Andy Burnham has blamed Brexit for the small boat crisis and said he wants to rejoin the EU in his lifetime.
But the Prime Minister insisted he will not “move ahead of public opinion” – and said there is no certainty Labour will propose the move in the next general election manifesto. In an interview with ITV’s Good Morning Britain, the PM also maintained he has no plans for a snap election, despite polls showing his party has enjoyed a bounce since he became leader.
He told hosts Susanna Reid and Richard Madeley: “I’ve said I’m going to be honest and say in my lifetime I would like to see that (rejoining the EU) happen, but I am not going to move ahead of the public. I am not going to dictate in terms of my own opinions here.”
Article continues below
He said Britain’s inability to return migrants to Europe was the reason for the small boats crisis. He said: “I don’t think things have worked out as people said they would at the time, particularly when it comes to immigration. I think we’ve got weaker control now.
“The reason the small boats crisis has arisen is because we can’t return people, and people know we can’t do that in the same way that we used to be able to do. And it’s saying things that I think are getting missed. We need to be honest with people about where we are.”
When the UK was in the EU, it had a legal process for returning failed asylum seekers, known as the Dublin Agreement. The government faces calls to rejoin a new pact which includes a returns agreement.
But Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood told MPs on Monday that this is no silver bullet. She said: “The EU asylum pact is yet to resolve the challenges of returns within Europe. Certainly returns are not happening at scale, so that pact isn’t a silver bullet.”
But it remained unclear what the process for rejoining the bloc would be. The PM said: “I’m not proposing rejoining in this Parliament. We’re way away from that at this particular moment in time. What I am saying is we need to take some practical steps to make the arrangement work better than the arrangement we’ve got right now.”
Downing Street later said Mr Burnham is “not leaning either way” on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. A Downing Street spokeswoman said we are “not at that stage yet” when asked whether the public would decide on any proposals.
She said: “So, the Prime Minister isn’t proposing a return to freedom of movement, or any option. He is saying that it’s time for us to discuss what kind of long-term relationship with Europe is best for Britain…” And she continued: “He is crucially not leaning either way, and that will be for the British public to decide.”
The Prime Minister is “not pre-empting any of that process”, she said. Mr Burnham will meet EU chiefs including European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen for a key summit in Brussels on November 20.
Article continues below
He told reporters in London: “I want to use that opportunity to get a practical deal in place to support our farmers, our food manufacturers, but also to increase collaboration on immigration because we lost that and we need to get it back.
Article continues below
“So I’m talking about practical steps to deal with the things that matter to people, and I will never move ahead of the British public when it comes to Brexit.”
The Prime Minister was also challenged about growing speculation that a snap general election is on the cards. Asked on GMB whether he is softening the country to go to the polls, Mr Burnham said: “No, no, I’ve ruled that out.”
Article continues below
Pressed by Ms Reid on whether he had absolutely ruled it out, the PM said: “I have. I did that before the Labour conference. Because I just don’t think people want another backward-looking squabble.
“They want me to get on with the job and making life better for people, which is what I’m trying to do.”
Andy Burnham has reignited the political debate over Brexit and illegal migration after blaming Britain’s departure from the European Union for contributing to the small boats crisis across the English Channel. The Greater Manchester mayor has also reportedly ruled out an early general election, adding another twist to speculation about the future direction of British politics.
The comments come as immigration remains one of the most divisive issues facing the country. The arrival of migrants in small boats has placed pressure on the government to demonstrate that it can control the UK’s borders, tackle people-smuggling networks and manage the asylum system effectively. At the same time, politicians continue to disagree over the causes of the crisis and the most effective solutions.
Burnham’s remarks place Brexit back at the centre of the discussion. Supporters of closer cooperation with European countries argue that leaving the EU made certain forms of cross-border coordination more difficult. Critics of that argument counter that Britain regained control over its immigration rules after Brexit and that successive governments have failed to use their powers effectively.
The small boats crisis is not a simple problem with one cause. It involves organised smuggling gangs, dangerous journeys, international migration pressures, asylum procedures and cooperation between countries. Political arguments about Brexit are therefore likely to continue, particularly as parties attempt to convince voters that their proposals would produce measurable results.
Burnham has established himself as a prominent Labour politician through his work as mayor of Greater Manchester. His profile has led to recurring speculation about whether he might eventually seek a greater role in national politics. However, his reported rejection of an early election would suggest that he is not encouraging immediate speculation about a sudden change in the political timetable.
For the government, the challenge is to demonstrate that its approach to immigration is working. For opposition politicians, the opportunity lies in identifying weaknesses and presenting alternatives. For voters, the central question remains whether any of the competing plans can reduce dangerous Channel crossings while ensuring that asylum applications are processed fairly and efficiently.
Brexit and the small boats crisis
Britain’s departure from the European Union changed the country’s relationship with European institutions and altered the arrangements governing cooperation in several policy areas. Immigration was one of the most prominent issues during the Brexit debate, with supporters of leaving arguing that the UK should have greater control over its borders and national rules.
However, leaving the EU did not eliminate the need for international cooperation on migration. People-smuggling networks operate across national boundaries, and journeys through Europe can involve several countries before migrants reach the Channel coast. Preventing crossings therefore requires intelligence-sharing, enforcement and practical arrangements with international partners.
Those who blame Brexit for worsening the situation often point to changes in cooperation and the difficulty of returning some people who have entered the UK illegally. They argue that effective migration management depends not only on national border controls but also on agreements that allow countries to coordinate their responses.
Others reject the suggestion that Brexit is responsible for the small boats crisis. They argue that the UK has the legal authority to determine its immigration policy and should focus on enforcement, faster asylum decisions and the disruption of criminal networks. From this perspective, blaming the EU or Brexit risks distracting attention from decisions made by British governments.
The debate also reflects the difference between legal immigration and asylum. People arriving in small boats may claim protection, but each claim must be considered under the relevant legal framework. The circumstances of individual arrivals vary, and the fact that someone has entered the country irregularly does not by itself establish whether their asylum claim is valid.
Any serious policy must account for these distinctions. A government may seek to prevent unauthorised crossings while also meeting its legal obligations toward people who need international protection. The difficulty lies in establishing a system that is both effective and fair.
The pressure on the government
The small boats issue has become a test of government credibility because voters have repeatedly heard promises to reduce crossings. When arrivals continue, ministers face questions about whether their policies are sufficient, whether enforcement is working and how quickly asylum claims are being resolved.
The government must manage several challenges at once. Border agencies need the resources and information required to identify criminal activity. Authorities must process claims and appeals, while accommodation arrangements can create pressure on local communities and public finances. Returns also depend on legal decisions and cooperation with countries of origin or transit.
These tasks are connected. If asylum applications take too long to resolve, the system can become more expensive and uncertainty can increase for both applicants and communities. If people who have no legal right to remain cannot be returned promptly, ministers may face criticism that enforcement measures lack credibility.
However, speeding up decisions must not mean ignoring evidence or removing safeguards. Incorrect decisions can have serious consequences, particularly for people who face persecution or other dangers if returned to their home countries. The challenge is to improve administrative efficiency without undermining the fairness of the process.
Political parties frequently offer firm promises on border control, but implementation is more complicated than campaign slogans suggest. Plans may depend on international agreements, legal constraints, staffing levels and the capacity of the asylum system. Voters will ultimately want evidence that policies are reducing crossings and resolving cases more effectively.
Burnham’s national political ambitions
Burnham’s comments are also likely to attract attention because of his position within Labour politics. As mayor of Greater Manchester, he has developed a political identity associated with regional leadership, public services and the economic concerns of communities outside London.
His supporters have sometimes presented him as a politician who understands the frustrations of voters who feel that national decisions do not adequately reflect local conditions. His experience in local government gives him a platform to discuss issues such as transport, employment, housing and public investment.
Nevertheless, becoming a national political leader would involve a different set of responsibilities. Immigration policy, international relations, taxation and national security require decisions that extend well beyond the remit of a regional mayor. Any future national campaign would need to demonstrate how his experience could translate into a broader governing programme.
Speculation about leadership ambitions often intensifies when a politician makes prominent comments on a major national issue. Yet statements about policy do not necessarily indicate an intention to seek the premiership. Burnham’s reported position on an early election should therefore be considered separately from questions about his longer-term political future.
His decision to rule out an early election, if accurately reported, would also need to be understood in context. The timing of a general election is not determined by one politician’s preference alone. It depends on the legal framework, parliamentary circumstances and the decisions of the prime minister.
Why an early election matters
An early general election would change the political timetable and force parties to prepare for an immediate national campaign. Candidates would need to present their programmes, mobilise supporters and respond to scrutiny of their records. Major issues such as immigration, the economy, public services and taxation would likely dominate the campaign.
For voters, an election offers an opportunity to assess the government’s performance and choose between competing proposals. For parties, it creates both an opportunity and a risk. A campaign can provide a chance to gain support, but it can also expose divisions, weak policies or difficulties connecting with the public.
Ruling out an early election can reduce immediate speculation, but it does not settle wider questions about political stability or future leadership contests. Parties may continue to debate policy and positioning even when no election is imminent.
The immigration debate is particularly important because it can influence perceptions of competence and trust. Voters may support stronger border enforcement while disagreeing about the best methods. Others may prioritise humanitarian obligations, economic needs or the treatment of people seeking refuge. Political leaders must address these concerns without presenting complex issues as if they have effortless solutions.
The need for practical answers
Whatever the disagreement over Brexit, the small boats crisis requires practical action. Disrupting smuggling networks is essential because criminal organisers profit from dangerous crossings and often place vulnerable people at serious risk. Cooperation with European partners can help authorities investigate those networks and share relevant intelligence.
The asylum system also needs clear procedures and sufficient capacity. Faster decisions can reduce uncertainty, provided that applications receive proper consideration. Where claims are refused and there is no remaining legal barrier, effective return arrangements can help maintain confidence in the system.
At the same time, governments need transparent information about the cost and results of their policies. Announcements alone do not demonstrate success. Relevant measures include changes in crossing numbers, the speed of asylum decisions, the effectiveness of criminal investigations and the number of completed returns where legally appropriate.
These outcomes are influenced by conditions beyond the control of any single government. Smuggling routes can change, conflicts can create new displacement and enforcement in one location may shift activity elsewhere. This makes consistent evaluation more useful than relying on one announcement or a short-term change in arrivals.
Burnham’s reported comments have brought Brexit and election timing into the same political conversation, but the two issues require separate consideration. The UK’s relationship with Europe affects the options available for cooperation, while the timing of a general election is governed by political and constitutional circumstances.
Ultimately, the small boats crisis will remain a serious challenge until the government can show that dangerous crossings are being reduced and that the asylum system is functioning effectively. Whether politicians blame Brexit, government decisions or criminal smuggling networks, voters will expect evidence and workable solutions rather than competing explanations alone.