Andy Burnham has hinted he could “go all the way” and propose rejoining the EU after saying Brexit has been a disaster.
The Prime Minister said he would look at the pros and cons after telling the Labour party’s annual conference on Tuesday leaving the bloc had done “more harm than good”.
Article continues below
Mr Burnham, who is set to hold a summit with the EU later this year, went further today and said he did not want to leave the issue “hanging” and vowed to set out some options.
Crucially these could include rejoining, more than a decade after the historic referendum to leave. Asked whether he wanted the UK to go back into the EU, he said he wanted to “look at the options”.
He 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 (former Tory chancellor) 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.”
Labour’s election manifesto in 2024 ruled out joining a customs union, going back into the single market or allowing the return of freedom of movement with the EU. But Mr Burnham has now indicated he is prepared to recommend going beyond those red lines in future.
He said: “There are clearly options that need to be considered, and we have to look at what is doable and what would be the pros and cons of each.”
During his conference speech on Tuesday, Mr Burnham stated: “Brexit hasn’t given us control. We’ve lost some of the control we had over our economy, as a decade of low growth has put us in a weaker position. And we’ve lost some of our control over immigration.”
Article continues below
On Wednesday, Mr Burnham also rejected suggestions that he was picking on pensioners with an overhaul of the triple lock as “completely wrong”.
The PM told Good Morning Britain: “I think you’ve got it completely wrong really, if you don’t mind me saying, to put it like that, because I have put out today a vision for a national care service.
“There are pensioners out there who watch your programme who are paying for care costs from their basic state pension. Now, is that right or fair? “We have to fix this system. But what I’m saying about the triple lock enables a better support, better care for people in their homes. No care charges.”
Article continues below
It came after he used his major conference speech to announce the post-2030 shake-up of the triple lock in order to fund his vision of a National Care Service.
During the emotional address, the Prime Minister spoke about his late father, Roy, who died earlier this month at the age of 86 after suffering with Alzheimer’s.
Asked by LBC what his dad would have made of his speech, he replied: “Oh, that’s a hard question. I struggled a little about that, because his funeral is on Friday.”
Article continues below
He added: “I wasn’t doing it to seek sympathy, because I had a choice to make with the speech. Do I just compartmentalise all of that away, or do I talk about it? He was a son of this city.”
Andy Burnham Suggests Britain Could ‘Go All the Way’ and Rejoin the EU After Brexit Fallout
Andy Burnham has reopened one of Britain’s most divisive political debates by suggesting that the United Kingdom could eventually go “all the way” and rejoin the European Union. His comments mark a significant shift in the national conversation about Brexit, raising questions about whether leaving the bloc delivered the economic and political benefits promised to voters a decade ago.
Burnham has argued that Brexit has done “more harm than good” and that Britain can no longer avoid examining its long-term relationship with its closest European neighbours. Rather than ruling out a return to EU membership, he has said that the government should consider the full range of available options, from limited cooperation to complete re-entry into the bloc.
The remarks have attracted attention because Labour previously ruled out rejoining the EU’s single market or customs union during the 2024 general election campaign. Burnham’s willingness to discuss full membership therefore signals a broader debate about whether Britain’s post-Brexit settlement remains suitable for the country’s economic and diplomatic interests.
However, the Prime Minister has not announced a formal policy to rejoin the EU. He has emphasised that the advantages, disadvantages and practical difficulties of different arrangements must be examined before any decision is made.
The distinction is important. Reopening the debate is not the same as committing Britain to re-entry, and any attempt to reverse the decision taken in the 2016 referendum would involve substantial political, legal and diplomatic challenges.
Burnham challenges Britain’s post-Brexit direction
Speaking during interviews following the Labour Party conference in Liverpool, Burnham said Britain should be prepared to examine every possible option for its future relationship with Brussels.
He suggested that the government could consider a closer relationship through a customs union, pursue arrangements associated with the European single market or go further and seek full EU membership.
His comments followed a speech in which he argued that Brexit had contributed to a decade of division and economic uncertainty. Burnham believes Britain needs a more coherent long-term strategy for growth and international cooperation, particularly as geopolitical tensions and global economic competition intensify.
The argument represents a departure from the more cautious approach adopted by previous Labour leadership. Under Keir Starmer, the party repeatedly promised to improve relations with the EU while ruling out returning to the single market, customs union or freedom of movement.
That approach was designed to respect the referendum result while seeking practical improvements in trade and cooperation.
Burnham’s intervention suggests that the government should not necessarily regard those restrictions as permanent. If the existing relationship is failing to deliver the economic results Britain needs, he argues, ministers should be willing to reconsider the alternatives.
Nevertheless, he has warned against rushing towards a decision. Any change would require a careful assessment of the potential benefits, the concessions Britain might have to make and the political consequences of reopening such a contentious issue.
For supporters of closer European integration, the comments offer an opportunity to discuss a future beyond the current arrangements. For Brexit supporters, they raise concerns that politicians may be preparing to reverse a democratic decision without first establishing a clear public mandate.
Why Brexit remains controversial ten years later
The 2016 referendum produced a narrow but decisive result: 51.9 per cent voted to leave the European Union, while 48.1 per cent voted to remain.
The Leave campaign promised greater national sovereignty, control over immigration and the freedom to negotiate trade agreements independently. Its supporters argued that Britain would be better positioned to determine its own laws and economic priorities outside the EU.
However, the years following the referendum brought prolonged political uncertainty, complicated negotiations and substantial changes to Britain’s trading relationship with its largest nearby market.
Businesses trading with European countries faced new administrative requirements, customs procedures and regulatory barriers. Some companies adapted successfully, while others encountered additional costs and difficulties.
Critics of Brexit argue that those barriers have damaged investment and economic productivity. They also contend that Britain has lost influence over decisions affecting European markets despite continuing to trade extensively with EU countries.
Supporters of leaving the bloc dispute the idea that Brexit alone explains Britain’s economic difficulties. They point to the COVID-19 pandemic, the energy crisis, domestic policy decisions and wider international instability as important factors affecting growth and living standards.
They also argue that the benefits of regulatory independence and national control should be assessed over a longer period.
Burnham’s position is that the country must evaluate the overall results rather than allowing the referendum to close the discussion permanently. If the economic consequences have been worse than anticipated, he believes Britain should be willing to explore a different relationship with Europe.
The debate is therefore not simply about whether Brexit was right or wrong in 2016. It is about whether the arrangements established since departure remain appropriate for Britain’s future.
Could Britain really rejoin the European Union?
Rejoining the EU would be a far more complicated undertaking than negotiating an individual trade agreement.
Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, a country seeking membership must apply to join and demonstrate that it meets the bloc’s political, economic and legal requirements. Its application would then require unanimous approval from existing member states, followed by negotiations and ratification.
Britain’s previous membership could provide certain advantages because the country already has extensive experience of EU institutions, legislation and regulatory systems. However, re-entry would not automatically restore all the arrangements that existed before Brexit.
The UK would need to negotiate the terms of membership, including financial contributions, participation in EU policies and the application of European rules.
Some questions could prove especially difficult. Britain previously secured various special arrangements, including an opt-out from adopting the euro. Whether comparable terms would be available in a future accession process cannot be assumed.
There would also be disagreements about the budget, the role of EU institutions and the balance between national sovereignty and shared decision-making.
Existing member states would have their own political and economic interests to consider. Although some European leaders have expressed support for closer relations with Britain, that does not amount to a guarantee that every country would approve a future membership application on terms acceptable to London.
A serious re-entry proposal would therefore need to explain not only why membership might benefit Britain but also what obligations the country would accept in return.
Burnham’s comments have reopened the possibility of full membership as part of a long-term discussion. They have not established a timetable or confirmed that the government intends to begin formal accession negotiations.
The economic argument for closer ties
One of the strongest arguments advanced by supporters of closer EU relations is the potential benefit to British trade.
The European Union remains a major market for British goods and services. Reducing unnecessary barriers could make it easier for companies to export products, maintain supply chains and invest across borders.
Burnham has argued that Britain will struggle to achieve stronger economic growth if it remains unnecessarily distant from its largest nearby market.
A closer relationship could involve agreements on food and agricultural products, energy cooperation, emissions trading and other areas where differences in regulations or administrative requirements can increase costs.
For businesses operating across the Channel, more predictable rules could reduce uncertainty and make long-term investment decisions easier.
However, the potential gains would depend on the details of any agreement. Rejoining the customs union, for example, could reduce certain trade barriers by aligning external tariffs, but it would not automatically eliminate every customs procedure or regulatory check.
Membership of the single market would involve a different set of obligations, including closer alignment with relevant EU rules. Full membership would go further by restoring participation in the bloc’s political and institutional decision-making processes.
Each option would involve different economic benefits and trade-offs.
Brexit supporters argue that Britain should pursue targeted agreements rather than returning to a system in which European rules influence domestic policy. They maintain that independent trade policy offers opportunities that could be undermined by closer alignment.
The central challenge for the government is to establish which arrangement would deliver the greatest practical benefit without imposing costs that outweigh the gains.
Immigration and freedom of movement
Immigration would be one of the most politically sensitive elements of any attempt to rejoin the EU.
Before Brexit, citizens of EU member states generally had rights to live and work in Britain under the principle of freedom of movement. Leaving the bloc allowed the UK to introduce a different immigration system for European citizens.
Returning to full membership would raise questions about the movement rights normally associated with EU membership and how those rights would interact with Britain’s domestic immigration policies.
This issue remains central to the political divide surrounding Brexit. Supporters of leaving the EU frequently argue that the ability to control immigration was a major reason for voting Leave.
Those who favour rejoining counter that freedom of movement can also provide economic opportunities, help employers recruit workers and allow British citizens to live, work and study elsewhere in Europe.
Neither argument removes the need to examine how any future arrangement would work in practice.
A government proposing renewed membership would need to explain the implications for labour markets, public services, migration management and the rights of British citizens abroad.
It would also need to address the concerns of voters who believe that immigration levels have placed pressure on housing, wages and public infrastructure.
Burnham has suggested that Britain should consider the full range of options rather than ruling out potential arrangements before their consequences have been assessed. Yet any move towards membership would require a clear explanation of the changes it could bring.
Political pressure on Labour
The proposal also presents a challenge for Labour.
The party won the 2024 general election on a manifesto that promised closer cooperation with the EU while explicitly rejecting a return to the single market, customs union and freedom of movement.
Those commitments reflected the party leadership’s belief that revisiting the fundamental question of membership could reopen divisions that had dominated British politics for years.
Burnham’s comments could therefore create tension between the government’s long-term economic ambitions and the electoral promises on which Labour previously campaigned.
Some Labour supporters believe the party should be more open about the costs of Brexit and pursue a closer relationship with European partners. Others fear that making re-entry a central political objective could alienate voters who supported leaving the EU and undermine confidence in the government’s wider programme.
The party will also need to distinguish between improving the current relationship and committing to full membership.
Practical agreements on trade, energy and security may attract broader support than an immediate promise to reverse Brexit. They could also provide a way to test whether closer cooperation produces measurable benefits before the government considers more ambitious changes.
Burnham’s intervention has made it harder to treat full membership as a subject that can simply be excluded from discussion. However, it remains unclear whether Labour would make rejoining a formal election commitment.
Much will depend on the government’s assessment of the economic evidence, the response from European leaders and the political reaction at home.
Nigel Farage and the Brexit backlash
The possibility of rejoining the EU is likely to provoke a strong response from Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
Farage has spent much of his political career campaigning against European integration and presenting Brexit as a means of restoring British sovereignty. He is likely to argue that reopening the membership question disregards the result of the 2016 referendum.
Reform could use the debate to portray the government as more concerned with reversing past decisions than addressing current problems such as immigration, the cost of living and pressure on public services.
For Brexit supporters, the referendum was not simply a vote on trade arrangements. It represented a decision about democratic accountability and the authority of national institutions.
They may therefore object to any move towards re-entry unless voters are given a clear opportunity to approve it.
Supporters of closer EU relations, meanwhile, argue that democratic decisions can be reconsidered when circumstances change and new evidence becomes available. They maintain that the public should be able to assess whether the current arrangements are delivering the promised benefits.
The argument is likely to intensify if the government moves beyond discussing possibilities and begins developing a concrete proposal.
Farage’s response could also place pressure on the Conservatives, who must decide how to defend Brexit while addressing concerns about its economic consequences.
What do European leaders want?
Britain’s future relationship with the EU cannot be determined by the UK government alone.
European leaders have generally welcomed efforts to improve cooperation with Britain, particularly on security, energy, trade and regional stability. However, closer cooperation is different from agreeing to restore full membership.
The EU has its own rules and priorities, and member states would need to assess any proposal in light of their economic and political interests.
A UK-EU summit scheduled for November 20, 2026, is expected to provide an opportunity to discuss the future relationship and areas where practical agreements could be reached.
Potential subjects include food and drink trade, energy cooperation, emissions trading and youth mobility. Progress in these areas could improve relations without requiring an immediate decision on membership.
The summit may also help clarify how much appetite exists on both sides for a more ambitious reset.
European governments would need reassurance that any future agreement would have durable support within Britain. The political reversals of the Brexit years demonstrated how changes in domestic opinion and government policy can complicate long-term negotiations.
For that reason, a renewed membership process would require a clear and consistent political commitment rather than a temporary shift in rhetoric.
Would the public support rejoining?
Public opinion has become an important part of the renewed debate.
Polling in recent years has suggested that dissatisfaction with Brexit has grown among some sections of the electorate. A YouGov survey reported in October 2026 found that 52 per cent of respondents said they would vote to rejoin the EU, compared with 27 per cent who said they would vote to remain outside.
Such figures indicate that the debate has changed since 2016, but a single poll cannot establish a permanent majority or predict the outcome of a future referendum.
Public attitudes may also depend on the terms being offered. Voters could respond differently to full membership, a customs union, single-market participation or a narrower trade agreement.
A referendum campaign would likely involve extensive debate about immigration, sovereignty, trade, public spending and the future role of European institutions.
The government would also have to explain the potential costs and obligations of membership, rather than focusing exclusively on the advantages of closer economic integration.
For a decision of this scale, political leaders would need to provide clear information and allow voters to weigh the alternatives.
A long road ahead for Britain
Burnham’s suggestion that Britain could “go all the way” and rejoin the EU has reopened a debate that many politicians had hoped to leave in the past.
His argument is that Britain must confront the long-term consequences of Brexit and assess whether closer integration could improve economic growth, trade and international cooperation.
The proposal faces substantial obstacles. Rejoining would require negotiations with every EU member state, agreement on the terms of membership and a convincing political mandate at home. Questions surrounding immigration, financial contributions and national sovereignty would remain central to the discussion.
For now, the government’s immediate task is likely to focus on determining which improvements can be made to the existing relationship and whether those changes could deliver measurable economic benefits.
The November summit may provide an opportunity to make progress on practical issues, but it is not expected to settle the question of full membership.
Ultimately, the debate will depend on whether supporters of rejoining can demonstrate that membership would offer a better future for Britain, and whether opponents can explain how the country should address the economic and diplomatic challenges associated with remaining outside the bloc.
Burnham has made clear that he does not believe the question should be ruled out indefinitely. Whether Britain eventually returns to the European Union will depend on political choices, negotiations and public consent.
Ten years after the referendum, Brexit remains an unresolved argument about the kind of country Britain wants to be. The possibility of rejoining the EU may still be distant, but it has once again become part of the national conversation.