Andy Burnham doubled down on his support of the EU. (Image: Daily Express)
Andy Burnham has doubled down on his personal ambition to see the United Kingdom dragged back to Brussels in his lifetime. Dropping his biggest hint yet that it could be in the next Labour manifesto, Mr Burnham nonetheless ruled out a snap election. The Prime Minister is due to attend a summit with Eurocrats next month where he has suggested that nothing is “off the table” in those talks.
Mr Burnham, despite pledging not to re-run the Brexit debate when running for the Makerfield by-election, has repeatedly commented on aligning more closely with the bloc.
Speaking last year, he said he wanted back in, a view he shared this morning in a shocking news interview. He told Good Morning Britain today, “In my lifetime I would like to see that happen,” but added he was “not going to move ahead of the public.”
Stunned program hosts had also asked if he planned to rejoin soon, to which the Prime Minister retorted he was “not proposing any changes in this Parliament” that would see the UK reshackled to Brussels.
Andy Burnham confronted by Express reporter (Image: Daily Express)
During the by-election which saw him returned to Parliament, Mr Burnham repeatedly refused requests to be interviewed by this paper about his position on the EU. When challenged directly he chose to run away.
Later, when standing for the seat which voted 65% in favour of Leave, he pledged not to re-run the debate on Brexit. Mr Burnham voted and campaigned to Remain, and then demanded a second referendum within months of his side losing.
This morning he argued that he was not re-running the referendum as he branded the UKs exit deal “a harder Brexit than was proposed”. Mr Burnham blamed Britain’s lack of control over its borders on leaving, despite himself suggesting he would be open to signing back on to the Freedom of Movement scheme.
Last night the Prime Minister’s overtures on the scheme sparked fury from Brexiteers. Nigel Farage, speaking exclusively to the Daily Express warned “the cat’s out of the bag.”
“Andy Burnham wants to open the door to 450 million people and leave us powerless to stop them coming in. Freedom of movement would undercut working people’s wages with cheap foreign labour – a complete betrayal of what the British people want and voted for.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
The Reform UK leader demanded that, if Mr Burnham wants “open-door immigration risking millions more arrivals, he should call a general election and ask the public.”
Panic that Labour is planning to drag the country back into the EU has only grown after Mr Burnham repeatedly has hinted at aspects of the bloc he wants to sign onto. Your paper is running its ‘Give Us A Proper Brexit’ campaign aimed at slashing red tape, imposing a protecting fishing zone and leaving the ECHR.
The Daily Express became the first newspaper in the UK to demand the country leave the European Union, and has long stood for British sovereignty over its own lawmaking. Britain’s historic vote to Leave was the largest democratic vote in this nation’s history, and the mandate to exit the EU remains the biggest ever – with 17.4 million voting for the winning side.
Andy Burnham Doubles Down on Brexit Betrayal in Explosive GMB Comments
Andy Burnham has reignited Britain’s bitter Brexit debate after using an appearance on Good Morning Britain to defend his call for a more open discussion about the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union. His comments have intensified criticism from opponents who accuse Labour of reopening a political dispute that the country has spent years trying to move beyond.
The Prime Minister insists that Britain’s current Brexit arrangements are not good enough and that the government has a responsibility to explore ways of improving them. Yet his willingness to discuss freedom of movement and the possibility of closer European integration has raised difficult questions about Labour’s promises, immigration policy and the future direction of the country.
For Nigel Farage and Reform UK, the controversy provides an opportunity to challenge the government’s approach to Brexit. Farage has repeatedly argued that restoring closer ties with Brussels could undermine the decision made by voters in the 2016 referendum. He has described Burnham’s approach as a betrayal, although the Prime Minister maintains that no fundamental change will be imposed without public consent.
The dispute is now about more than trade agreements or diplomatic relations. It concerns trust, democratic accountability and whether Britain should reconsider the long-term consequences of leaving the EU.
Burnham Defends His Position on Good Morning Britain
During his appearance on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on October 26, Burnham argued that Britain’s experience of Brexit had not unfolded as many people expected. He said the country had experienced a harder form of Brexit than originally anticipated and maintained that the current arrangements had created economic difficulties.
Burnham was clear that he was not proposing to take Britain back into the EU during the current Parliament. He also insisted that he would not move ahead of the British public when deciding the country’s future relationship with Europe.
Nevertheless, he acknowledged that he would personally like to see Britain rejoin the European Union at some point during his lifetime. That admission has become a major focus of the political controversy because it raises questions about whether Labour’s longer-term ambitions could eventually move beyond the limited agreements currently being discussed.
Burnham’s immediate objective, he says, is to improve the practical relationship between Britain and its European neighbours. He wants to explore arrangements that could help farmers, food manufacturers and other businesses while also improving cooperation on immigration.
The government is preparing for a UK-EU summit scheduled for November 20, where Burnham is expected to discuss possible approaches to the relationship.
However, the distinction between practical cooperation and a fundamental reversal of Brexit has become increasingly difficult for politicians to explain. Opponents argue that even discussing freedom of movement could undermine confidence in Labour’s commitment to the referendum result.
Why Nigel Farage Is Seizing the Opportunity
Nigel Farage has spent much of his political career campaigning against European integration. Brexit remains central to his political identity, and he has consistently argued that Britain should maintain control over its immigration rules, legislation and national priorities.
Burnham’s latest comments give Farage an opportunity to return to familiar arguments. Reform UK can portray the debate as evidence that the political establishment remains dissatisfied with the referendum result and is searching for ways to reverse some of its consequences.
For voters who supported Brexit because they wanted greater national control, the prospect of restoring freedom of movement may be particularly controversial.
Farage can argue that voters were promised a lasting change in Britain’s relationship with Europe and that any significant departure from the current arrangements should require a clear democratic mandate. His criticism also allows Reform to challenge Labour on immigration, one of the most politically sensitive subjects facing the government.
But there are important distinctions between the various proposals being discussed. Improving cooperation on trade does not automatically mean restoring freedom of movement, and negotiating practical agreements with European countries does not necessarily require Britain to rejoin the EU.
That distinction will be crucial to the debate. Reform will seek to connect the different possibilities under a single argument about sovereignty, while Labour will need to explain what each proposed arrangement would actually involve.
Whether voters accept either side’s interpretation will depend partly on the details of any agreement and the evidence presented about its potential costs and benefits.
The Freedom of Movement Question
Freedom of movement has become the most contentious element of Burnham’s comments.
Before Brexit, EU citizens generally had rights to live and work in other member states under the bloc’s free-movement rules. Leaving the EU ended the UK’s participation in that system, although different immigration arrangements continue to allow people to enter Britain for work, study and other purposes.
Supporters of closer European integration argue that a new arrangement could make it easier for British citizens to work and study in Europe. Some employers also believe that reducing barriers to recruitment and trade could benefit businesses operating across national borders.
Critics see the issue differently. They argue that restoring freedom of movement would weaken the UK’s ability to determine who can live and work in the country. For many Brexit supporters, immigration control was a central reason for voting to leave the EU.
Burnham has acknowledged that freedom of movement brought significant challenges. He has also argued that migration patterns have changed since Brexit and that Britain needs a more effective relationship with European countries to address immigration problems.
On Good Morning Britain, he linked the deterioration of certain immigration arrangements to the loss of previous cooperation mechanisms, including the ability to return some people through agreements with European partners.
His argument is that improved cooperation could help Britain manage immigration more effectively. His critics question whether closer ties would deliver that outcome without requiring compromises on national control.
These competing interpretations make it essential to distinguish between the government’s stated objectives and the policies it has actually committed to implement.
Has Labour Broken Its Promises?
One of the biggest challenges facing Burnham is the relationship between his comments and Labour’s 2024 election manifesto.
That manifesto ruled out returning to freedom of movement, joining the EU single market and re-entering the customs union. Burnham has said he will not abandon those commitments during the current Parliament.
However, his willingness to discuss a wider range of possibilities for Britain’s future has created uncertainty about what Labour might propose at a later election.
Opponents argue that voters deserve greater clarity. If the government believes a fundamental change in the relationship with Europe is necessary, critics say, it should explain that ambition openly rather than leaving voters to interpret a series of interviews and public statements.
Supporters of Burnham’s approach counter that examining policy options is not the same as committing to implement them. They argue that a government should be able to assess whether existing arrangements are working without automatically ruling out every possible alternative.
The disagreement is therefore partly about timing and democratic accountability. Burnham says he wants an evidence-based discussion before making decisions, while critics fear that such a discussion could gradually move the country towards policies that voters previously rejected.
Any future proposal involving major changes would face scrutiny over its economic implications, its immigration provisions and the extent of public support.
The Economic Argument Behind the Debate
Burnham’s case for reconsidering Britain’s relationship with Europe rests partly on the argument that the existing settlement is limiting economic opportunities.
European countries remain important trading partners for British businesses. Companies that export goods can face additional paperwork, regulatory requirements and border procedures following the UK’s departure from the EU’s single market and customs union.
For farmers and food manufacturers, reducing unnecessary barriers could make a practical difference. Businesses may also benefit from greater regulatory certainty and more predictable arrangements for moving goods across borders.
Yet closer integration is not without potential costs or political complications. Different models of cooperation involve different obligations, and some could require Britain to accept rules developed at European level.
Joining the single market, for example, would have implications for the UK’s relationship with EU regulations and freedom of movement. Full membership would involve a much broader set of commitments and would require a separate political process.
The government therefore faces a difficult task: identifying which arrangements would provide meaningful economic benefits while explaining the compromises they might involve.
Farage and other opponents will argue that Britain should concentrate on improving domestic productivity, investment and public services without moving closer to European institutions. Supporters of a closer relationship will contend that better access to Britain’s largest nearby trading market could support growth.
Both arguments need to be assessed against concrete proposals rather than political slogans.
What Happens Next?
The November 20 UK-EU summit is likely to become an important moment in the debate. Burnham is expected to use the discussions to explore ways of improving cooperation with European leaders.
The summit’s practical outcomes will matter more than its rhetoric. Agreements that clearly benefit British businesses or improve cooperation on specific immigration problems could help explain why the government wants a closer working relationship with Europe.
On the other hand, vague promises or proposals that appear inconsistent with Labour’s manifesto could intensify criticism from opposition parties.
Burnham will also need to address concerns among Labour MPs and voters who supported Brexit. Some may be comfortable with limited agreements that improve trade and cooperation but unwilling to consider a return to freedom of movement. Others may believe that a more ambitious relationship with Europe is necessary to improve Britain’s economic prospects.
Farage is likely to continue presenting the issue as a question of whether politicians respect the referendum result. The Conservatives may also use the dispute to challenge Labour’s judgement, although their own record of implementing Brexit leaves them open to criticism.
For the government, the central challenge will be explaining how it can improve relations with Europe without appearing to disregard the public’s previous decision.
A Political Dispute With Long-Term Consequences
Burnham’s GMB appearance has placed Brexit back at the centre of British political debate. His position is that the current arrangements are not good enough, that Britain should examine its options and that the public must ultimately determine the country’s direction.
Farage sees the same debate as an opportunity to warn against renewed European integration and to question Labour’s commitment to its earlier promises.
Neither interpretation settles the underlying policy questions. Britain still has to consider how it can improve trade, manage immigration, strengthen international cooperation and maintain public confidence in democratic decisions.
Burnham’s approach may lead to practical agreements that stop short of reversing Brexit. Alternatively, a future government could decide that a more fundamental change deserves consideration, in which case voters would need to assess the proposals and their implications.
For now, the Prime Minister has ruled out immediate changes and insists that he will not move ahead of the public. But his comments have ensured that Britain’s relationship with Europe will remain a significant political issue.
The debate is no longer simply about whether Brexit should be defended or criticised. It is increasingly about what Britain wants its future relationship with Europe to look like, what compromises that relationship would require and who should have the final say.
Those questions are likely to shape political arguments well beyond the November summit, as Labour, Reform UK and the Conservatives attempt to convince voters that their respective approaches offer a credible way forward.