It will come as a shock to nobody that immigration is seen as far too high across the UK, and the polling shows it. Why, then, does Andy Burnham appear unable to rule out signing back up to the EU’s freedom of movement scheme?

Surely his advisers have told him that going toe-to-toe with Nigel Farage on Brexit is a bad idea? Or maybe they have seen different polling to the rest of us. Regardless of one’s views on Mr Farage, if there is one topic he knows like the back of his hand, it is the largesse of eurocrats and the ins and outs of Brussels.

While Mr Burnham was busy climbing the greasy pole of Labour politics, Mr Farage spent the better part of 20 years forging a name for himself as Mr Brexit. When journalists get a chance to speak to him on the topic, it is very clear he is in his element.

The Prime Minister has been keen to make it clear he has no intention of hightailing it back to Brussels before a general election, and has ruled out a snap ballot. But all that does is expose the new premier to years of litigation on a subject he may be well advised to avoid.

With negotiations due to take place next month in Brussels, journalists and politicians will pick over the details of any deal, memorandum or otherwise. Remainers have long desired to unpick the result of the largest democratic vote in British history, and the same tired old arguments are trotted out constantly.

Brexit, in the eyes of the British people, has failed. That is what the polling suggests. Yet to blame the inability of politicians to grasp the nettle on that vote is patronising at best. Rejoining the EU will not fix the problems this country faces.

At the heart of the miscalculation Mr Burnham has made lies his personal desire to return, which has seemingly overridden his ability to face the facts. Seeking a renegotiation that puts the infamous freedom of movement scheme on the table is reckless and electorally poisonous.

Get the latest politics news straight to your phone Join us on WhatsApp

Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy

Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more

I would like to receive emails from the Daily Express featuring our latest products, services, offers, and promotions from across the Reach Plc family.

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.

Polling shows that some 41% of the British public believe rejoining the EU would increase immigration. Some 69% already believe that immigration is far, far too high. Both of these figures do not account for swings seen in an election environment.

Should Mr Farage choose, he could easily make the next general election a referendum on how this country approaches immigration. Do we take back control of our borders by leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, a troublesome foreign convention that supersedes our laws, or do we buddy up to a trading bloc and open the door again?

You can easily imagine how British people will react to that offer when placed before them, and to which box on the ballot paper their hands may drift come polling day. Mr Farage has made a career out of debating why Britain is best placed outside of the EU. Andy Burnham may now have handed him the best gift of his life – a chance to make those arguments again, at a time when the current on immigration has turned in his favour.

Andy Burnham’s Reckless Brexit Gamble Just Handed Nigel Farage the Ultimate Gift

Andy Burnham’s decision to reopen the debate over Britain’s future relationship with the European Union has created a major political opportunity for Nigel Farage. What Burnham presents as an attempt to repair Britain’s economic relationship with Europe could become a dangerous electoral gamble, particularly in communities where immigration, national sovereignty and the consequences of Brexit remain deeply sensitive issues.

The Prime Minister has argued that Britain’s current relationship with the EU is not good enough and that the country needs an honest discussion about the available options. However, his willingness to consider closer integration, including the possibility of restoring freedom of movement in the future, has triggered fierce criticism from opponents who believe Labour is risking the trust of voters who supported Brexit.

For Farage, the controversy could hardly have arrived at a more convenient moment. The Reform UK leader has spent much of his political career campaigning against European integration, arguing that Britain should control its own borders, laws and economic priorities. Now, with Burnham placing the future relationship with Brussels back at the centre of political debate, Farage has an opportunity to revive the arguments that helped define his political career.

A Brexit Debate Labour Cannot Easily Control

Burnham’s intervention reflects a growing argument within British politics that the existing Brexit settlement has failed to deliver all the benefits promised by its supporters. Businesses continue to face trade barriers, some industries complain about additional administrative costs, and questions remain about how Britain can strengthen economic cooperation with its closest European neighbours.

Burnham has suggested that the country should examine its options rather than treating the current arrangements as permanent. Those options could include practical agreements on trade, closer cooperation in selected policy areas or a more fundamental change in the UK’s relationship with the European bloc.

Yet the political danger lies in the distinction between improving cooperation and reopening the question of membership itself.

A deal designed to reduce paperwork for food producers or make cross-border trade easier might attract support from businesses and moderate voters. A proposal involving the single market or freedom of movement, however, would raise much more difficult questions about immigration, regulation and national control.

Burnham has sought to reassure the public that he will not force a change through during the current Parliament or move ahead without public support. He has also indicated that any major future decision would ultimately be for voters to make. Nevertheless, the very act of reopening the debate gives his opponents an opportunity to portray Labour as preparing to reverse Brexit.

That is where Farage sees his advantage.

Why Nigel Farage Could Benefit

Farage has built his reputation around the argument that British politicians cannot be trusted to defend the result of the 2016 referendum. For years, he accused successive governments of implementing Brexit too cautiously or attempting to preserve too many links with Brussels.

Now he can argue that the political establishment is once again questioning the decision made by millions of voters.

The Reform leader has already condemned Burnham’s comments as a betrayal of Brexit supporters. He has also suggested that a general election fought over closer integration with the EU would give his party a powerful campaign issue.

The danger for Labour is that Farage would not need to persuade every voter that Brexit has been a complete success. Instead, he could focus on a simpler message: voters made a decision in 2016, and politicians should not reopen it without a compelling reason and a clear democratic mandate.

That message could resonate in constituencies across northern England and the Midlands, where many working-class voters supported leaving the EU. Some of these voters have traditionally supported Labour but have become increasingly sceptical of the party’s approach to immigration, taxation and national identity.

If Reform convinces these voters that Labour is attempting to reverse Brexit, it could strengthen its appeal among people who feel that mainstream politicians have ignored their concerns.

However, this outcome is not inevitable. Some Leave voters are disappointed with the economic consequences of Brexit and may welcome closer European cooperation if it creates jobs, improves trade and reduces costs. Farage would therefore need to turn a complicated policy debate into a convincing political argument.

Immigration Is the Most Sensitive Issue

The question of freedom of movement is likely to become the central battleground.

Supporters of closer EU ties argue that easier movement could help businesses recruit workers, encourage educational exchanges and make it simpler for British citizens to live and work across Europe. Employers in sectors that depend on international labour may also argue that excessive restrictions create practical difficulties.

Critics, however, believe that restoring freedom of movement would undermine one of the principal reasons many people voted to leave the EU. They argue that immigration levels should be determined by the British government rather than by arrangements associated with European membership.

Farage would be expected to place these concerns at the centre of his response. He could frame the debate as a choice between controlling immigration and accepting rules negotiated with Brussels.

Such a campaign could prove politically potent, especially if households are already concerned about pressure on housing, public services and wages. Yet immigration is a complicated subject, and neither EU membership nor freedom of movement alone explains every change in migration levels. Labour could challenge Reform by presenting evidence about labour shortages, economic needs and the practical differences between possible agreements.

The government would also need to explain precisely what any proposed arrangement would mean. Vague assurances that Britain could enjoy the economic advantages of closer European ties without making difficult compromises are unlikely to settle the argument.

Labour Faces a Difficult Balancing Act

Burnham must now attempt to satisfy several groups with conflicting expectations.

Business leaders may want a more ambitious agreement with Europe to reduce barriers and improve market access. Pro-European voters may want the government to move further towards the EU. Meanwhile, traditional Labour voters who supported Brexit may be deeply uncomfortable with any suggestion that freedom of movement could return.

These competing demands make the issue especially dangerous for a governing party.

If Burnham moves too cautiously, pro-European supporters may accuse him of failing to address the damage they believe Brexit has caused. If he moves too aggressively, he could alienate voters who consider the referendum result a binding democratic instruction.

His challenge is to distinguish practical cooperation from a wholesale reversal of Brexit. Agreements on food standards, energy, research or security could potentially improve relations without automatically requiring Britain to rejoin the EU. But the government must be clear about the obligations attached to each proposal.

The November 20 UK-EU summit will therefore be an important test. Any progress on specific agreements could give Burnham evidence that a pragmatic approach is producing results. Conversely, a summit that generates ambitious rhetoric but few concrete benefits could leave the government vulnerable to criticism from both sides.

The Conservatives May Also Try to Exploit the Dispute

Farage is not the only politician who can benefit from Labour’s difficulties.

The Conservative Party has an opportunity to argue that Burnham is reopening an issue that the country has already settled. Its leadership could use the debate to challenge Labour’s judgement and appeal to voters who remain strongly committed to Brexit.

However, the Conservatives face their own problem. They governed Britain for years after the referendum and were responsible for negotiating and implementing the withdrawal arrangements. Critics can therefore question whether the party delivered the economic and political benefits it promised.

Reform may be better positioned to present itself as the outsider willing to defend Brexit without having to defend the record of a previous government. That distinction could matter in constituencies where voters are disillusioned with both major parties.

Nevertheless, Reform must demonstrate that opposing closer EU ties is part of a credible economic strategy rather than simply a campaign slogan. Businesses and households will want to know how the party intends to support growth, address labour shortages and reduce living costs while maintaining its preferred approach to European relations.

The Economic Argument Cannot Be Ignored

Britain’s relationship with Europe is not simply a question of political identity. It also involves trade, investment, employment and the long-term competitiveness of the economy.

Businesses that trade across borders may benefit from arrangements that reduce paperwork and make regulations more predictable. British manufacturers, farmers and food producers could have particular reasons to support agreements that simplify access to European markets.

At the same time, closer integration may involve compromises that voters and businesses need to understand. The terms of any agreement would matter more than its label, including the rules Britain would accept, the influence it would retain and the practical costs of compliance.

Burnham will need to demonstrate that his approach offers measurable benefits rather than merely expressing dissatisfaction with the current settlement.

Farage, meanwhile, will need to explain how Britain can secure stronger economic performance without accepting the forms of integration he opposes. Simply insisting that Brexit must never be reconsidered may appeal to committed supporters, but it does not automatically answer questions about productivity, investment or trade.

The political contest will therefore depend on which side can present the more convincing account of Britain’s future.

A Gift for Farage, but Not a Guaranteed Victory

Burnham’s decision to reopen the Brexit debate has handed Farage an opportunity to put one of his strongest political issues back into the national conversation. It allows Reform to question Labour’s promises, appeal to Leave voters and argue that the government is preparing to revisit a decision that shaped modern British politics.

But a political opportunity is not the same as an election victory.

Farage must still persuade voters that Reform has workable answers to the country’s economic and social challenges. Burnham, for his part, can attempt to reduce the political risk by setting out clear proposals, respecting existing commitments and explaining how closer cooperation could benefit ordinary households.

The public response will depend on the details. Voters may be more receptive to practical agreements that improve trade and cooperation than to proposals that appear to reopen the entire membership question. Equally, any suggestion that freedom of movement could return is likely to provoke strong reactions among people who regard immigration control as a central Brexit promise.

Ultimately, Burnham’s gamble is that a more honest discussion about Europe will help Britain confront problems that cannot be solved by slogans. Farage’s opportunity is to argue that the discussion itself demonstrates why voters should distrust Labour.

As Britain approaches another round of talks with Brussels, the government faces a difficult task: explaining how it can improve relations with Europe without appearing to disregard the referendum result.

If Burnham fails to make that distinction convincingly, he could give Reform a powerful campaign weapon. If he succeeds in producing practical benefits while maintaining public confidence, the controversy may prove less damaging than his opponents hope.

For now, the Brexit debate has returned to the centre of British politics, and Nigel Farage has every incentive to ensure that it stays there.