Andy Burnham is eyeing closer ties with the EU (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has been warned against striking a Norway-style deal with the EU by the country’s premier. Norwegian PM Jonas Gahr Støre said the UK should not follow his nation’s example by signing up to free market access without being a full member as you become rule-taker.
He told Politico: “After Brexit, British friends called me and said, tell us about the Norwegian way of doing it. And I said, if you left the EU because there was too much Brussels, don’t take the Norwegian version. Because here, you know, basically we are taking most of their decisions, we implement them.”
Norway’s PM issues warning over EU relationship (Image: Getty)
It comes as the Prime Minister is due to sign a series of deals with the EU later this month at a joint summit in Brussels. And Mr Burnham, who has said he wants to see Britain rejoin in his lifetime, is looking at options for the long-term relationship with the bloc.
However, any major change would have to come after the next general election, as he has committed to Labour’s 2024 red lines of not returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. Speaking over the weekend, he told the Mirror: “It pays to have a good relationship with your neighbours, and the practical deals we are agreeing with Europe will pay off for families across the UK
“Cutting red tape on food coming in and out of the country will ease pressure on prices at the supermarket, while making life easier for farmers and food producers. This summit will show what we can achieve when we work together, but it doesn’t need to be the end of our ambition.
“Working more closely with Europe could drive growth, make our country safer and give us more tools to tackle illegal migration. That’s a conversation worth having.”
But the EU’s former chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, has insisted there would be “no cherry-picking”.
Referring to the four freedoms of goods, movement of people, services and capital, he told the BBC: “There will be no possibility to have one freedom and not the other.
“The four freedoms are clearly the four conditions to be inside the single market.”
Andy Burnham Issued Blunt EU Warning by Norway’s PM – A Brexit Reality Check Labour Cannot Ignore
Andy Burnham has received an uncomfortable warning from an unexpected source as his plans to bring Britain closer to the European Union face growing scrutiny. Norway’s Prime Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, has cautioned the British government against copying Norway’s unusual relationship with Brussels, arguing that the arrangement comes with significant disadvantages for countries that want to maintain full political independence. His intervention has raised important questions about Burnham’s ambitions for Britain’s post-Brexit future and whether the Prime Minister fully understands the compromises involved in securing greater access to the European single market. At the centre of the controversy is a difficult political choice: can Britain enjoy the economic benefits of European integration without accepting the rules and obligations that come with it?
The Norwegian Prime Minister’s warning is particularly significant because Norway has maintained a close economic relationship with the EU despite never becoming a full member. Through the European Economic Area (EEA), Norway participates in the single market and benefits from access to European markets. However, this arrangement requires the country to adopt a substantial amount of European legislation without having the same voting rights as full EU member states.
Speaking to Politico, Støre explained that he had previously been approached by British politicians interested in understanding the Norwegian model after Brexit. His advice was surprisingly direct. He warned that if Britain had left the EU because it wanted less influence from Brussels, adopting Norway’s arrangement would not necessarily solve that problem.
He explained that Norway effectively takes many European decisions and implements them domestically, despite not being a full member of the bloc. Although the arrangement has worked for Norway, he questioned whether it would be appropriate for a much larger country such as Britain.
His comments represent an important reality check for politicians advocating closer European integration. Norway demonstrates that leaving the EU does not necessarily mean abandoning economic integration, but it also illustrates that maintaining access to the single market can involve accepting rules established elsewhere.
For Burnham, this creates a difficult political dilemma. He has repeatedly criticised the Brexit arrangements negotiated by previous Conservative governments, arguing that they have created unnecessary barriers for British businesses and damaged economic growth. He believes that Britain needs a more ambitious relationship with Europe and has indicated that rejoining the EU could be a long-term possibility during his political lifetime.
However, the Norwegian Prime Minister’s intervention highlights the limitations of trying to combine economic advantages with complete political independence.
Norway’s arrangement is based on participation in the single market through the EEA agreement. This provides access to a broad European economic area but requires compliance with relevant single-market legislation. Norway also participates in arrangements covering areas such as research, education and security through additional agreements.
The country does not have the same voting rights as EU member states when European legislation is negotiated and adopted. Although Norwegian representatives can participate in discussions and provide input during certain stages of the process, the final decision-making authority remains with EU institutions and member states.
This creates what is often described as a democratic deficit. Norway has accepted this compromise because its government believes the economic advantages of participation outweigh the disadvantages. However, Støre believes that Britain’s circumstances are different and that British politicians should carefully consider the consequences before pursuing a similar arrangement.
His warning is especially relevant because Brexit supporters repeatedly argued that Britain should regain control over its laws and regulations. If the UK were to adopt the Norwegian model, critics would question whether the country had simply exchanged one form of European influence for another.
The question is not necessarily whether the Norwegian arrangement is good or bad. It is whether it matches the political and economic priorities of Britain after Brexit.
Burnham has argued that closer relations with the EU could help address several problems affecting the British economy. Since leaving the bloc, exporters have faced additional paperwork, customs procedures and regulatory requirements. Smaller businesses have sometimes struggled to absorb these costs, while food producers and agricultural companies have experienced additional complications when trading with European customers.
The government believes that practical agreements could reduce these barriers and improve economic cooperation. One of the priorities for the upcoming UK-EU summit in Brussels on November 20, 2026, is a proposed agreement covering food and agricultural trade.
Other areas under discussion include energy cooperation, emissions trading, youth mobility and closer cooperation on immigration. Ministers hope that these arrangements will provide economic benefits without immediately reopening the most controversial aspects of Brexit.
Burnham has argued that improved relations with European neighbours could support economic growth, strengthen national security and provide additional tools for tackling illegal migration. He has also suggested that the forthcoming summit should not necessarily represent the limit of Britain’s future ambitions.
Nevertheless, Norway’s experience demonstrates that every form of closer integration comes with obligations. Britain cannot simply demand unrestricted access to European markets while refusing to accept the rules that make such access possible.
This issue has also been highlighted by Michel Barnier, the European Union’s former chief Brexit negotiator. Barnier has insisted that there can be no selective participation in the single market. The four freedoms involving goods, services, capital and people form the foundation of the system.
His position presents another challenge for Burnham, particularly regarding immigration. One of the central promises of Brexit was that Britain would regain control over immigration from EU countries and end automatic freedom of movement.
Returning to the single market through an EEA-style arrangement would involve accepting free movement arrangements. This could become politically difficult for a government that wants to demonstrate that Brexit’s central commitments have been respected.
Immigration remains one of the most sensitive issues in British politics. Many voters believe that the government must retain the ability to determine who can enter Britain, how long they can stay and under what conditions they can work. They are concerned that closer European integration could eventually undermine these powers.
On the other hand, businesses have argued that greater mobility could help address labour shortages and improve opportunities for young people. Certain industries, including agriculture, hospitality and healthcare, have historically relied on workers from European countries.
Burnham therefore faces competing demands from different parts of the country. Businesses want fewer trade barriers and easier recruitment, while many Brexit supporters want stronger national control over immigration and domestic regulations.
The financial implications must also be considered. Norway makes financial contributions to European programmes as part of its wider relationship with the EU. If Britain sought a comparable arrangement, taxpayers could face additional financial commitments. The government would need to explain precisely what these payments would fund and whether the economic benefits justified the expenditure.
There is also the question of Britain’s influence on international trade. One of the arguments made in favour of Brexit was that the UK could negotiate independent trade agreements with countries around the world. Closer alignment with European regulations could restrict some of the freedom that Britain gained after leaving the bloc.
Supporters of closer integration argue that access to the European market remains economically important and that practical cooperation could be more valuable than theoretical independence. Critics, however, believe that Britain should not sacrifice regulatory freedom without receiving meaningful decision-making powers in return.
Norway’s warning has therefore exposed a central contradiction in the wider Brexit debate. Politicians want to reduce economic barriers with Europe, but they must also explain how they intend to preserve the independence that Brexit was designed to deliver.
The political consequences could be significant for Labour. Burnham has opened a debate that previous governments largely avoided, and opposition parties are already questioning the direction of his European policy. Nigel Farage and Reform UK are likely to focus on the possibility that closer integration could gradually reverse important aspects of Brexit. Conservative politicians have also demanded assurances that Britain will not return to European arrangements without a clear democratic mandate.
Within Labour, there are also concerns about the potential consequences of reopening the Brexit debate. Some MPs representing constituencies that voted strongly to leave are worried that voters could interpret the government’s approach as an attempt to reverse the referendum result.
Burnham has insisted that any fundamental change to Britain’s relationship with Europe would require public involvement and a future parliamentary mandate. His current government remains committed to the existing manifesto commitments not to rejoin the single market or customs union and not to restore freedom of movement during this Parliament.
However, his long-term ambitions remain open to debate.
Ultimately, Støre’s intervention provides an important lesson for British politicians. Norway has developed a workable relationship with the EU, but that arrangement involves compromises that its government has chosen to accept. Britain must decide whether those compromises would be acceptable for a country with a different population, economy and political history.
In conclusion, Andy Burnham’s plans for closer relations with the European Union have received a significant reality check from Norway’s Prime Minister. Jonas Gahr Støre has made clear that the Norwegian model is not necessarily an arrangement Britain should seek to copy, particularly because it requires accepting many European rules without enjoying full membership rights. His warning highlights the difficult choices facing the British government as it considers its long-term relationship with Brussels. Better access to European markets could benefit businesses and support economic growth, but it may also involve financial contributions, regulatory commitments and difficult questions about immigration and national sovereignty. Burnham must therefore explain exactly what kind of relationship he wants and what Britain would have to give in return. The country deserves an honest discussion based on facts rather than political slogans. Brexit fundamentally changed Britain’s relationship with Europe, and any decision about its future should be made transparently, with full parliamentary scrutiny and a clear understanding of the consequences for British taxpayers, businesses and future generations.