Andy Burnham is pushing for closer ties with the EU (Image: Getty)

Pointing out that Labour “will not be in government forever”, he added that a future Conservative or Reform UK administration could “leave again”.

He said: “I think people like me, Conservatives, people in Reform, would be absolutely clear that if we were to rejoin by Act of Parliament without the consent of the British people, we would not see that as valid.”

“When you say to them do you want to join the single currency they say no.

“So as soon as we get into the debate, people will realise that all the reasons they voted to leave are still true.”

Leading Brexiteer Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (Image: JONATHAN BUCKMASTER)

But this fell to just 35% if Britain did not have its prior opt-outs, with 43% opposed.

Any major change on the relationship with the EU will have to come after the next general election as Mr Burnham has committed to Labour’s 2024 red lines not to return to the single market, customs union or free movement.

The Prime Minister, who pledged not to “re-run” the Brexit arguments when standing in the Makerfield by-election, has said voters would be “the boss” of any changes.

Andy Burnham Issued Major Warning Over Brexit U-Turn Plan – EU Won’t Be Happy

Andy Burnham has reignited Britain’s increasingly divisive Brexit debate by signalling his determination to reshape the country’s relationship with the European Union. His proposals have raised serious questions about the future of British sovereignty, immigration controls, trade and the political promises made during the 2016 referendum. Although Burnham insists that closer cooperation with Europe could deliver economic benefits for Britain, critics warn that his approach risks reopening old political divisions and creating unrealistic expectations about what Brussels is prepared to offer.

The Prime Minister believes that Britain’s current Brexit arrangements have failed to deliver the economic advantages promised to voters. He argues that the agreement negotiated by previous Conservative governments created unnecessary barriers for British businesses, increased administrative costs and weakened the country’s ability to cooperate with European partners. In his view, Britain needs a more practical relationship with the EU that supports economic growth while protecting national interests.

However, Burnham’s ambitions extend beyond minor technical adjustments. He has indicated that Britain should examine several possible arrangements for its long-term relationship with Europe, including closer cooperation through the customs union, the single market and potentially even full membership of the European Union. Although he has insisted that no fundamental changes will be imposed without public support, his comments have generated considerable concern among supporters of Brexit.

One of the most sensitive issues is freedom of movement. Before Brexit, citizens of EU member states generally enjoyed the right to live and work in Britain without requiring the same immigration permissions as people from outside the European Union. Supporters believed that this system encouraged economic activity, helped businesses recruit workers and strengthened cultural relationships. However, opponents argued that it reduced Britain’s ability to control immigration and contributed to pressure on housing, wages and public services.

Burnham has previously insisted that he has not proposed restoring freedom of movement during the current Parliament. Nevertheless, he has argued that Britain should have an honest discussion about how immigration has changed since Brexit. He has also suggested that leaving the European Union has weakened Britain’s ability to share information and cooperate on certain migration issues.

His position has created difficulties within his own government. Some ministers are concerned that reopening the Brexit debate could undermine political unity and alienate voters who supported leaving the European Union. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has also expressed concerns about any arrangement that could eventually lead to the return of unrestricted freedom of movement.

The Prime Minister has attempted to manage these disagreements by instructing ministers not to publicly advocate specific options before the government completes its review of Britain’s future relationship with Europe. His intention is to maintain a consistent government position while negotiations continue.

Another major concern involves the attitude of European leaders. Although Brussels has welcomed Britain’s more constructive approach, the European Union is unlikely to offer the United Kingdom every advantage of membership without requiring corresponding obligations. European officials have made clear that any closer relationship must respect the interests and rules of the single market.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has expressed interest in seeing Britain return to the European Union but warned that negotiations would not be straightforward. She referred to the political damage caused by Brexit and suggested that European countries still have considerable reservations about reopening the relationship. Her comments highlight an important reality: Britain may want closer cooperation, but the EU also has its own priorities and negotiating conditions.

This is particularly important because Brexit fundamentally changed the relationship between Britain and the remaining 27 EU member states. Rebuilding trust requires more than political statements. Both sides must identify areas where cooperation produces practical benefits and establish arrangements that are acceptable to their respective governments.

Trade is one of the most promising areas for closer cooperation. British exporters have faced additional paperwork, customs procedures and regulatory requirements since leaving the European Union. These barriers have created difficulties for manufacturers, agricultural businesses and smaller companies that depend on European markets. Burnham believes that reducing unnecessary obstacles could help British businesses become more competitive and improve economic growth.

The government is therefore pursuing negotiations involving food and agricultural products, emissions trading and youth mobility. Such agreements could reduce costs for businesses, improve access to employment opportunities and strengthen cooperation on environmental policies. However, the European Union has its own requirements, and Britain will need to make concessions if it wants to secure meaningful improvements.

The issue of student tuition fees has also become a source of disagreement. The EU wants European students studying at British universities to receive tuition fee arrangements similar to those available to domestic students. The British government believes that an agreement could support wider cooperation, but critics argue that reducing fees for EU students while British graduates continue to face substantial student loan repayments would be politically difficult to justify.

The question of industrial cooperation is equally important. Britain wants its manufacturers to benefit from European industrial initiatives, particularly in sectors such as electric vehicles, clean energy and advanced technology. However, Brussels must balance closer cooperation with its own industrial priorities. British businesses may therefore face difficult negotiations over eligibility, financial contributions and regulatory alignment.

The political consequences of Burnham’s Brexit strategy could be substantial. Many voters who supported leaving the EU remain concerned about the possibility of gradually reversing the referendum result. They argue that Britain should not surrender the independence it regained through Brexit simply because the current economic arrangements are proving difficult.

On the other hand, supporters of closer European cooperation believe that the country must adapt to changing economic circumstances. They argue that the 2016 referendum took place before the full consequences of Brexit became clear and that Britain should be willing to reconsider arrangements that are no longer serving its interests.

The fundamental issue is whether closer relations with Europe can be achieved without undermining democratic accountability. Burnham has repeatedly stated that any major changes to Britain’s long-term relationship with the EU would ultimately require public consideration and a decision by a future Parliament. He has also insisted that he will not move ahead of public opinion.

Nevertheless, his opponents argue that the government must provide greater clarity about its objectives. Voters deserve to know whether ministers are seeking limited cooperation, a customs union, single-market participation or eventual EU membership. Without clear explanations, the debate could become dominated by political suspicion rather than a serious examination of economic evidence.

Ultimately, the success of Burnham’s strategy will depend on whether Britain can secure agreements that deliver genuine benefits without accepting disproportionate costs. The EU is unlikely to agree to arrangements that give Britain unrestricted access to European markets while allowing it to reject the obligations associated with that access. Both sides will need to compromise, and the final outcome may be considerably different from what either initially expects.

In conclusion, Andy Burnham’s proposed Brexit reset has reopened one of the most important political debates in modern British history. His argument that the existing arrangements are damaging economic growth deserves serious consideration, but closer relations with Brussels will inevitably involve difficult negotiations and political trade-offs. European leaders may welcome improved cooperation, yet they are unlikely to offer Britain special treatment without conditions. The government must therefore explain its objectives clearly, protect British interests and ensure that any significant constitutional changes receive proper democratic scrutiny. Ultimately, Britain’s future relationship with Europe should be determined by practical benefits, national interests and the informed judgment of the British people rather than political pressure or unrealistic promises.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.