Andy Burnham has touted a return to the EU (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham said he wants an “honest discussion” about the possibility of a return to free movement between the UK and European Union as part of his plans for a new relationship with the bloc.
The Prime Minister wants to consider various options for a new relationship with Brussels, potentially including a return to full EU membership or joining the single market – which would require free movement. He told the Sunday Times: “I think you have to have a very factual, quite evidence-based debate about this.”
The Prime Minister has previously committed to the red lines in Labour’s 2024 election manifesto – which ruled out the return of free movement, single market membership or a customs union – suggesting any fundamental change in the relationship would have to wait until after a general election.
The issue of migration was one of the dominant factors during the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign. But he suggested the type of migration experienced during the years of EU membership was different from the challenges faced now.
“It was generally younger people, not always, but spending a few years, then going back,” he said. “And obviously the ease of that worked for British people as well.”
Mr Burnham will meet the European Union’s chiefs at a summit on November 20 in Brussels. He has said he will take the opportunity around the summit to lay out to the British public different options for the future relationship with the bloc.
The Prime Minister acknowledged freedom of movement “had very significant challenges associated with it and I spoke about them in my previous time in parliament”.
“But at the same time, it was a type of immigration that perhaps wasn’t as difficult (as now). 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.”
But Mr Burnham said he could not imagine recommending the UK joins the Schengen borderless area or ditches the pound to adopt the euro: “I can’t see myself ever recommending anything that would involve joining the euro or Schengen.”
Nigel Farage said the comments were a betrayal of voters who backed Brexit, including in Mr Burnham’s Makerfield constituency.
The Reform UK leader 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.”
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: “Andy Burnham knows full well that a return to EU free movement would mean handing back control of our borders and allowing uncontrolled migration from across Europe. The British people voted to end free movement, and there can be no return to it.”
Andy Burnham met European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, earlier this year (Image: Getty)
The Sunday Times conducted a series of interviews with Mr Burnham in the in the run-up to his 100th day in office on Tuesday.
“Three months in, I’ve got the measure of it now,” Mr Burnham said. “I know the tram lines. I’ve got to be radical, but disciplined. I’ve got to be connected on the ground, but sufficiently detached in a way. I’ve got to balance some opposites. I know a lot is riding on it. ”
Mr Burnham revealed he had “connected” with US president Donald Trump “more than I imagined”.
“Like me, he will happily divert onto sport for a good 20 minutes,” he said. “Golf, in his case.”
He said they had “many differences” but “there’s something about a more instinctive approach … The over-calculation of politics is what puts the public off”.
The Prime Minister also said he took strength from his Catholic faith. Asked if he prays or leant on the faith for guidance, he said “it’s looser” than that.
“I wouldn’t want to overemphasise it but it’s all still there inside, if I could put it that way. It can never not be there. I do take strength from it. My dad’s funeral was at the same church where I was an altar boy. You go back and you feel the pull of it all.”
Andy Burnham Wants ‘Honest Discussion’ Over EU Freedom of Movement Return as Brexit Debate Reopens
Andy Burnham has reopened one of Britain’s most divisive political debates after calling for an “honest discussion” about the possibility of restoring freedom of movement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. His comments have placed immigration, economic growth and Britain’s long-term relationship with Brussels back at the centre of the national conversation.
The Prime Minister’s remarks have attracted attention because freedom of movement was one of the most contentious issues during the 2016 Brexit referendum. For many people who voted to leave the European Union, ending the automatic right of EU citizens to live and work in Britain was a central reason for supporting Brexit. Others believe that leaving the bloc created unnecessary barriers for British businesses, workers and young people hoping to build careers across Europe.
Burnham has indicated that the country should examine the evidence rather than dismiss the possibility of closer European cooperation outright. However, he has also stressed that he will not introduce a return to freedom of movement without public consent. On October 26, he said he would not move ahead of the British public on Brexit and ruled out fundamental changes during the current parliamentary term.
The issue therefore remains a question about Britain’s future direction rather than an immediate change to immigration rules.
Why Burnham wants to reopen the debate
Burnham’s argument centres on the changing nature of migration to Britain. Before Brexit, citizens of EU member states could generally move to the UK to live, work or study without applying for a standard work visa. British citizens enjoyed corresponding rights across the European Union.
That arrangement made it easier for businesses to recruit workers from European countries and allowed British citizens to take up opportunities abroad. It also attracted criticism from people concerned about pressure on housing, public services, wages and local communities.
Burnham has acknowledged that freedom of movement created significant challenges. Nevertheless, he has suggested that some patterns of European migration were different from those seen in more recent years.
In his interview with the Sunday Times, he referred to people who came to Britain for a limited period before returning to their home countries. He argued that this type of temporary movement was different from migration involving people who arrived intending to settle permanently.
His comments suggest that he wants a broader assessment of how migration works, how the UK economy benefits from international workers and how the country can maintain effective immigration controls.
However, the distinction between temporary and permanent migration is not determined simply by whether someone arrives through freedom of movement. EU citizens exercised a right to live and work in Britain under the previous system, and their decisions about how long to remain varied considerably.
Any new arrangement would therefore need clear rules, reliable data and a realistic assessment of how people might respond to changes in the system.
Brexit remains a sensitive political issue
The political consequences of revisiting freedom of movement could be considerable. The 2016 referendum was not simply a vote on trade arrangements or Britain’s membership of European institutions. It also reflected wider concerns about national sovereignty, democratic accountability and immigration.
For many Leave voters, the result represented a promise that decisions about who could enter Britain to work and settle would be made under a national immigration system. Restoring freedom of movement could therefore be interpreted as a reversal of one of Brexit’s most important outcomes.
Nigel Farage and other Brexit supporters have criticised Burnham’s willingness to discuss the issue. Farage described the proposal as a betrayal of voters who supported leaving the European Union, while Conservative figures have also warned against reopening the debate.
Their concerns reflect the continuing importance of immigration in British politics. Voters who believe that Brexit should produce stronger national control over borders may be suspicious of any proposal that appears to restore the previous system.
At the same time, supporters of closer relations with Europe argue that the UK should be willing to reconsider arrangements that could improve economic cooperation. They point to the practical difficulties businesses can face when recruiting staff, exporting goods or establishing partnerships across national borders.
The challenge for Burnham is to explain what he believes closer cooperation could achieve without dismissing the concerns of people who supported Brexit.
Could closer ties help the British economy?
Economic growth is an important part of the argument for rebuilding relations with the EU. European markets remain significant for British exporters, manufacturers, farmers and service providers. Changes to trading arrangements, regulation and recruitment have affected different sectors in different ways since Brexit.
Businesses that rely on seasonal or specialist workers have raised concerns about recruitment difficulties. Some companies argue that access to a wider European labour market can help them fill vacancies and respond to changing demand.
Supporters of a closer relationship also believe that reducing certain trade barriers could improve productivity and make it easier for businesses to sell goods and services abroad. A more predictable relationship with the EU could potentially encourage investment by reducing uncertainty about future rules.
However, freedom of movement is not the only possible route to better economic cooperation. The UK could negotiate sector-specific agreements, improve recognition of professional qualifications, simplify certain trade procedures or expand opportunities for young people to study and work in Europe.
Each option would involve different benefits and obligations. A limited youth mobility arrangement, for example, would not be equivalent to restoring unrestricted freedom of movement for all EU citizens.
There are also potential disadvantages to consider. Employers may benefit from easier recruitment, but the effects on wages and employment opportunities can vary by industry, location and skill level. Any assessment should consider the experiences of workers already living in Britain, the needs of businesses and the capacity of public services.
The economic case for closer relations must therefore be supported by detailed evidence rather than broad claims that either Brexit or renewed European integration would automatically solve Britain’s problems.
What would a return to freedom of movement involve?
Freedom of movement is closely connected to the EU single market. Membership of the single market requires countries to accept a common framework of rules, including the free movement of people.
If Britain sought to join the single market on terms similar to those applying to participating European countries, freedom of movement would become a central issue in negotiations. The UK would need to consider the rights of EU citizens coming to Britain and the corresponding rights British citizens would receive in participating countries.
A return to full EU membership would involve a much wider set of questions, covering trade, regulation, institutional participation and the rights and responsibilities associated with membership.
Burnham has said he cannot imagine recommending that Britain adopt the euro or join the Schengen Area, which removes routine internal border controls among participating countries. These positions indicate that he is not proposing an immediate return to every aspect of European integration.
Nevertheless, the precise relationship he would seek remains a matter for further discussion. The EU would also have its own interests and conditions, meaning Britain could not simply choose whichever benefits it wanted without negotiating the corresponding obligations.
Burnham is expected to use the UK-EU summit in Brussels on November 20 to discuss future options for cooperation. The talks are likely to focus on practical areas where both sides believe closer working arrangements could deliver benefits.
Immigration control remains central to the argument
One of the most difficult questions is whether Britain could improve cooperation with the EU while maintaining the level of immigration control that many voters expect.
Burnham has argued that the UK needs a more functional relationship with European partners on migration. He has highlighted the loss of certain arrangements that previously helped authorities cooperate on returning people who did not have the right to remain in the country.
That argument distinguishes cooperation on immigration enforcement from freedom of movement itself. Better information sharing and more effective returns agreements would not necessarily require the UK to restore the previous rights of EU citizens to live and work in Britain.
The small-boats crisis across the English Channel has added another dimension to the debate. People arriving through irregular routes raise different legal and operational questions from EU citizens moving legally for work or study. Changes to freedom of movement would not, by themselves, resolve the challenges associated with asylum applications, smuggling networks or returns arrangements.
Any credible immigration strategy would need to address these issues separately while explaining how different policies fit together.
For the government, the political task is to demonstrate that closer cooperation with Europe would produce practical results without weakening public confidence in border management.
What happens next?
Burnham has made clear that he is not proposing an immediate return to freedom of movement and has ruled out making fundamental changes during the current parliamentary term. The Labour manifesto adopted for the 2024 election ruled out restoring freedom of movement, joining the single market and entering a customs union.
A significant departure from those commitments would therefore raise questions about democratic legitimacy and whether voters should be given a direct opportunity to decide the country’s future relationship with Europe.
The next general election, currently expected by 2029, could become an important moment for the debate if Labour chooses to present a substantially different policy. Until then, the government faces pressure to explain which practical agreements it wants to negotiate and what limits it intends to maintain.
For voters, the central questions are straightforward but consequential: would closer ties create jobs and improve trade, what obligations would Britain have to accept, and how would immigration rules change in practice?
Burnham’s call for an honest discussion does not settle those questions. Instead, it signals that the government is prepared to examine options that were politically difficult to discuss in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.
The debate will inevitably bring back disagreements that shaped the 2016 referendum. Yet the country’s economic circumstances, migration patterns and relationship with European partners have continued to evolve.
Whether Britain ultimately moves towards closer integration or maintains its current framework will depend on the evidence, the terms available from Brussels and the political mandate the government is prepared to seek. For now, freedom of movement has returned to the political agenda—but a discussion about its possible return is not the same as a decision to restore it.