Andy Burnham has said Britain could ultimately rejoin the European Union as his government prepares to reconsider the country’s long-term relationship with Europe.
The Prime Minister said full EU membership would be one of several options examined ahead of a UK-EU summit in November.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Burnham laid out four possible directions for Britain.
He said the UK could remain under the current post-Brexit arrangements, join a customs union, return to the single market or “go all the way” and consider full membership of the European Union.
Burnham said:
“We could stay as we are. That’s definitely an option, if people think this is the right place to stay. We could look at what George Osborne has said about a customs union, we could look at what the Liberal Democrats said at their conference about the single market or we could go all the way.”
He said ministers would look at “what is doable” and examine the pros and cons of each option before deciding what should happen next.
It is the clearest indication yet that Burnham is prepared to reconsider some of the Brexit red lines Labour fought the 2024 general election on.
Burnham says Brexit has done ‘more harm than good’
The comments came a day after Burnham used his first Labour conference speech as Prime Minister to give a blunt assessment of Brexit.
“I am very clear, and I will say this bluntly: Brexit has caused more harm than good,” he said.
“So the question is, what do we do about that?”
Burnham told delegates in Liverpool that Britain could no longer avoid making a long-term decision about its relationship with its largest trading partner.
He said:
“We will not give Britain the clear path we need into the rest of the century until we decide on a long-term relationship with what is still our largest market.”
He promised to set out the choices facing the country around the time of the UK-EU summit in November.
The language marks a clear break with the approach Labour took into the 2024 election.
That manifesto ruled out returning to the EU single market, joining a customs union or restoring freedom of movement.
Burnham has not announced that any of those policies will now be adopted.
Instead, he is saying they will be considered.
Four options are now on the table
The first option is essentially to leave the current relationship alone.
Britain would remain outside the EU, customs union and single market while continuing to negotiate individual agreements with Brussels.
The second would be joining a customs union.
Former Conservative chancellor George Osborne has recently argued for Britain to take that route, saying Brexit had been “a mess” and that closer trading arrangements would ease some of the economic disruption caused by leaving the bloc.
A customs union would reduce some barriers to trade in goods because Britain and the EU would apply the same tariffs to imports from outside countries.
It would not, by itself, return Britain to the single market.
The third option is the route advocated by the Liberal Democrats: rejoining the single market.
That would involve much closer regulatory alignment with the EU and would require negotiations over the conditions attached.
Then there is Burnham’s fourth option.
“Go all the way.”
In practice, that means reopening the question of full British membership of the European Union.
Britain would not simply get its old membership back
Even if a future government decided it wanted to rejoin, it would not be as simple as reversing the Brexit process.
Britain would have to apply for membership and negotiate terms with the EU and its existing member states.
Questions around freedom of movement, budget contributions, regulatory rules and Britain’s wider relationship with European institutions would all need to be addressed.
Burnham has not said what conditions he would be prepared to accept.
He has also not announced a second referendum.
The government is still at the stage of examining possible models rather than presenting a settled plan.
That makes the November summit particularly important.
The UK and EU are already discussing closer cooperation in several areas, including electricity markets, food trade and youth mobility.
Britain is also due to take part in the Erasmus+ student exchange programme again from 2027.
Burnham says Britain has been stuck in a ‘rut’
Burnham has argued that Britain has spent too long without resolving its relationship with Europe.
He told BBC Breakfast that the country had been “in a rut” and said the current position was not working well enough.
His criticism is not limited to trade.
During his conference speech, Burnham argued that Brexit had weakened Britain’s ability to cooperate with neighbouring countries on immigration as well as damaging economic ties.
He has previously said he would like to see Britain rejoin the European Union within his lifetime.
Until now, though, his government had been more cautious about what that could mean in practice.
His latest comments put full membership directly into the list of options ministers will examine.
Conservatives accuse Burnham of reopening Brexit
The prospect has already drawn criticism from Conservatives.
Former cabinet minister Michael Gove, who campaigned for Leave in 2016, argued that reopening the issue would frustrate voters and return powers over British policy to Brussels.
The Conservatives accused Burnham of reopening the divisions of the Brexit years.
Burnham’s government will also have to deal with voters who backed Leave and have no interest in revisiting the referendum result.
That is one reason Labour has spent much of the past decade being careful about reopening the membership question.
But public opinion on Brexit has changed since 2016.
A YouGov poll reported by Reuters in June found 55 per cent of voters supported rejoining the EU, although support for membership can vary depending on the terms attached and how questions are asked.
Burnham now appears willing to have that argument.
For the moment, he is not promising to take Britain back into the EU.
He is saying it should no longer be ruled out.
And after years in which Labour insisted the Brexit settlement would not be reopened, that is a substantial change.
Andy Burnham Says Britain Could ‘Go All the Way’ and Rejoin the European Union
Andy Burnham has reopened one of the most divisive questions in modern British politics after suggesting that the United Kingdom could ultimately “go all the way” and rejoin the European Union. His remarks mark a significant change in tone in the debate over Brexit and raise fresh questions about Britain’s economic future, its relationship with European neighbours and the political choices facing the country.
Speaking after the Labour Party conference in September 2026, Burnham said the government should examine a range of options for Britain’s long-term relationship with the EU. These could include maintaining the current arrangements, joining a customs union, returning to the single market or pursuing full EU membership. He said ministers needed to consider what was achievable and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each possibility. The Guardian reported his comments on 30 September 2026.
The statement has placed Brexit back at the centre of the national political conversation. For years, successive governments have attempted to move beyond the arguments that surrounded the 2016 referendum. Burnham’s willingness to discuss full membership, however, suggests that the question of Britain’s place in Europe may remain unresolved for considerably longer.
A major shift in the Brexit debate
Burnham has argued that leaving the European Union has not delivered the benefits promised by its supporters. Addressing Labour members, he described Brexit as having caused more harm than good and questioned whether Britain had gained the economic and political control that campaigners had promised.
His argument is that the country must stop treating Brexit as a closed chapter and examine the practical consequences of its current relationship with Europe. Britain continues to trade extensively with EU countries, while businesses, manufacturers, farmers and service providers must navigate arrangements that differ from those that existed before withdrawal.
Burnham’s comments do not amount to a formal commitment to rejoin. Instead, they indicate that the government is prepared to consider options that previous Labour leadership had ruled out. The distinction is important: discussing membership is not the same as presenting a detailed policy, establishing a timetable or securing public approval.
Nevertheless, the language represents a notable departure from the cautious approach that has characterised much of Labour’s recent discussion of Brexit. The party’s 2024 election manifesto ruled out returning to the single market, the customs union and freedom of movement. Reconsidering those boundaries could have significant consequences for the party’s economic programme and its political strategy.
Why the economic argument matters
The economic effects of Brexit are central to the debate. Supporters of closer European integration argue that additional trade barriers have increased costs and complexity for companies exporting goods to the continent. Businesses dealing with customs declarations, regulatory requirements and border procedures have had to adapt to a different trading environment.
For manufacturers that depend on components arriving from several European countries, even relatively small administrative obstacles can complicate supply chains. Food producers and agricultural exporters may also face additional checks and documentation requirements. Businesses that operate across borders must consider the implications of differing rules and standards.
Those advocating a closer relationship with the EU believe that reducing such barriers could help British firms expand, attract investment and compete internationally. They also argue that a more predictable trading relationship would make it easier for companies to plan long-term investments.
However, the economic case is not as simple as reversing Brexit and expecting immediate growth. The scale of any benefit would depend on the terms negotiated, the sectors involved and the obligations Britain would accept. Rejoining the EU would also require negotiations over membership conditions, regulatory alignment and the rights and responsibilities that accompany participation in the bloc.
The government would need to explain not only the potential economic advantages but also the costs, trade-offs and transition arrangements. Voters would reasonably expect a clear account of how any new agreement might affect jobs, prices, wages, public finances and national policy.
The choices between closer ties and full membership
There are several possible routes Britain could consider, and they would not all have the same consequences.
A customs union could reduce certain barriers to trade in goods by aligning external tariffs. It would not, by itself, eliminate every customs procedure or provide the full benefits of participation in the single market.
Rejoining the single market would involve closer alignment with EU rules governing trade and economic activity. It could make cross-border business easier in some areas, but would require Britain to accept obligations associated with access to that market.
Full EU membership would be a much wider undertaking. It would involve negotiations on the terms of accession and the responsibilities that come with membership, rather than simply restoring the arrangements that existed before Brexit. The UK would also need to negotiate with EU member states and institutions, each of which would have its own interests and priorities.
Burnham’s “go all the way” comment has attracted particular attention because it places full membership among the options under consideration. But he has not announced a detailed plan to achieve it, nor has he provided a timetable for a referendum or accession negotiations.
That leaves considerable uncertainty over what the government might ultimately recommend. The November 2026 UK-EU summit is expected to address practical areas of cooperation, including food and drink trade, emissions trading, energy links and youth mobility. Progress on those subjects could help define the relationship in the short term, even if the question of membership remains unresolved. Reuters reported on the planned summit and Burnham’s approach on 12 October 2026.
Political opposition is inevitable
Any serious move towards rejoining the EU would face substantial political opposition. Brexit was not simply a dispute about trade policy; it became a wider argument about sovereignty, immigration, democratic accountability and the direction of the country.
For many Leave voters, the referendum result represented a demand for greater national control over laws and policy. They may regard renewed membership negotiations as an attempt to reverse a democratic decision, particularly if the government does not first seek a clear public mandate.
Conservative critics have already warned that reopening the issue risks reviving the divisions of the Brexit years. Other opponents may argue that Britain should concentrate on domestic priorities such as public services, housing, taxation and economic growth rather than launch another prolonged constitutional debate.
Reform UK and other politicians critical of European integration could use the issue to challenge Labour’s position. They could frame closer EU ties as a retreat from national sovereignty and demand assurances that decisions affecting Britain would remain under British control.
Burnham, meanwhile, would need to explain why reconsidering Brexit is necessary now and how the process would differ from the arguments that divided the country a decade ago. Simply saying that the previous settlement has not worked would not be enough to establish what should replace it.
Public opinion is changing, but it is not a blank cheque
Public attitudes towards Brexit have evolved since the 2016 referendum. Some voters who supported leaving have become dissatisfied with the outcome, while some who backed Remain have continued to argue for closer integration. Yet public opinion on reversing Brexit depends heavily on how the question is framed and what people believe rejoining would involve.
A preference for closer cooperation with Europe does not automatically mean support for full EU membership. Voters may favour easier trade, improved security cooperation or fewer barriers for young people without wanting to restore every aspect of the pre-Brexit relationship.
Polling reported in September and October 2026 has indicated renewed interest in rejoining, including a YouGov survey cited by Euronews in which 56% of British voters reportedly supported membership. Such findings provide evidence that the issue deserves political attention, but individual polls should be considered alongside their wording, sample and timing rather than treated as a definitive mandate. Euronews, 30 September 2026.
A proposal for full membership would likely require a much more detailed public debate. People would need to understand the proposed terms, the likely economic consequences and the changes to Britain’s relationship with European institutions. If a future government chose to seek a new referendum, the campaign would need to address those practical questions rather than rely solely on nostalgia for the past or dissatisfaction with the present.
Immigration and sovereignty remain difficult questions
Immigration is another major obstacle to any move towards EU membership. Freedom of movement was an important element of the UK’s former membership, and Labour previously ruled out restoring it as part of its post-Brexit programme.
For some voters, renewed freedom of movement could offer opportunities to work, study and live across Europe. Businesses might welcome a wider pool of workers, while universities and cultural organisations could benefit from easier exchanges.
For others, migration control was one of the principal reasons for supporting Brexit. They would want to know whether a future agreement would restore rights of movement, what safeguards might exist and how migration policy would be managed.
Sovereignty presents a related challenge. EU membership involves shared rules and institutions, with member states participating in collective decision-making. Supporters regard this as a way to influence decisions that affect a large regional market. Critics argue that it places constraints on the freedom of national governments to act independently.
Any proposal would therefore need to explain the balance between influence and autonomy, rather than suggesting that Britain could recover all the benefits of membership without accepting its obligations.
What happens next?
Burnham has promised to set out options for Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe around the November summit. The immediate focus is likely to be on practical cooperation, where negotiations may offer tangible improvements without requiring an immediate decision on EU membership.
That process could help establish whether closer ties produce benefits for businesses and households. It could also reveal where disagreements remain, including on regulatory standards, migration, trade and the extent of Britain’s future commitments.
Full membership would be a much longer and more complicated undertaking. It would require political agreement at home, negotiations with European partners and a credible explanation of the terms on offer. The process could take years, and neither a favourable public mood nor a statement by the prime minister would guarantee a successful outcome.
The central question is whether Britain should treat Brexit as a settled constitutional decision or as a policy choice whose consequences can be reconsidered. Burnham’s comments have brought that question back into the open.
For supporters of rejoining, the debate offers an opportunity to address trade barriers and rebuild political cooperation with neighbouring countries. For opponents, it raises concerns about sovereignty, democratic consent and the risk of repeating years of political conflict.
Britain has not yet committed to reversing Brexit. What has changed is that its prime minister has publicly placed full EU membership among the options worth examining. The next stage will require much more than a provocative phrase: it will demand detailed proposals, honest discussion of the trade-offs and a clear account of how any decision would be made.
Whether the government ultimately chooses closer cooperation, a new trading arrangement or a campaign for full membership, the consequences will reach far beyond Westminster. They will affect the economy, Britain’s international role and the country’s understanding of its own future. The debate over Europe is no longer simply about what Britain left behind in 2020; it is increasingly about what kind of relationship the country wants with its closest neighbours in the decades ahead.