Andy Burnham has come under fire over his Brexit plans (Image: GETTY)
Andy Burnham was accused of “selling out” the British public for closer ties with the EU, as he stepped up his Brexit surrender. The Prime Minister – who is poised to sign major new giveaways with Brussels next week – was slammed after cosying up to European leaders over dinner.
Nigel Farage blasted: “It’s now clear that Andy Burnham is determined to sell out the British people and our national interest in favour of the European Union.” Mr Burnham joined counterparts at the European Political Community meeting in Dublin on Thursday, as he continues to finalise the terms of his reset with the EU.
Brexiteer Nigel Farage lashed out at Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)
French President Emmanuel Macron and EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen were among those he held talks with in Ireland.
Concerns are growing that the Labour leader will make deep concessions to get better trade terms at a crunch EU-UK summit next Friday.
They could include contributions to Brussels coffers, a youth “free movement” scheme and taking the bloc’s rules.
Member states are also gearing up to play hardball over demands for cut-price tuition fees.
The Prime Minister has also triggered a wider push for rejoining the EU entirely after the next general election, which has proved toxic within the Cabinet.
Many people also see this as a complete betrayal of the 17.4million people who voted to leave the European Union for good in the 2016 referendum.
Mr Farage told the Express, which successfully campaigned for Britain to quit the EU, “He wants to open the borders to 500 million people in the EU and pay over 40 billion a year just for the privilege of rejoining.
“It’s time Brussels Burnham put the interests of the British people first but if the Prime Minister wants this fight all over again – I say bring it on.”
His warning shot comes after David Cameron said it would be bad for the UK to go back into the bloc, urging the current PM to stop blaming Brexit for the UK’s economic woes.
Lord Cameron saw his own premiership derailed by his loss in the referendum, during which he led the Remain campaign.
In a major intervention, he told Bloomberg: “If you look at the economic problems we have today, I don’t really think they’ve got anything to do with Brexit at all”.
Meanwhile, Senior Tory MP Dame Priti Patel also warned: “Andy Burnham’s obsession with the EU risks dragging Britain backwards, damaging our economy and leaving hardworking British taxpayers footing the bill.
“The British people voted to leave the EU. That democratic decision must be respected, not endlessly undermined by the liberal left establishment who refuse to accept it.
“Instead of reopening old Brexit arguments, Burnham should be focused on the real challenges facing our country: driving economic growth, cutting taxes, reducing regulation and backing British businesses.
“We need a government focused on Britain’s future, not one obsessed with returning to its past.”
Mr Burnham has said he will use next week’s summit to “set up a serious dialogue” about the UK’s longer-term ties with the EU, having claimed that “sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain”.
The former Manchester Mayor, who has previously expressed a wish to see the UK rejoin the EU in his lifetime, has said he will soon set out “different options”for voters.
But his reopening of the Brexit debate has created a major divide within the Labour party with his senior team split on the matter.
A government source said: “This has made some people quite uncomfortable in government. “Some believe it will be regarded as some kind of surrender that won’t go down well in their ‘Red Wall’ constituencies. Others, though, are completely up for the fight.”
It comes as a new report today (Fri) warns that closer alignment with areas of EU law will lead to a red tape nightmare that could push up consumer prices, business costs and household budgets.
The House of Lords European Affairs Committee said dynamic alignment arrangements will make for a fundamental change in the UK-EU relationship that will increase the demands on Parliament.
Lord Stirrup, Chair of the European Affairs Committee, said: “This may sound like a technical issue, but the rules in question can affect everyday matters, from food standards and consumer prices to business costs and household budgets.”
Mr Burnham announced that the UK is sanctioning all 10 of Russia’s major oil producers at yesterday’s European Political Community (EPC) summit in Dublin.
He also ramped up pressure on Vladimir Putin to take peace talks seriously.
Mr Burnham said Britain has slapped a package of new sanctions on Moscow, including on shadow fleet vessels illicitly transporting Russian oil, Russian oil company Slavneft, and Rosneft’s flagship Arctic oil and gas project LLC Vostok Oil.
Andy Burnham Faces Nigel Farage’s Fierce Criticism Over Brexit ‘Sell-Out’ as EU Row Escalates
The political dispute over Britain’s future relationship with the European Union has intensified after Nigel Farage launched a strong attack on Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s proposed closer cooperation with Brussels. Farage has accused the Labour Government of betraying the promises made during the 2016 Brexit referendum, arguing that the proposed agreements could gradually undermine Britain’s independence and reverse important aspects of leaving the European Union. The confrontation has reopened deep divisions within British politics over national sovereignty, immigration, trade and the economic consequences of Brexit.
At the centre of the controversy is Burnham’s plan to negotiate a closer economic partnership with the EU. His Government argues that Britain’s departure from the European single market and customs union has created additional barriers for businesses, increased administrative costs and complicated trade with one of the country’s largest trading partners. The proposed changes are intended to improve cooperation in areas such as food standards, energy, carbon emissions and youth mobility. However, Farage and other Brexit supporters believe that these arrangements could represent a significant retreat from the independence Britain sought when it voted to leave the EU in June 2016.
The disagreement has become more serious following Farage’s warning that Britain could eventually face renewed freedom of movement with the EU and potentially substantial financial contributions to Brussels. He has claimed that Burnham’s approach risks reopening the very immigration and sovereignty questions that motivated millions of people to vote Leave. In comments reported by the Daily Express on 13 November, Farage accused the Prime Minister of putting European interests ahead of Britain’s national interests. He also argued that the country should concentrate on making Brexit work rather than attempting to reverse its consequences.
Burnham, however, has defended the need for a different relationship with Europe. He argues that the current Brexit arrangements have created unnecessary obstacles for British businesses and have not delivered the economic advantages originally promised to voters. He has pointed to additional paperwork for exporters, difficulties affecting food producers and the loss of opportunities for young people. His position is that Britain should be willing to discuss practical improvements while ensuring that any significant long-term changes receive public consideration. He has also indicated that he does not intend to take Britain back into the EU during the current parliamentary term.
The economic consequences are central to this disagreement. Britain continues to trade extensively with European countries, making the EU an important market for British manufacturers, farmers, retailers and service providers. Since leaving the single market and customs union, many exporters have faced additional documentation, regulatory checks and administrative expenses. Businesses dealing with fresh food, agricultural products and other regulated goods have been particularly affected. The Government believes that closer cooperation could reduce these costs and improve the competitiveness of British companies.
One proposed measure involves aligning certain food safety and agricultural standards with European regulations. This could reduce border inspections and simplify the movement of products between Britain and EU member states. Supporters believe that the arrangement could help supermarkets, farmers and food manufacturers while potentially reducing some costs for consumers. However, opponents question whether Britain would have sufficient influence over European regulations that it might be required to follow.
Energy and environmental policy are also important parts of the proposed relationship. Linking Britain’s carbon emissions trading arrangements with the EU system could provide greater certainty for businesses and reduce some costs associated with operating across international markets. Nevertheless, closer regulatory alignment could limit the Government’s ability to establish completely independent policies in certain areas.
Youth mobility has become another major source of disagreement. A possible agreement could allow young British and European citizens to spend limited periods studying, working or gaining professional experience in each other’s countries. Supporters argue that such opportunities would benefit universities, businesses and young people. Farage, however, sees the prospect of restoring freedom of movement as a fundamental departure from the outcome of the Brexit referendum. The distinction between a restricted youth mobility programme and unrestricted freedom of movement will therefore be particularly important in the negotiations.
The debate has also exposed differences within the Labour Government itself. Some ministers support closer cooperation because they believe it could improve economic growth and strengthen Britain’s international position. Others are concerned that reopening the Brexit question could create political difficulties, particularly in constituencies where a significant proportion of voters supported leaving the EU. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has warned against repeatedly reopening arguments about rejoining Europe without a clear explanation of the Government’s objectives.
Another important intervention has come from former Prime Minister David Cameron, who has questioned whether Brexit is responsible for all of Britain’s current economic difficulties. His argument is that the country faces several domestic and international challenges that cannot simply be attributed to leaving the EU. This highlights an important distinction in the political debate: while Brexit has created additional trade barriers, other factors, including productivity, investment, energy prices and global economic conditions, also influence Britain’s economic performance.
For ordinary British households, the most important question is whether any new agreement will improve living standards. Lower administrative costs could potentially benefit food producers and retailers, but there is no guarantee that every saving will be passed directly to consumers. Similarly, improved access to European markets could support employment and business investment, but the economic benefits would depend on the details of the final arrangements.
Ultimately, the confrontation between Andy Burnham and Nigel Farage reflects a fundamental disagreement about Britain’s future. Burnham argues that closer cooperation with Europe could address some of the economic difficulties created by the current Brexit arrangements, while Farage believes that further integration risks undermining national sovereignty and the democratic decision made in 2016. Neither the proposed agreements nor the accusations of a political sell-out should be confused with an actual decision to rejoin the European Union. The outcome of the negotiations will depend on the terms agreed, the obligations accepted and the extent of public and parliamentary support. As Britain prepares for another important round of discussions with Brussels, the challenge for the Government will be to demonstrate that any closer relationship delivers measurable economic benefits without creating commitments that voters have not been given an opportunity to examine.