Farage has slammed a ‘brexit betrayal’ (Image: Getty)

Andy Burnham has refused to rule out a free movement deal with the EU in a move slammed as a Brexit betrayal. Now veteran Brexiteers have warned it would leave the UK powerless to stop immigration from Europe. It comes after Mr Burnham said a return to the Brussels scheme was not a red line in any talks, ahead of a crunch summit with eurocrats next month. That is despite Mr Burnham promising voters, when standing for Leave-backing Makerfield, that he was not proposing the UK rejoin the EU or reopen the Brexit debate. Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage branded the Prime Minister’s stance a complete betrayal of the 17.4 million Britons who voted to take back control of the border.

Speaking exclusively to the Daily Express, Mr Farage said: “The cat’s out of the bag. Andy Burnham wants to open the door to 450 million people and leave us powerless to stop them coming in. Freedom of movement would undercut working people’s wages with cheap foreign labour – a complete betrayal of what the British people want and voted for.” The arch-Brexiteer threw down the gauntlet to Mr Burnham, saying: “If he wants open-door immigration risking millions more arrivals, he should call a general election and ask the public.

“Reform will fight the next election on stopping freedom of movement.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: “This is yet another example of Burnham’s foot-in-mouth syndrome. He hasn’t thought this through or the implications.

“Most people who voted for Brexit did so because they didn’t want free movement. Too many politicians have failed to understand the significance and impact of immigration on communities.

“We have had more than enough experience of what happens when politicians (including previous Conservative governments) promise control but fail to deliver it. The answer is to learn from those mistakes, not reopen free movement.”

Battle lines were drawn after Mr Burnham told The Sunday Times: “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.”

He added: “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.”

On free movement, he would only call for “a rounded discussion about it”, pointing to his father, who worked in Germany in the 1990s helping to build the country’s mobile phone network.

But he did slam the door on other parts of the EU project, saying: “I can’t see myself ever recommending anything that would involve joining the euro or Schengen.” Mr Burnham voted Remain, campaigned for Remain, and later backed a second referendum. Last year, he told the Labour Party Conference he wanted to see the UK back in the EU “in my lifetime”.

In May, while fighting the Makerfield by-election in a seat that backed Leave by around 65%, he promised: “I am not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU.” When challenged by this paper over his position, he ran away.

Former Tory Chancellor Jeremy Hunt also hit out at the plans, saying he was “absolutely astonished” at the proposal. Citing figures showing more than one million young people are unemployed, he added: “Allowing people from all over Europe to come and take those jobs […] would be a hammer blow.”

Reform UK’s Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick branded the idea “completely mad”. He told BBC One’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: “I think it’s completely mad the idea that this country needs more immigration.

“It’s a total mess at the moment. We’re trying to grapple with the Boriswave and all the challenges that we’ve had in recent times. And Andy Burnham is proposing to open our borders to another 450 million people over whom we’d have no control whatsoever.”

Mr Jenrick warned a return to free movement would “undercut the wages of British workers, put more pressure on housing, on the NHS, on doctors, on dentists”.

He added: “What all the data now shows is that mass migration, importing hundreds of thousands or even millions of people into this country, has been a disaster for living standards, for working people, for Brits in this country.”

The Daily Express is campaigning to Give Us A Proper Brexit, demanding Britain quit the European Convention on Human Rights, slash Brussels red tape and enforce a 12-mile fishing zone for British vessels only.

Nigel Farage Tears Apart Andy Burnham’s EU Plot and Rages: ‘The Cat’s Out the Bag!’

Nigel Farage has launched a fierce attack on Prime Minister Andy Burnham after the Labour leader opened the door to a renewed debate about freedom of movement between Britain and the European Union.

The Reform UK leader accused Burnham of betraying the promises associated with Brexit, warning that any return to unrestricted movement between the UK and EU countries could have major consequences for immigration, wages, housing and public services.

“The cat’s out of the bag!” was the message behind Farage’s criticism, as he argued that the government’s willingness to discuss the issue revealed a fundamental disagreement over the future direction of Britain.

The controversy erupted after Burnham said there should be an evidence-based discussion about the possibility of restoring freedom of movement as part of a closer relationship with Brussels. His comments, reported on October 24 and 25, 2026, immediately reignited the political argument that dominated British politics during the 2016 referendum. <Link url=”https://www.itv.com/news/2026-10-24/burnham-time-for-honest-discussion-about-freedom-of-movement-with-eu” title=”ITV News report on Burnham’s comments”/>.

For Farage, the issue is about more than immigration policy. He sees it as a question of whether the result of the Brexit referendum will continue to shape Britain’s relationship with Europe or whether a future government will seek to reverse important elements of the decision.

Farage accuses Burnham of breaking his promises

Farage has argued that millions of people voted to leave the European Union because they wanted greater national control over immigration, laws and political decision-making.

He has therefore presented Burnham’s willingness to consider freedom of movement as a direct challenge to the expectations of Brexit supporters.

The Reform leader has called the position a betrayal and insisted that any fundamental change should be put before voters.

His criticism is particularly focused on Burnham’s previous assurances concerning Brexit. During his campaign in Makerfield, a constituency that voted strongly to leave the EU in 2016, Burnham said he was not proposing that Britain consider rejoining the bloc.

The Prime Minister’s more recent comments have prompted opponents to question whether that assurance leaves sufficient clarity about his longer-term intentions.

Burnham, however, has not announced a decision to restore freedom of movement. His stated position is that Britain should have an honest discussion about the options available for its future relationship with the EU.

That distinction is central to the dispute. Farage sees the discussion itself as a warning of where Labour could eventually lead the country, while Burnham has presented it as an opportunity to examine the practical consequences of different arrangements.

The disagreement illustrates how quickly a debate about Britain’s trading and diplomatic relationships can become a broader argument about political trust.

What would a return to freedom of movement mean?

Freedom of movement was one of the defining features of Britain’s EU membership.

Under the previous system, citizens of EU member states generally had rights to move to other participating countries to live and work, subject to the applicable rules. Britain ended that arrangement when it left the EU.

A return to the system would represent a significant change in immigration policy and would require negotiations over the terms of Britain’s relationship with Europe.

Farage has warned that restoring freedom of movement could allow more European citizens to move to Britain without the immigration controls currently applied to EU nationals.

He argues that the consequences could include increased competition for jobs, greater pressure on housing and additional demand for public services.

Reform’s Treasury spokesman, Robert Jenrick, has also criticised the prospect, arguing that the country should focus on controlling immigration rather than expanding access.

However, the scale and direction of any migration changes would depend on the precise agreement negotiated, the economic conditions in Britain and Europe, and the behaviour of people moving between countries.

The headline figure of approximately 450 million people living in the EU describes the potential population covered by the wider European system. It does not mean that all those people would move to Britain if freedom of movement were restored.

The likely effect on migration would need to be assessed through detailed analysis rather than by treating the EU’s entire population as a forecast of arrivals.

The battle over British workers’ wages

One of Farage’s main arguments is that a larger supply of workers could put downward pressure on wages in some sectors.

Reform maintains that employers should prioritise developing the domestic workforce and that the immigration system should not make it easier to rely on lower-paid overseas labour instead of improving pay and training.

The party has linked this argument to the cost of living, suggesting that British workers should see stronger wage growth and greater opportunities to enter employment.

Yet the relationship between immigration and wages is complex.

The impact can vary according to the industry, workers’ qualifications, local labour-market conditions and whether migrants and existing workers compete for the same roles.

Migration can also help employers fill vacancies in sectors experiencing shortages, including areas where recruiting and training sufficient domestic workers may take time.

Businesses may argue that access to workers from Europe helps them expand, maintain services and respond to changing demand. Other workers may be concerned about competition in particular occupations.

Consequently, a serious assessment of the policy would need to examine the evidence for different sectors and regions rather than assume that every worker would experience the same effect.

For Farage, the political message is clear: any return to freedom of movement should be opposed unless voters explicitly support it. Burnham’s position, meanwhile, leaves open a debate about how a closer European relationship could be designed and what its costs and benefits might be.

Housing and the pressure on public services

The argument also extends to housing, the National Health Service and other public services.

Farage and Reform have warned that increased migration could add to demand for homes, healthcare appointments, schools and local infrastructure.

These concerns are particularly significant in communities where housing is already expensive or where public services are struggling to meet demand.

However, migration is only one factor affecting these pressures. Housing supply, planning decisions, public investment, staffing levels and the distribution of population growth also play important roles.

The effect of any future freedom-of-movement agreement would depend on how many people came to Britain, where they settled, how quickly infrastructure expanded and what contribution they made through employment and taxation.

Migrants who work and pay taxes can contribute to public finances, while rapid population growth in particular areas can require additional investment in housing and services.

A policy assessment would therefore need to consider both the additional demand created by population changes and the economic contribution of people who arrive.

Reform argues that Britain should avoid commitments that could make immigration harder to control. Supporters of closer relations with Europe may counter that a carefully negotiated arrangement could provide economic benefits and help British businesses access workers.

The question is how those competing considerations would be balanced in practice.

Burnham insists the debate should be evidence-based

Burnham’s comments suggest that he wants to examine the full range of options for Britain’s relationship with Brussels, rather than treating the current arrangement as the only possible model.

He has argued that the pattern of migration experienced during the years of EU membership was different in some respects from the challenges Britain faces today.

He has also pointed to the distinction between people who move temporarily for work and later return home and those who settle permanently.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has ruled out recommending that Britain join the euro or enter the Schengen border-free area, according to his reported remarks.

His position does not amount to an announcement that the UK will rejoin the EU or automatically restore the previous system of freedom of movement.

Instead, the debate concerns whether the government should explore closer arrangements and whether any major change should become part of a future election programme.

The issue is politically sensitive because Labour’s 2024 election manifesto ruled out restoring freedom of movement, joining the single market and entering a customs union.

Any proposal to move beyond those commitments would therefore require a clear explanation of what had changed, what benefits the government expected and how voters would be consulted.

Conservatives join the criticism

Farage is not the only opposition politician to challenge Burnham’s comments.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has also criticised the prospect of restoring freedom of movement, arguing that many Brexit voters wanted to end the system and that politicians should learn from earlier immigration-policy decisions rather than reopen the same dispute.

Her intervention demonstrates that the issue could become a point of competition between Reform UK and the Conservatives, both of which have sought to present themselves as defenders of tighter immigration controls.

For Reform, the debate offers an opportunity to connect its wider immigration platform with the question of Britain’s sovereignty after Brexit.

For the Conservatives, it provides a chance to challenge Labour’s direction while arguing that the country should not reverse an important referendum decision without a clear public mandate.

Labour, meanwhile, faces the task of explaining how it intends to improve relations with the EU without creating uncertainty about the commitments it has already made.

The dispute is therefore about more than the technical details of immigration rules. It also concerns whether voters believe political leaders have been clear and consistent about their intentions.

The next EU summit could intensify the debate

The controversy comes ahead of a planned meeting between Burnham and EU leaders in Brussels in November.

The meeting is expected to provide an opportunity to discuss the future relationship between Britain and the European Union.

The outcome will be watched closely by businesses, political parties and voters who want to understand whether the government is seeking limited cooperation or a more fundamental change.

Any negotiated agreement would need to address practical questions about trade, labour mobility, regulation and the rights of people moving between countries.

It would also need to account for the political commitments made by the government and the different expectations of people who voted Leave or Remain.

For Farage, the immediate demand is that Burnham provide greater clarity about his intentions and allow the public to decide whether Britain should make a major change to its relationship with Europe.

The Reform leader has vowed that his party will oppose a return to freedom of movement and make the issue central to its future political campaign.

Burnham’s challenge is to explain why discussing the options is worthwhile while demonstrating that any eventual decision would be consistent with his government’s promises.

A renewed battle over Brexit

The latest confrontation shows that Brexit remains a powerful dividing line in British politics, even years after the referendum.

Farage believes the debate over freedom of movement risks reopening a question that voters already answered in 2016. Burnham argues that Britain’s future relationship with Europe deserves a factual examination of the available options.

Neither the eventual migration impact nor the economic consequences of a future agreement can be determined solely from the current exchange of political accusations.

Those outcomes would depend on the specific terms negotiated, the safeguards included and the wider economic environment.

Nevertheless, the dispute has placed immigration, workers’ wages, housing and national sovereignty back at the centre of the political conversation.

As the November summit approaches, pressure is likely to grow for the government to clarify what it wants from Brussels and what changes it would be prepared to consider.

For Farage, the message is that Britain should not return to freedom of movement without a fresh and explicit public mandate. For Burnham, the question is whether closer European cooperation can be explored without undermining the commitments made to voters.

The central issue now is whether the government can define its European strategy clearly enough to convince the public that it has learned from the Brexit experience rather than simply reopening an old political conflict.