Andy Burnham is pushing us to the EU by stealth. The bill will follow (Image: Getty)
During the Makerfield by-election, the PM pledged he wouldn’t “re-run” Brexit arguments. In one way, he hasn’t. He’s pressing ahead with what he’s always wanted: reversing the referendum victory by stealth and dragging us back into Brussels’ slippery embrace. This isn’t a re-run, but a “reset”, apparently. Burnham has tested the waters and now he’s going to take the plunge. And no, we don’t get to vote this time. We might vote the wrong way, and Burnham and Brussels won’t like that.
The UK and EU have agreed a draft deal to remove post-Brexit checks on food and agricultural exports. Burnham calls it win-win, but we’ll just have to take his word for it. As Makerfield voters can testify, his word isn’t worth a Brussels-subsidised bean. Other concessions include accepting freedom of movement for young people from the EU, when more than 1 million of our own can’t find work. European students will get low-cost tuition fees, too.
What do we get in return? What’s not to like? Apart from absolutely everything. Burnham is due in Brussels on November 20 to seal the deal, without any mandate from voters. Even his own Cabinet is split, with senior figures including Chancellor John Healey, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy expressing severe doubts.
By accepting dynamic alignment or rejoining the single market, we could be obliged to follow large chunks of EU law without a vote on how those rules are made. Brussels will tell Brits what we can make, eat or sell, and all we can do is suck it up.
It makes me wonder why Andy Burnham even bothered becoming PM, when he’s working so hard to give away much of his power. Maybe it’s because he hasn’t got a clue what to do with it.
Any deal arranged could also potentially restore free movement. Burnham has called for an “honest discussion” about this. We can discuss it all we like, but has he already made up his mind?
Labour’s 2024 manifesto explicitly ruled out returning to the single market, customs union or freedom of movement. Burnham could reverse any of those based on what? His mandate is just 25,000 voters in Makerfield, who he deliberately misled over his intentions.
Joining the customs union would force us to apply the same external tariffs as the EU, restricting our ability to negotiate trade deals on our own terms. It could also undermine the City of London by limiting its freedom to regulate quickly. We’ll just have to slavishly follow whatever growth-crushing rules Brussels sets.
Naturally, the EU could demand financial contributions in return for access to its markets. We could end up paying without enjoying the influence of being a full member.
Worst of all, Burnham is doing exactly what he pledged he wouldn’t: reopening the poisonous Brexit civil war. Family discussions are about to get heated all over again, just when we should be concentrating on the economy, public services and the cost of living.
Ultimately, Labour won’t stop there. This is just a step towards the broader goal of rejoining the EU. If we did, we wouldn’t get our previous opt-outs or £5billion budget rebate, Brussels has made that clear. Once again, you’ll pay, but you won’t get a say.
ANDY BURNHAM JUST PUT BRUSSELS BACK IN CHARGE – AND YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE! BRITAIN’S BREXIT BETRAYAL ROW EXPLODES
A political storm is gathering across Britain as Prime Minister Andy Burnham faces mounting criticism over his plans to bring the country closer to the European Union.
Brexit supporters are warning that Labour’s proposed European reset could give Brussels increasing influence over British laws, businesses and everyday life, while leaving British taxpayers facing additional financial commitments.
For millions of people who voted Leave in 2016, the controversy raises an uncomfortable question: did Britain really take back control, only to see politicians gradually surrender some of those powers again?
Burnham insists that closer cooperation with Europe could help Britain’s economy, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and improve relations with its largest trading partner.
But critics believe the government is risking a major reversal of Brexit without giving voters a clear opportunity to decide.
Brussels Could Regain Influence Over British Laws
One of the biggest concerns involves the possibility of Britain adopting EU regulations in specific areas.
Under proposals for closer cooperation on food and agricultural trade, Britain could agree to what is known as dynamic alignment.
This means following relevant EU rules as they change, rather than maintaining completely separate regulatory systems.
Supporters argue that this would reduce inspections, paperwork and costs for British exporters.
However, opponents warn that British businesses could become subject to regulations developed in Brussels without Britain having an equivalent vote in the EU institutions responsible for making them.
This is particularly controversial because Brexit was partly driven by the desire to restore parliamentary control over British laws.
The concern is not simply about individual regulations. It is about the long-term balance of power between Westminster and Brussels.
The 780 EU Laws Controversy
Reform UK has highlighted a parliamentary report warning that agricultural legislation could generate at least 780 pieces of relevant EU legislation annually.
The figure has become a major part of the political argument surrounding Labour’s Brexit reset.
Critics say businesses could face additional compliance requirements even when they operate entirely within Britain.
They also question whether the government has adequately assessed the financial consequences for smaller businesses.
However, the figure refers to legislation potentially within the scope of the proposed regulatory alignment, not 780 completely new laws automatically imposed on every British business.
The distinction matters, but the underlying question remains: how much regulatory control should Britain be prepared to share in exchange for easier access to European markets?
British Taxpayers Could Face Additional EU Payments
Money is another major source of controversy.
European leaders have indicated that Britain may need to make additional financial contributions if it wants access to certain European programmes.
One example involves closer cooperation with the EU electricity market.
European leaders have raised the possibility of Britain contributing to a cohesion fund as part of the arrangements.
British officials have not accepted that principle, but have acknowledged that the issue could form part of negotiations.
This means the financial details remain unresolved.
For ordinary households already dealing with energy bills, mortgage payments and rising living costs, the possibility of additional public spending commitments is likely to attract considerable attention.
Taxpayers will want to know exactly what Britain would pay, what benefits it would receive and whether the agreements would provide genuine value for money.
Burnham Opens the Door to Rejoining the EU
Perhaps the most politically explosive development has been Burnham’s willingness to discuss the possibility of Britain eventually rejoining the European Union.
In September 2026, he said the country should examine several options for its long-term relationship with Brussels.
These included:
- Maintaining the current post-Brexit arrangements.
- Joining a customs union.
- Returning to the EU single market.
- Eventually rejoining the European Union entirely.
Burnham argued that Brexit had caused more economic harm than good and that Britain needed to reconsider its long-term relationship with its largest trading partner.
However, he has also stated that he is not proposing that Britain rejoin the EU during the current parliamentary term.
No decision to reverse Brexit has been announced.
Nevertheless, his comments have reignited one of Britain’s most divisive political debates.
Nigel Farage Sees a Political Opportunity
Nigel Farage and Reform UK have strongly criticised Labour’s approach.
For Reform, the issue represents an opportunity to reconnect with voters who believe the promises made during the 2016 referendum are being gradually abandoned.
The party argues that Britain should maintain control over its borders, laws, fishing waters and economic decisions.
Farage has repeatedly presented Brexit as a democratic decision that politicians must respect.
Reform’s criticism is likely to resonate with some traditional Labour voters, particularly in areas where support for leaving the EU was historically strong.
However, Labour argues that closer cooperation does not automatically mean reversing Brexit.
The political battle will increasingly focus on whether the proposed agreements offer practical economic benefits or create unacceptable obligations.
What Could This Mean for British Farmers and Businesses?
The government believes closer relations with Europe could provide important advantages.
British food producers have faced additional paperwork and regulatory checks since Brexit.
A veterinary and food standards agreement could potentially reduce some of these barriers.
Businesses exporting agricultural products could benefit from smoother access to European markets.
Supporters also argue that improved energy cooperation could strengthen electricity supplies and support investment.
However, critics warn that regulatory alignment could limit Britain’s freedom to develop different standards and policies.
Smaller businesses may also struggle with the cost of complying with additional requirements.
The government must therefore demonstrate that the economic benefits genuinely outweigh the financial and regulatory commitments involved.
Will Voters Get a Say?
This is perhaps the most important question.
Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016, and that decision fundamentally changed the country’s political and economic direction.
Any future proposal to rejoin the EU would represent an enormous constitutional and political change.
Burnham has said that the country needs an honest discussion about its long-term relationship with Europe.
However, critics argue that voters should have a decisive say before any major transfer of powers takes place.
There is currently no announced referendum on rejoining the EU.
The government will face growing pressure to explain precisely what it intends to negotiate and what limits it is prepared to accept.
Conclusion: Is Britain Heading Towards Brexit in Reverse?
Andy Burnham’s European strategy has reopened a political argument that many believed had been settled by the 2016 referendum.
Closer cooperation with Brussels could offer practical benefits for British farmers, manufacturers and consumers.
But it could also involve additional financial contributions, regulatory commitments and difficult questions about national sovereignty.
The government must be transparent about the consequences rather than expecting taxpayers to accept new arrangements without understanding their costs.
For Nigel Farage and Reform UK, the controversy provides another opportunity to challenge Labour over its commitment to Brexit.
For Burnham, the challenge is proving that closer European cooperation can deliver economic benefits without undermining democratic accountability.
Britain voted to leave the European Union, but the debate over how much influence Brussels should have over the country is clearly far from over.
Ultimately, British taxpayers deserve to know exactly what they are being asked to pay for, which rules they will have to follow and who will have the final say over the laws governing their country.