This is what he had to say about not reopening old wounds:“My view is that Brexit has been damaging, but I also believe the last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments.

“Britain will be stuck in a permanent rut if we are just constantly arguing, and people are pulling away from each other.

“It is time, surely, isn’t it, to bring people back together, to focus on what we’ve got in common.”

Well, quite right, Prime Minister.

We don’t want to be constantly arguing about Brexit, do we?

And yet, on the 20th of this month, there is a big EU summit taking place in Brussels, and the British Prime Minister will be there looking for a new deal.

Trouble is, with all of these summits – and I’ve been to dozens over my years as an MEP – most of the work is done well ahead of the summit.

Draft notes are prepared, change very little during the summit.

There was a big family photograph at the end to say: “Aren’t we all friends?”

Well, trouble is that The Times and The Telegraph have got leaks of this, and it’s pretty comprehensive stuff.

I mean, it would appear that for the food deal, which means there’ll be fewer barriers and tariffs on us exporting beef and oysters, whatever else it may be, that sounds good.

We’ll be able to rejoin the EU passport scheme.

You’re taking a dog through Dover to Calais.

That sounds good, but does it come at a price?

Well, the argument actually is it comes, if you believe these documents, at a huge price.

The first being what is called dynamic alignment, which means every single law the EU passes in the area of food, food standards, and even in some areas on trade, we will literally have to follow without having any say whatsoever, and the British Parliament can’t be involved.

It will also involve the European Court of Justice having final say over any dispute in these areas.

And the shock of this one is that apparently, we’ve agreed in these pre-negotiations that we’ll accept their terms that we can’t return prisoners to Poland, to Portugal or elsewhere.

Frankly, if you do all of these things, if you’re even considering going back in some form of free movement, I believe this is a complete sellout by Burnham.

A man who has no mandate.

And whether you agree or disagree with the details, that it’s wrong at every level.

Andy Burnham Promised Not to Reopen Brexit Wounds – Now He’s Preparing a Major Shift in Britain’s Relationship With the EU

Andy Burnham is facing growing political criticism after promising not to reopen Britain’s bitter Brexit divisions while simultaneously preparing a major reset of the country’s relationship with the European Union.

The Prime Minister has insisted that he will respect the wishes of the British public and will not impose changes to Britain’s relationship with Brussels without democratic support. Yet his recent statements, proposals and preparations for closer European cooperation have raised questions about how far his government ultimately wants to go.

With a major UK-EU summit scheduled for 20 November 2026, Burnham is preparing to discuss a series of agreements covering trade, immigration, environmental regulation and opportunities for younger people to travel and work across Europe.

For critics, this represents a significant departure from the political assurances that helped Labour navigate the divisions surrounding Brexit. They fear that a gradual process of closer alignment could eventually lead Britain towards arrangements that voters rejected when they chose to leave the European Union in 2016.

The Government, however, insists that its approach is about improving Britain’s economic prospects and securing practical agreements rather than immediately reversing Brexit.

The political question is whether Burnham can deliver closer European cooperation without reigniting the divisions he previously promised to leave behind.

The Promise Not to Reopen Brexit Divisions

Brexit remains one of the most divisive political issues in modern British history.

The 2016 referendum resulted in 51.9 per cent of voters choosing to leave the European Union, compared with 48.1 per cent who voted to remain.

The result divided communities, political parties and even families.

For years, successive governments struggled to establish a stable relationship with Brussels while attempting to honour the referendum result.

Labour’s political strategy was built partly around moving beyond those arguments.

However, Burnham has increasingly questioned whether Britain’s existing arrangements are delivering the economic and political benefits that voters were promised.

At the Labour Party conference in September 2026, he argued that Brexit had done more harm than good and said Britain needed to examine its long-term relationship with the European Union.

He also suggested that the country should consider different options for its future relationship with the bloc.

His comments immediately generated controversy.

Some Labour politicians welcomed the opportunity to reconsider Britain’s position, while others warned that reopening the debate could create further political divisions.

Burnham subsequently insisted that he was not attempting to ignore the referendum result.

Instead, he argued that the country needed an honest discussion about the consequences of leaving the EU.

A Brexit Reset That Could Change Britain’s Future

The Government’s immediate priority is to establish closer economic and regulatory cooperation with European partners.

A series of agreements is being prepared ahead of the Brussels summit on 20 November.

According to reporting by The Guardian on 3 November, the proposed arrangements include three significant areas:

• An agricultural agreement designed to reduce barriers to food and agricultural trade.
• Participation in the EU emissions trading system.
• A youth mobility arrangement allowing younger British and European citizens to live and work temporarily in participating countries.

The agricultural agreement is expected to provide substantial economic benefits to British producers by reducing unnecessary checks and improving access to European markets.

The Government believes that the arrangement could be worth more than £5 billion to the British economy by 2040.

The wider package has been presented as potentially adding approximately £17 billion to the UK economy.

However, the agreements are not without controversy.

Participation in certain European programmes could require Britain to make financial contributions and accept common rules.

Critics argue that the country could gradually find itself following European regulations without enjoying the influence it previously possessed as an EU member.

Supporters counter that Britain can benefit from cooperation without having to reverse its departure from the bloc.

Could Britain Eventually Rejoin the European Union?

Perhaps the most politically sensitive aspect of Burnham’s position concerns the possibility of full EU membership.

The Prime Minister has acknowledged that rejoining the European Union is an option that could be considered as part of Britain’s long-term future.

In an interview with ITV on 26 October, however, he made clear that he would not push for Britain to rejoin during the current parliamentary term.

He also insisted that he would not move ahead of public opinion.

His position has nevertheless attracted attention because he has previously described Brexit as economically damaging and suggested that Britain should examine whether its current arrangements are sufficient.

Burnham has also said that he would like to see Britain back in the European Union within his lifetime.

These comments have encouraged some pro-European politicians and campaigners to demand a more explicit commitment to reversing Brexit.

Others within Labour remain concerned about the political consequences of reopening the issue.

For now, the Government maintains that no decision has been made about full membership.

The Immigration Question

Immigration is another major part of the debate.

One of the central arguments made by Brexit campaigners in 2016 was that leaving the European Union would allow Britain to regain control over its borders and immigration policy.

However, Burnham has argued that leaving the EU has created practical difficulties for cooperation with European partners.

He believes the loss of certain information-sharing arrangements has made it harder to tackle illegal migration and return people who have no legal right to remain in Britain.

During his recent interviews, he has also discussed the changing nature of immigration.

He argued that shorter-term migration from Europe had increasingly been replaced by longer-term settlement through other immigration routes.

Nevertheless, Burnham has explicitly denied proposing a return to freedom of movement.

In an interview with ITV on 3 November, he said: “I have not proposed freedom of movement coming back.”

He also insisted that the public must have the final say over any future changes.

The distinction matters because freedom of movement was one of the most politically contentious aspects of Britain’s membership of the European Union.

Any suggestion that it might return would almost certainly reopen difficult arguments about immigration, wages, public services and national sovereignty.

Labour’s Own MPs Are Divided

The Prime Minister’s European strategy has exposed disagreements within the Labour Party.

Some MPs believe Britain should move considerably closer to the EU, arguing that the economic consequences of Brexit have become increasingly difficult to ignore.

Others are concerned that closer regulatory alignment could create problems for British businesses and undermine the country’s ability to make independent decisions.

Jonathan Hinder has warned that Labour’s traditional heartland communities do not necessarily want Britain to adopt additional European rules.

His intervention highlights the challenge facing Burnham in constituencies where support for Brexit was historically strong.

The political difficulty is particularly significant because the 2016 referendum exposed divisions that did not follow traditional party boundaries.

Some Labour-supporting communities voted overwhelmingly to leave, while many Conservative and Liberal Democrat areas supported remaining.

Consequently, a renewed debate about Europe could create tensions across the political spectrum.

Burnham must therefore explain the practical advantages of his proposals without giving voters the impression that the referendum result is being ignored.

The Financial Cost of Getting Closer to Brussels

Another important issue concerns the potential financial consequences of the proposed agreements.

Britain is expected to make payments to participate in certain European programmes.

One example is the emissions trading arrangement, which is intended to help prevent British exporters from facing additional carbon-related charges when selling goods into the EU.

The Government argues that joining the system would provide greater certainty for businesses and reduce unnecessary trade costs.

However, critics question whether the financial contributions represent value for money.

They argue that Britain could end up paying billions of pounds to Brussels while having limited influence over decisions affecting British companies.

The Government’s response is that the costs must be considered alongside the potential economic benefits.

If reduced trade barriers, improved market access and regulatory cooperation generate additional economic activity, ministers believe the agreements could benefit the country overall.

The details of the final arrangements will therefore be crucial.

Taxpayers and businesses will want transparency about how much Britain is paying, which rules it must follow and what benefits it receives.

The November Summit Could Be a Turning Point

The forthcoming summit in Brussels is expected to provide an important opportunity for Burnham to demonstrate what his Brexit reset actually means.

The Prime Minister is expected to meet senior European leaders, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa.

The discussions are likely to focus on the agricultural agreement, youth mobility and emissions trading.

Although these proposals are narrower than full EU membership, they could establish a framework for closer cooperation over the coming years.

The Government hopes the agreements will demonstrate that Britain can improve its relationship with Europe without immediately reopening the question of membership.

However, European officials will also want clarity about Britain’s long-term intentions.

The wider relationship could involve difficult negotiations over industrial policy, trade standards, financial contributions and the extent to which British regulations should align with European rules.

The summit will therefore be watched closely by politicians, businesses and voters on both sides of the Channel.

What Happened to the Promise of Moving On?

Burnham’s critics argue that the Prime Minister is now returning to precisely the arguments he previously promised to avoid.

They believe that discussing different long-term options for Britain’s European relationship risks reopening political divisions that have dominated British politics for a decade.

Some Conservatives have accused Labour of creating uncertainty for businesses and voters by refusing to establish clear limits on its European ambitions.

Others argue that the Government should concentrate on domestic priorities rather than revisiting the arguments surrounding Brexit.

However, supporters of Burnham’s approach say that refusing to discuss the consequences of Brexit would be irresponsible.

They argue that political leaders must be willing to reconsider policies when economic circumstances change.

There is also an important distinction between improving trade arrangements and formally reversing Brexit.

Britain can negotiate closer cooperation with European countries without automatically becoming an EU member again.

The real debate concerns how much regulatory alignment, financial contribution and political cooperation the country should accept.

Conclusion: Britain Needs Clarity About Its Future Relationship With Europe

Andy Burnham’s Brexit strategy has opened a new chapter in Britain’s complicated relationship with the European Union.

His Government insists that the immediate objective is to improve trade, strengthen cooperation and deliver economic benefits rather than reverse the referendum result.

However, the Prime Minister’s willingness to discuss full membership as a long-term possibility has created uncertainty about where the process could eventually lead.

The November summit will be an important test of his approach.

The proposed agricultural agreement, emissions trading arrangements and youth mobility scheme could provide practical benefits, but they will also involve questions about financial contributions, regulation and national decision-making.

For voters who supported Brexit, the central concern is whether closer cooperation could gradually undermine the independence they believed they were securing in 2016.

For those who supported remaining in the EU, the question is whether the Government’s proposals go far enough to address the economic consequences of leaving.

Burnham has repeatedly insisted that the public must remain central to any decision about Britain’s future.

That commitment will need to be reflected in transparent negotiations, clear explanations and meaningful democratic accountability.

The country has already experienced years of political conflict over Europe. Any new settlement must therefore be based on evidence, honesty and a clear understanding of what voters are being asked to accept.

The ultimate challenge for the Prime Minister is to explain how Britain can build a closer relationship with its European neighbours without simply repeating the political battles that have divided the country for so long.