Andy Burnham has always wanted back in (Image: Daily Express)
Being a backbench MP may be one of the worst jobs in Parliament. Your party won the election, but from the back of the class you have next to no say in what goes on. There is, however, one useful service a backbencher can perform. He can roll the pitch for the Government.
That, I suspect, is exactly what Chris Ward was doing when he took to the pages of The Guardian on Monday. Mr Ward, as he is keen to point out, is not just your ordinary backbencher. No, no, he was Starmer’s man when Sir Keir was Shadow Brexit Secretary, don’t you know?
And it was he who co-wrote the Brexit red lines in Labour’s 2024 manifesto: no rejoining the EU, no single market, no customs union, no return to freedom of movement.
Now their author says they should be pensioned off (given a “dignified retirement”) by the next General Election.
More revealing is his explanation of why they existed at all. The red lines, he wrote, were “designed precisely to close down the debate and to narrow the target” Brexit had become for Labour.
It might be one of the more honest statements made by a politician in recent years, a clear admission that a pledge in a manifesto was not a matter of principle but rather a tool to get through an election.
He is of course not alone; Remainers travel in packs. Several MPs have now suggested the time is right for Andy Burnham to consider sacking off the Brexit vote and Rejoin.
The pitch is being prepared, one roller at a time, and the man at the crease is ready.
Mr Burnham, the regular ordinary bloke who became our Prime Minister in July, has said he wants Britain back in the EU in his lifetime, while insisting he is “not proposing any changes in this Parliament”.
He has called for an “honest discussion” about free movement and has said a single market option could go in a Labour manifesto.
Soon he will sign a deal, about which we know remarkably little, with his suitors in Brussels.
Mr Burnham has promised that every policy must pass his “Makerfield test”, aka: it must improve life in the Leave-voting seat he now represents.
Yet polling, which suggests his own constituents want laws made here, not in the EU, suggests his plans fail that test.
To be fair to Mr Ward, his case is not entirely frivolous. He argues that Britain can no longer rely on America, which is itself a serious point in a dangerous world.
But Britain can stand shoulder to shoulder with France and Poland without letting Brussels write its food standards or decide who settles here. Membership of NATO never required the single market.
The danger is not one MP’s article. It is what it tells us about the last manifesto – and the next one.
A red line with a retirement date was never a red line. It was a sales pitch. And the sale, it seems, is nearly closed.
Andy Burnham’s Man Just Revealed His Hand – Reversing Brexit Is Now on the Table
Andy Burnham’s plans for Britain’s future relationship with the European Union have entered a new and potentially controversial phase after a senior Labour figure indicated that reversing Brexit could become part of the party’s long-term political ambitions. The development has reignited questions about whether Labour is preparing to take Britain back towards Brussels and whether voters will be given a meaningful choice before major decisions are made. For millions of people who supported leaving the EU in 2016, the prospect of reopening the membership question is deeply significant. They believed Brexit would restore Britain’s control over its laws, borders and national finances. Now, with Burnham openly discussing a range of possible arrangements, including full EU membership, critics are demanding to know exactly what Labour intends to achieve.
The latest controversy centres on the government’s changing language about Brexit. During the election campaign, Labour repeatedly promised to respect its manifesto commitments and ruled out rejoining the single market, customs union and restoring freedom of movement during the current Parliament. However, Burnham has increasingly suggested that these restrictions should not necessarily determine Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe.
His comments have created an important distinction between what Labour promises to do now and what it might propose at the next general election. Although the government insists that no immediate return to EU membership is planned, the possibility of a future manifesto commitment has become a serious political discussion.
The Prime Minister has previously said Britain could maintain its current arrangements, negotiate a customs union, consider single market participation or potentially go all the way and rejoin the European Union. This statement has made clear that full membership is no longer being excluded from the conversation.
For Brexit supporters, this represents a significant development. The 2016 referendum was not a minor political disagreement. It was a historic national decision in which 51.9 per cent of voters chose to leave the European Union. Approximately 17.4 million people supported Brexit, compared with around 16.1 million who voted to remain.
Many Leave voters believed that Britain needed to regain control of its political and economic future. They wanted Parliament to make national laws, the government to determine immigration policy and Britain to negotiate trade agreements independently.
Consequently, any proposal to reverse Brexit raises serious questions about democratic accountability. Critics argue that Labour cannot simply treat the referendum result as an outdated political decision that can be quietly reconsidered whenever circumstances change.
One of the most important concerns involves immigration. Ending freedom of movement was a central objective for many Brexit supporters. Before Britain’s departure, citizens of EU member states generally enjoyed rights to live and work in the UK under European arrangements.
Returning to full EU membership would normally involve accepting the principle of free movement again. This could become politically difficult for a government that has repeatedly promised to maintain control over immigration.
Burnham has denied proposing an immediate restoration of freedom of movement. He has also said that the British public should have the final say over any future changes. Nevertheless, his willingness to examine different long-term options has created uncertainty about what Labour might propose after the next election.
The financial implications are equally important. EU membership involves contributions to the European budget, participation in common programmes and acceptance of various financial responsibilities. The precise cost of any future British membership would depend on negotiations, economic circumstances and the arrangements agreed with Brussels.
Labour would therefore need to explain how much taxpayers might be expected to contribute and what economic benefits would justify that expenditure.
At a time when Britain faces enormous pressure on public services, the NHS, social care, education and local government, voters deserve a detailed financial assessment. Any additional international commitments must be considered alongside domestic spending priorities.
There are, however, economic arguments supporting a closer relationship with Europe. The EU remains one of Britain’s most important trading partners, and businesses have faced additional customs procedures and administrative requirements since Brexit.
Manufacturers, agricultural producers and exporters have all had to adapt to the new trading arrangements. Smaller businesses can find the additional paperwork particularly difficult because they have fewer resources to manage complex international regulations.
Supporters of closer integration believe that reducing these barriers could improve trade, encourage investment and strengthen economic growth. They argue that Britain should not allow political disagreements to prevent practical cooperation with neighbouring countries.
However, the question is whether these advantages require full EU membership. Britain could negotiate additional trade and cooperation agreements without necessarily reversing Brexit altogether.
Another important issue is national sovereignty. Rejoining the EU would mean accepting a legal and institutional framework in which European legislation and institutions play an important role. Supporters consider this an acceptable compromise for the benefits of membership, while critics believe it would reduce Britain’s ability to establish independent policies.
The European Union is also unlikely to offer Britain unrestricted access to its markets without requiring commitments in return. Any negotiations would involve difficult discussions about financial contributions, regulatory alignment, immigration and the rights and responsibilities of participating countries.
The experience of Norway illustrates some of these challenges. Norway participates in the European single market through the European Economic Area but is not a full EU member. It must adopt many relevant European regulations despite not enjoying the same voting rights as EU member states.
This arrangement demonstrates that economic integration can involve substantial obligations even without full membership.
For Burnham, the political consequences could be considerable. Labour contains voters and MPs with very different views about Brexit. Some believe leaving the EU was a historic mistake, while others represent constituencies where support for Brexit remains strong.
A manifesto promising to rejoin the European Union could therefore reopen divisions within the party and create difficult questions for Labour candidates in Leave-supporting communities.
Nigel Farage and Reform UK have already made opposition to reversing Brexit an important part of their political message. Farage argues that voters who supported leaving should not have their decision undermined by politicians pursuing closer relations with Brussels.
The Conservatives are also likely to scrutinise Labour’s plans, particularly where they involve immigration, financial contributions and regulatory independence.
Nevertheless, Burnham’s supporters believe the country has changed since 2016. They argue that public attitudes towards EU membership have evolved and that Britain should have an honest discussion about the economic consequences of Brexit.
There is evidence of growing public interest in the subject, although opinion polls do not necessarily demonstrate support for every possible form of European integration. Rejoining the EU, joining the single market and negotiating a customs union are separate proposals with different consequences.
This distinction is essential. Voters should be able to understand precisely what is being proposed rather than being presented with a general promise of closer relations.
The government must also explain how any future decision would be made. Would Labour seek a fresh electoral mandate? Would it propose a referendum? Would Parliament decide after a lengthy public consultation? These questions remain central to the debate.
Ultimately, the British public deserves transparency. If Labour believes that reversing Brexit would improve the country’s future, ministers should present their arguments openly, explain the financial implications and allow voters to examine the alternatives.
Britain should not return to a period of political uncertainty in which major constitutional decisions are discussed without clear public understanding of their consequences.
In conclusion, the latest developments surrounding Andy Burnham and his senior Labour team suggest that reversing Brexit is now a genuine subject of political discussion rather than an option automatically excluded from consideration. The government maintains that its immediate manifesto commitments remain unchanged, but the possibility of a future move towards full EU membership has clearly entered the national debate. Immigration, national sovereignty, financial contributions and economic growth will all be central to any decision. Supporters of closer European relations believe Britain needs a more ambitious partnership with Brussels, while Brexit supporters insist that the democratic decision of 2016 must be respected. Neither side should expect the public to accept vague promises or political slogans as a substitute for detailed explanations. If Labour intends to make reversing Brexit part of its future programme, it must say so clearly, explain what membership would involve and allow the British people to make an informed choice. Britain’s relationship with Europe is too important to be decided through political ambiguity. The country deserves an open debate, transparent negotiations and genuine democratic accountability.