with the practical benefits of international cooperation.

Any proposal to restore freedom of movement would require careful consideration of immigration policy, economic effects and democratic accountability. It would also raise questions about Labour’s previous manifesto commitments and the extent to which future governments should reconsider decisions made by their predecessors.

For now, political accusations should be distinguished from confirmed policy changes. Discussion of closer relations with Europe does not, by itself, establish that freedom of movement will return.

Nevertheless, the controversy demonstrates that Brexit remains an unresolved political argument in the eyes of many voters. The challenge for Britain’s political leaders is to explain their positions clearly, acknowledge the competing concerns and demonstrate how their proposals would serve the country’s long-term interests.