She told the BBC that free movement with the bloc should not be “off the table”.

Ms Rayner’s remarks indicate such a proposal could be included in Labour’s next manifesto.

Mr Burnham called for an “honest discussion” about the prospect of reintroducing the EU’s free movement rules in Britain.

He told The Sunday Times: “I think you have to have a very factual, quite evidence-based debate about this.”

Free movement gives every EU citizen the freedom to move to the UK and vice versa.

It was a key pillar of the Leave campaign’s success in 2016.

Labour ruled out bringing it back in its 2024 election manifesto, while also dismissing any suggestion that it would seek membership of the EU’s single market or customs union.

Ms Rayner’s remarks suggest free movement could be “put to the people” at the next election.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg asked on Sunday whether she wanted Britain to return to freedom of movement, to which she responded: “I want to see the best deal for the people of my constituency and for Britain.

“We haven’t got the best deal at the moment because we’ve seen exports reduce by 20 per cent, we’ve seen the red tape and the friction that has meant that a lot of our businesses are not able to trade in the way that they would like with our biggest trading partners.

“So I would like to have an honest conversation about what the trade-offs could be, and then put that to the people at a general election.”

She added: “The Prime Minister is clear that you can’t take anything off the table when you’re having a conversation.

“But the Prime Minister is not saying we’re going back to where we were in 2016. He’s saying he wants to be pragmatic to get the best deal for Britain, and he wants to have the conversation.”

Reform UK Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick told GB News that opening the door to millions of EU citizens would have a catastrophic impact on Britain’s infrastructure.

He told Andrew Pierce: “The UK is full. We clearly have no capacity to take these people. The economics of this have been proven to be a disaster for working people.

“It depresses wages. We have nearly a million young people not in work or training right now. Why don’t we get those people into the workplace and not just import people from overseas?

“If you’ve got working people finding things difficult at the moment, they don’t want people from Romania to come in and take those jobs, they want to be paid a bit more.

“We want to back British workers.”

The Prime Minister’s recent flirtations with the EU have drawn heavy criticism from across the political divide.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage branded the proposal a “total betrayal of Brexit”, adding: “He [Mr Burnham] is also deluded to say immigration was different when we were members of the EU. We will fight this dishonesty.”

Mr Burnham has previously committed to Labour’s 2024 election manifesto and said any changes would require a mandate at a general election, which is due by 2029.

Earlier this month, Labour hinted it might be drawing up plans for an early general election as it rushed to abolish photo ID checks at polling stations.

The Prime Minister said last month that he wanted to “draw a line” under recent political divisions and avoid calling a general election.

But as he gets his feet further under the table at Downing Street, some have suggested that Mr Burnham might want to free himself from the constraints of a manifesto he did not write.

The Telegraph reported that Labour was “ramming through” reforms that would allow voters to use bank cards without photographs instead of valid photo ID at polling stations.

Ministers confirmed that the bank cards would only need to show the holder’s initials, not their full name, and would not even need to display the owner’s gender.

Wes Streeting told Camilla Tominey a few weeks ago that the move formed part of Labour’s plans to “make our elections fairer”.

He told Ms Tominey that ministers were seeking to establish whether voter photo ID rules had led to the “unintended consequences of legitimate voters being disenfranchised”.

Angela Rayner Says Voters Will Have Final Say on Whether Key Brexit Promise Will Be Scrapped

Angela Rayner has indicated that British voters will ultimately have a say over whether Labour abandons one of its most significant Brexit commitments, as Prime Minister Andy Burnham opens the door to a closer relationship with the European Union.

The intervention has reignited debate over freedom of movement, a central issue in the 2016 Brexit referendum. Labour previously ruled out restoring the arrangement in its 2024 general election manifesto, but senior figures are now arguing that Britain needs an open discussion about the economic consequences of Brexit and the possible advantages of closer ties with Brussels.

Rayner, the Housing Secretary, said that no option should automatically be excluded from discussions with the EU. However, she stressed that the government was not proposing simply to turn the clock back to the arrangements that existed before the referendum.

Her comments suggest that Labour could consider presenting voters with a different approach in its next election manifesto, potentially allowing the public to decide whether the country should move towards a closer relationship with Europe. <Cite refs={[“turn347652search0″,”turn347652search3”]}/>

Angela Rayner Opens the Door to a Brexit Debate

Speaking during a BBC interview, Rayner defended Burnham’s call for an honest discussion about Britain’s future relationship with the EU.

She argued that the government should examine the available options pragmatically, focusing on what would deliver the greatest benefits for British businesses, workers and communities.

Rayner said that Britain had not secured the best possible relationship with its largest nearby trading partner. She pointed to the additional paperwork and trading friction experienced by businesses since Brexit, arguing that these difficulties deserved serious consideration.

Her position does not amount to an immediate commitment to restore freedom of movement. Instead, it signals that Labour figures want to discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages before deciding what should be included in a future manifesto.

The distinction is politically important. Labour’s existing commitments remain in place for the current parliamentary term, and any fundamental change would require further political decisions.

By suggesting that the public should have the final say, Rayner is placing the debate within the framework of electoral accountability. Rather than presenting a major change as a decision that politicians should make without public consent, she has argued that voters should be able to judge the options and their consequences.

Why Freedom of Movement Matters

Freedom of movement allowed citizens of European Union member states to live, work and study in other participating countries, subject to the applicable rules. Before Brexit, British citizens also benefited from these arrangements when moving to EU countries.

The system became one of the most contentious issues during the 2016 referendum campaign. Supporters of leaving the EU argued that Britain should regain greater control over immigration and its borders. Those who supported remaining highlighted the economic, educational and employment opportunities associated with being part of the European system.

The debate has never been entirely settled. Some businesses argue that access to workers from Europe can help address recruitment difficulties, particularly in sectors where employers struggle to find enough staff. Others maintain that immigration rules should prioritise domestic workers and that public services must be able to accommodate population changes.

Restoring freedom of movement would therefore have consequences beyond the movement of people. It would raise questions about wages, employment, housing, public services and the wider terms of Britain’s relationship with the European single market.

Membership of the single market is closely associated with the free movement of people, although the precise terms of any future arrangement would depend on negotiations. Rejoining the EU itself would involve a much broader set of political and economic questions.

These are the choices that Labour would need to explain if it decided to seek a new mandate for closer integration.

Andy Burnham’s Changing Approach to Europe

Burnham has called for what he describes as an evidence-based discussion about Brexit and the UK’s long-term relationship with Brussels.

His remarks have opened a debate about whether Britain should consider options ranging from closer cooperation in selected sectors to joining the single market or, eventually, rejoining the EU.

However, Burnham has not announced a decision to reverse Brexit during the current parliamentary term. Labour’s 2024 manifesto explicitly rejected a return to freedom of movement, the single market and the customs union.

That commitment places limits on what the government can pursue immediately. A future Labour manifesto could take a different position, but such a change would require the party to explain its reasoning and seek public support.

Burnham is also expected to meet European leaders at a UK-EU summit in Brussels on November 20, where discussions are expected to cover cooperation in areas including trade, energy, security and other shared interests. <Cite refs={[“turn347652search1″,”turn347652news7”]}/>

The summit is an opportunity to explore practical agreements, but it should not be confused with a decision to restore freedom of movement. The government has not confirmed that such a change will happen.

Economic Benefits and Political Risks

Supporters of closer relations with Europe argue that reducing barriers to trade could help British companies expand their markets, improve supply chains and make it easier to recruit workers where necessary.

Since Brexit, businesses trading with the EU have had to navigate changes to customs procedures, regulatory requirements and other arrangements. The effects vary between industries, with smaller companies sometimes facing particular difficulties because they have fewer resources to manage additional administrative work.

Pro-European campaigners have argued that a closer relationship could improve economic growth and create opportunities for investment. Some also contend that closer cooperation would help Britain respond to international challenges alongside its European neighbours.

However, critics argue that restoring freedom of movement could increase pressure on housing and public services if population growth is not matched by sufficient investment. They also question whether the economic benefits of closer integration would outweigh the political and practical costs.

These concerns cannot be resolved through slogans alone. Any proposal would need to be assessed against evidence about trade, employment, wages, migration, public spending and the rights British citizens would receive in return.

The government would also need to clarify precisely what it was proposing. A limited agreement on trade or professional mobility would have different implications from joining the single market or seeking full EU membership.

Conservatives and Reform UK Condemn the Prospect

The possibility of revisiting freedom of movement has prompted criticism from opposition parties.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has argued that many people voted for Brexit because they wanted Britain to end automatic freedom of movement. She has questioned whether Labour fully appreciates the political significance of reopening the issue.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has also criticised Burnham’s remarks, describing them as a betrayal of the promises made to voters during the Brexit debate. Reform’s Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick has opposed the prospect of increasing immigration through a return to EU free movement. <Cite refs={[“turn347652search0″,”turn347652search3”]}/>

Their objections reflect a broader concern that Labour could weaken one of the central outcomes of the referendum without having explicitly campaigned on such a change at the last general election.

Labour’s defenders would counter that a future election gives voters an opportunity to evaluate new proposals openly. They argue that political commitments should be informed by evidence about how the economy and international relationships have developed.

The disagreement is therefore not simply about Europe. It also concerns how political mandates should operate when circumstances change and whether a major policy shift should be decided through a manifesto, a referendum or another democratic process.

Will There Be Another Referendum?

Rayner’s comments have fuelled speculation about how the public might be asked to approve any future change. However, saying that voters should have the final say does not automatically mean that another referendum will take place.

One possibility would be for Labour to include its proposals in the next general election manifesto and allow voters to make their decision at the ballot box. Another approach could involve a separate referendum if the government eventually pursued a fundamental change in the UK’s relationship with the EU.

The government has not settled this question. Recent reporting indicates that Downing Street has rejected suggestions that a referendum on freedom of movement has already been proposed as government policy. Burnham has also indicated that he does not intend to move ahead of public opinion. <Cite refs={[“turn347652news6″,”turn347652news8”]}/>

Any future decision would depend on the substance of the proposed agreement, the government’s legal and political commitments, and the process ministers considered appropriate for securing public consent.

For now, the issue remains a subject of political debate rather than an agreed plan to restore the previous arrangements.

A Defining Question for Labour’s Future

Rayner’s intervention highlights the difficulty Labour faces as it attempts to balance its existing manifesto commitments with arguments for closer economic cooperation with Europe.

The government must consider the concerns of voters who supported Brexit, the needs of businesses seeking easier access to European markets and the practical consequences of any changes to migration rules.

If Labour decides to offer a different approach at the next election, it will need to explain the trade-offs clearly. Voters will want to know what would change, what benefits could realistically be achieved and what obligations Britain might have to accept in return.

For opponents, the central question will be whether reopening freedom of movement undermines the result of the 2016 referendum. For supporters of closer integration, the issue will be whether the economic and practical benefits justify reconsidering the existing arrangement.

What happens next remains uncertain. Rayner has made clear that the debate should not be closed off in advance, but neither she nor Burnham has announced an immediate return to EU freedom of movement.

The decisive test will come if Labour turns these discussions into formal policy. At that point, the party will have to set out its proposals and allow voters to judge them.

For now, Brexit remains a live political issue, and Labour’s handling of the debate could shape its relationship with voters well beyond the next Budget.