If Andy Burnham thinks return of free moment will delight Red Wall he’s another thing coming (Image: Getty)
The PM is very much open to reintroducing freedom of movement between Britain and the entire EU. The man who reckons he’s stopping the boats – even though more illegals are coming in under Andy Burnham than Keir Starmer – now wants to flood your towns with EU migrants, mostly new arrivals from Asia and Africa.
Looking at the scenes in Paris, Brussels and Milan: is this honestly what you want? Especially those of you in the Red Wall who might be tempted to give Burnham the benefit of the doubt. It strikes me he takes those Brexit voting districts in the North and Midlands for granted. Burnham thinks these folks will lap up his small beer announcements. Sure, bus passes and nuisance rail passengers are issues. But not compared to lawless cities and open borders.
Now the PM wants to undo Brexit, the biggest democratic vote in British history, without so much as a consultation. Already households with foreign nationals took nearly £12billion in Universal Credit payments last year – the majority EU nationals.
Our public services, finances and culture are already overwhelmed. Now Burnham wants to make a bad situation ten times worse. This time around, by the way, it won’t be plucky Poles coming over. More likely it will be new arrivals to France and Germany.
Who needs a rubber dinghy when you could just land at Heathrow? This reality tv PM has proven himself hopelessly out of his depth in his first hundred days. Small beer policies aside, there is simply no money for all his gimmicks. The rich will just up sticks and go!
This is a continuity government from the earlier Tory regime, the same weak criminal justice system, the same open border, the same high taxes and the same broken promises.
The Red Wall voted to leave Brussels behind. Burnham cannot be allowed to ruin our country further with an irresponsible open-door policy with a sclerotic dying bloc like the EU.
Andy Burnham’s Latest Proposal Sparks Fury Over Britain’s Biggest Democratic Vote
Andy Burnham has reignited Britain’s bitter Brexit debate after suggesting that the country should openly examine the possibility of restoring freedom of movement with the European Union. Critics have accused the Prime Minister of threatening to undermine the result of the 2016 referendum, when millions of voters chose to leave the bloc after a fiercely contested national campaign.
The controversy has placed questions of democracy, immigration and national sovereignty back at the heart of British politics. For Brexit supporters, the referendum represented a clear instruction to end the UK’s membership of the EU and regain control over its borders and laws. They argue that any move towards restoring freedom of movement risks reversing a decision that fundamentally changed the country’s political direction.
Burnham, however, says Britain should assess what has happened during the years since Brexit and consider whether a different relationship with Europe could better serve the national interest. He has argued that the current arrangements have not delivered everything voters were promised and that the country needs an evidence-based discussion about its future.
The Prime Minister has also made an important qualification: he says he will not move ahead of the British public on Brexit and has ruled out fundamental changes during the current parliamentary term. According to ITV News, he explicitly rejected restoring freedom of movement without a referendum. <Cite refs={[“turn397432search0″,”turn397432search1”]}/>
The dispute is therefore not simply about whether Britain should rebuild ties with Europe. It is also about how a government should respond when political circumstances change after a major democratic decision.
Why the 2016 referendum still matters
The referendum held on June 23, 2016, remains one of the most consequential votes in modern British political history. Approximately 52 per cent of voters supported leaving the European Union, while around 48 per cent voted to remain.
The result followed years of disagreement over Britain’s relationship with European institutions. Supporters of leaving argued that the country should regain control over immigration, legislation and financial contributions to the EU. Remain supporters warned that departure could create economic uncertainty, complicate trade and weaken Britain’s influence in Europe.
Freedom of movement became one of the central issues during the campaign. Under the previous system, EU citizens generally had the right to live and work in other member states, including Britain, subject to the rules governing those rights. British citizens enjoyed corresponding opportunities across the bloc.
For many Leave voters, ending that arrangement was an important part of the referendum’s purpose. They expected the government to establish an immigration system under which Britain could decide more directly who was allowed to enter for work and settlement.
That is why Burnham’s recent remarks have attracted such strong criticism. Even though he has not announced an immediate policy change, discussing the possibility of restoring freedom of movement touches a central promise associated with Brexit.
Critics argue that a government should not reopen such a fundamental question without a clear mandate from voters. Supporters of a new European relationship counter that democratic accountability also requires governments to examine evidence and explain when existing policies may not be delivering the expected results.
The central disagreement is whether a fresh debate represents a legitimate reconsideration of policy or an attempt to reverse a decision that should remain settled.
Farage and Brexit supporters issue a warning
Nigel Farage has responded forcefully to the possibility of closer integration with the EU, portraying Burnham’s comments as a betrayal of the voters who supported leaving the bloc.
The Reform UK leader has argued that people voted for Brexit because they wanted greater control over Britain’s borders, laws and money. He has also maintained that the failure to deliver all the expected benefits of Brexit should not automatically be treated as evidence that leaving the EU was the wrong decision. <Cite refs={[“turn397432news3″,”turn397432news6”]}/>
For Farage, the distinction is important. His argument is that the government should concentrate on making the existing post-Brexit arrangements work rather than considering a return to the system Britain left.
Reform UK is likely to focus on this disagreement as it seeks to appeal to voters who remain concerned about immigration and national sovereignty. The party can argue that any restoration of freedom of movement would reopen a question that the public already answered in 2016.
However, the political argument also depends on what Burnham actually proposes. Discussing a possible future relationship with the EU does not itself constitute a decision to rejoin the bloc, and the Prime Minister has said that he will not implement fundamental changes during the current parliamentary term.
The debate will therefore require voters to distinguish between political warnings about what might happen and policies that have actually been announced.
Is closer cooperation the same as overturning Brexit?
One of the most important questions in the dispute is whether every attempt to strengthen relations with the EU should be considered a reversal of Brexit.
Britain can negotiate agreements with European countries without automatically restoring freedom of movement or rejoining the European Union. Cooperation on food standards, scientific research, security, trade procedures and migration enforcement can take place through specific agreements.
The UK and EU have already pursued a reset in their relationship. The government has presented this approach as a way to improve practical cooperation while maintaining its stated opposition to returning to the single market, customs union or freedom of movement during the current parliamentary term. <Cite refs={[“turn397432news5″,”turn397432search2”]}/>
A different question arises if Britain seeks to join the EU single market or re-enter the European Union itself. Those choices would involve much wider commitments, and membership of the single market is closely associated with the free movement of people.
Burnham has said that he would like to see Britain rejoin the EU during his lifetime, while stressing that he will not dictate the country’s future or move ahead of public opinion. He has also argued that Brexit has weakened the British economy and that the current relationship with Europe is not good enough. <Cite refs={[“turn397432news15″,”turn397432search12”]}/>
These statements have made the political debate more significant. They indicate that Burnham is willing to consider options beyond the immediate practical agreements currently being negotiated, even though he has not committed to pursuing those changes in this Parliament.
Critics may interpret this as the beginning of a broader attempt to reverse Brexit. Supporters may regard it as an acknowledgement that Britain’s relationship with its closest European neighbours should remain open to review.
Neither interpretation changes the central fact that a discussion is not a completed policy decision.
The economic argument behind the proposal
Burnham’s position is partly based on his assessment of Britain’s economic performance since leaving the EU. Businesses have faced new administrative requirements when trading with European markets, while some sectors have experienced difficulties recruiting workers under the post-Brexit immigration system.
Supporters of closer relations argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could help exporters, manufacturers and food producers. They also believe that stronger cooperation could encourage investment and make it easier for British companies to operate internationally.
The economic consequences of Brexit are complex, however, and not every difficulty can be attributed to leaving the EU. Global economic conditions, domestic policy choices, energy costs, productivity and labour-market changes have also affected British businesses.
Nor would rejoining the EU automatically solve every economic problem. Any future arrangement would involve negotiations over regulation, contributions, market access and other obligations. Its overall effects would depend on the terms secured and how businesses and households responded.
The House of Commons Library has summarised the debate over rejoining the EU and highlighted the government’s existing policy of strengthening relations while ruling out membership of the single market, customs union and freedom of movement under its current programme. <Cite refs={[“turn397432news5”]}/>
For voters, the relevant question is not simply whether closer ties sound attractive or whether Brexit should remain untouched. It is what specific arrangement would deliver measurable benefits, what it would cost and what obligations Britain would have to accept.
Immigration remains the most difficult obstacle
Freedom of movement is particularly controversial because immigration was central to the 2016 referendum campaign.
Burnham has argued that Britain needs more effective cooperation with European partners on migration. He has referred to the loss of certain arrangements that previously helped the UK work with other countries on returning people who had no right to remain.
He has also suggested that some migration under the former EU system involved people coming to Britain for a period before returning to their home countries.
Critics dispute the suggestion that restoring closer European ties would necessarily improve immigration control. They argue that a return to freedom of movement could reduce the government’s ability to restrict the arrival of EU citizens through the standard visa system.
There is an important distinction between these issues. Cooperation on the return of people who have no right to remain in Britain is not the same as allowing EU citizens to move freely for employment. A government could seek stronger migration-enforcement agreements without restoring freedom of movement.
Equally, a decision to rejoin the single market or EU would involve broader questions about immigration rights and the obligations attached to participation.
Any future proposal would therefore need to explain precisely which rules would change, which would remain in place and how the government would respond to concerns about housing, wages and public services.
Would voters get another say?
The question of democratic consent is at the centre of the controversy.
The 2016 referendum gave the government a clear instruction to leave the European Union. But it did not settle every possible question about Britain’s relationship with Europe for all time. Governments routinely revisit policies in response to new evidence, changing circumstances and election results.
The difficult issue is determining what kind of mandate would be sufficient for a change as significant as restoring freedom of movement or applying to rejoin the EU.
Burnham has said he would not restore freedom of movement without a referendum. Downing Street has also stressed that the government has not settled on a particular long-term option or decided how any future proposal would be put to the public. <Cite refs={[“turn397432search0″,”turn397432search2”]}/>
A future election could also become an opportunity for voters to assess a party’s position if a manifesto proposed a substantially different relationship with the EU. That would allow the issue to be debated alongside taxation, public services, immigration and the wider economy.
However, a referendum and a general election are not identical. A referendum asks voters to decide a specific question, while a general election requires them to choose between parties offering a range of policies. Which approach might be used for any future change remains uncertain.
A debate that will shape Britain’s future
Burnham’s latest comments have reopened a dispute that many people believed had been settled by Brexit. For Leave supporters, the prospect of restoring freedom of movement raises legitimate questions about whether politicians are respecting the referendum result. For advocates of closer European relations, refusing to examine alternatives could prevent Britain from addressing economic and practical problems that have emerged since leaving the EU.
The government must now explain how it intends to improve relations with Brussels while respecting its current commitments and the public’s expectations. Its planned discussions with European leaders could clarify the practical agreements it wants to pursue, but they do not themselves amount to a decision to restore freedom of movement.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Britain can avoid debating Europe. It is how that debate should take place and what evidence should guide it.
The 2016 referendum remains a major democratic decision, and any proposal that would fundamentally alter the country’s relationship with the EU would require a clear explanation of its consequences. Equally, voters deserve accurate information about the costs and benefits of the available options rather than claims based solely on political loyalty.
Burnham has opened the door to a wider discussion, while Farage and other Brexit supporters have made clear that they will oppose any move they believe undermines the referendum’s outcome.
Whether the dispute leads to a concrete policy change remains uncertain. What is clear is that Brexit continues to shape Britain’s politics a decade after the referendum—and any attempt to redefine the relationship with Europe will face intense scrutiny from voters across the country.