Andy Burnham to address MPs on Monday afternoon (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham is likely to spark fury when he tells MPs on Monday that it would be a “dereliction of duty” not to seek a new deal with the EU. The Prime Minister is expected to reiterate his argument from the Labour Party conference that Brexit has done “more harm than good” during a Commons address on Monday. He will call on all parties to support the Government’s approach in seeking a closer relationship with the EU, arguing that such a move could help control immigration and boost growth.
A No 10 source said: “Andy understands why some politicians don’t want to face up to the reality that Brexit has not delivered what they once promised. But it is time for a different conversation about what our long-term relationship should be.
“Sticking with the status quo and not working relentlessly to secure a good deal that boosts growth would be a major dereliction of duty.”
At the Labour conference in Liverpool last month, Mr Burnham said he would set out the “options” for Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe around the time of a UK-EU summit planned for the end of the year. He has suggested that those options could include rejoining the bloc.
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.
Mr Burnham is likely to be grilled on his comments that the UK is “clear” there was Russian interference in the Brexit referendum.
He said that when he entered No 10 in the summer, he had asked whether Moscow interfered in the 2016 vote on whether to leave the EU and was given “the clear answer that yes there was”.
Support our Give Us A Proper Brexit Campaign
The Daily Express has been at the forefront of campaigning for Brexit. This newspaper led the way in building public support for Britain leaving the EU.
After the vote, the Express continued to campaign for Brexit to be delivered, holding politicians to account over negotiations and the UK’s future relationship with Brussels.
The Daily Express’s Give Us A Proper Brexit crusade has called for Britain to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, slash red tape for businesses and enforce a 12-mile exclusion zone around the UK for British vessels only.
It has been backed by Reform UK and the Conservatives.
To support our campaigning journalism, sign up to Express Premium to receive access to our exclusive subscriber-only journalism, an ad-lite reading experience and our subscribers-only newsletters for only £6.99 a month or £52 for the year.
The Prime Minister said he believes it is important to put this “clearly on the record” to help voters in Germany and France understand “some of this politics is instigated via our enemies”, amid the rise of far-right parties in those countries.
Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee found in 2020 that the Government failed to fully assess the impact Russian state-run media and “troll” accounts could have had on the EU referendum.
Mr Burnham, speaking to the Rest Is Politics podcast to be released on Monday, said he spoke to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz about the threat from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party when they met in Berlin this week.
Andy Burnham to Announce Bombshell Brexit Betrayal Over ‘New EU Deal’
Andy Burnham has reignited Britain’s Brexit debate after signalling that the country needs a dramatically different relationship with the European Union, raising the prospect of changes that could reshape British politics for years to come.
The Prime Minister has argued that leaving the EU has caused more harm than good and that Britain can no longer afford to accept the existing arrangement without examining the alternatives. His latest intervention has intensified concerns among Brexit supporters, who fear that a series of seemingly practical agreements could gradually bring the UK closer to the European bloc.
Burnham, however, insists that the debate should be driven by Britain’s economic interests, security and future prosperity rather than by old political loyalties. He believes that closer cooperation with Europe could help businesses, improve coordination on immigration and create new opportunities for younger people.
The question now is whether his proposed approach represents a pragmatic adjustment to Brexit or the beginning of a much more fundamental shift.
A New EU Deal That Could Change Britain’s Direction
Burnham is preparing to use the UK-EU summit scheduled for 20 November as an opportunity to pursue new agreements designed to reduce barriers between Britain and its European neighbours.
The discussions are expected to cover food and drink trade, youth mobility and cooperation on emissions trading. The government hopes that closer alignment in these areas could reduce unnecessary costs for businesses and support economic growth.
These proposals are not the same as immediately rejoining the European Union. They would instead seek to improve cooperation within the framework of Britain’s current position outside the bloc.
Nevertheless, the political significance is considerable.
Since the 2016 referendum, successive British governments have tried to balance two competing objectives: maintaining the independence promised by Brexit while preserving the economic advantages of close relations with the EU.
That balance has proved difficult. Businesses have faced additional paperwork and regulatory requirements, while political leaders have repeatedly disagreed over how much cooperation is acceptable.
Burnham argues that Britain should be prepared to reconsider its approach if the existing arrangements are not delivering the results the country needs.
His critics fear that this could become a gradual process of reversing Brexit without a fresh public mandate.
Why Brexit Supporters Are Raising the Alarm
For millions of people who voted to leave the EU, Brexit was about more than trade agreements. It represented a decision to restore national control over laws, borders and political institutions.
They argue that Britain should not have to follow European regulations without having a direct say in how those rules are made. They also worry that closer alignment could gradually reduce the freedom to establish independent policies.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has criticised the idea that closer European integration will automatically solve Britain’s economic problems. Other Brexit supporters argue that the government should focus on domestic productivity, investment and public services rather than reopening arguments that have divided the country for a decade.
These concerns are particularly relevant to any agreement involving regulatory alignment.
If British businesses are required to follow EU standards to retain easier access to European markets, the arrangement may reduce barriers to trade. However, Britain could also find itself accepting rules over which it has limited influence.
That creates a difficult political calculation. Greater alignment may deliver practical benefits, but those benefits must be weighed against the loss of flexibility and the obligations attached to the agreement.
Burnham’s challenge is to explain exactly where he believes the balance should lie.
Food and Drink: The First Major Test
One of the most immediate areas for potential progress is trade in food and agricultural products.
Since Brexit, exporters and importers have had to navigate additional procedures involving certain animal products, plants and other regulated goods. These requirements can increase administrative costs, delay shipments and make cross-border trade more complicated.
A new agreement aligning relevant standards could reduce many of those barriers.
For British farmers and food producers, easier access to European markets could make exporting more straightforward. Retailers might also benefit from more predictable supply chains and reduced bureaucracy.
However, regulatory alignment comes with obligations.
Britain would need to agree to follow relevant standards and establish arrangements for monitoring compliance. The precise terms would determine how much flexibility the UK retained and how disputes were resolved.
Supporters of the agreement argue that businesses should not have to absorb unnecessary costs simply to preserve a symbolic distance from European regulations.
Critics counter that the government must ensure that any concessions are proportionate and that British producers are not placed at a disadvantage.
The outcome of the negotiations will therefore matter far more than the headline announcement. The details will determine whether businesses receive meaningful benefits and what Britain must accept in return.
Youth Mobility Could Become Another Flashpoint
Another proposed area of cooperation is a youth mobility scheme that would allow eligible young people from Britain and EU countries to spend time living, studying or working abroad under agreed conditions.
For supporters, such an arrangement could restore opportunities for cultural exchange, professional development and international experience that became more complicated after Brexit.
Young people could gain language skills, build careers and experience different societies. Universities and employers might also benefit from easier exchanges.
But the issue is politically sensitive because immigration was one of the defining subjects of the referendum campaign.
Brexit supporters may question whether a mobility scheme risks undermining the promise of greater border control. Others may worry that the arrangement could create additional pressure on housing, public services or employment opportunities.
The details would be decisive. Eligibility, age limits, duration of stay, work rights and numerical caps could all affect how the scheme operates.
A carefully negotiated arrangement would not necessarily recreate the former freedom of movement system. However, the government would need to explain its terms clearly to prevent misunderstandings about what is being proposed.
Burnham’s argument is that Britain should distinguish between uncontrolled or irregular immigration and structured opportunities that could benefit young people and the economy.
Whether voters accept that distinction remains an important political question.
Could the New Deal Help Control Immigration?
Burnham has also argued that closer cooperation with the EU could help Britain address immigration challenges.
This is a politically significant claim because many voters supported Brexit partly because they wanted the UK to exercise greater control over its borders.
The government’s argument is that cooperation with European partners can improve information-sharing, strengthen efforts against people-smuggling networks and make it easier to coordinate the handling of migration cases.
Irregular migration is rarely a problem that one country can resolve entirely on its own. Smuggling networks operate across borders, and enforcement can depend on agreements between governments.
However, cooperation does not automatically guarantee lower migration numbers. The effectiveness of any agreement would depend on its legal framework, operational arrangements and the willingness of participating countries to implement it.
Critics will therefore demand evidence that closer ties would produce measurable improvements rather than simply creating new commitments.
Burnham must also address the distinction between cooperation on enforcement and wider questions about legal migration.
A deal designed to improve information-sharing or facilitate the return of people who have no right to remain would have different implications from an arrangement granting additional rights to EU citizens.
Clear explanations will be essential if the government wants to convince voters that a new agreement serves Britain’s interests.
The £10 Billion Economic Opportunity
The government has suggested that closer cooperation with the EU could provide a significant economic boost, with the proposed agreements forming part of a wider effort to improve growth.
The potential benefits include reducing trade friction, improving the movement of certain goods and creating more predictable conditions for businesses operating across the Channel.
For smaller companies in particular, administrative requirements can represent a substantial burden. Large corporations may have dedicated compliance teams, while smaller exporters often have fewer resources to deal with complex paperwork.
Reducing unnecessary barriers could therefore help some firms compete more effectively.
Nevertheless, projected economic gains should not be confused with guaranteed outcomes. The final impact would depend on the terms of the agreements, the costs of compliance, business responses and broader economic conditions.
The government will need to explain how its estimates were calculated and what assumptions underpin them.
It must also show how any benefits would be distributed across different industries and regions. An agreement that helps exporters in one sector may create adjustment costs for businesses in another.
The economic case should therefore be assessed through the details rather than through a single headline figure.
Is Burnham Quietly Opening the Door to Rejoining?
The most controversial aspect of Burnham’s position is that he has refused to rule out more fundamental changes to Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe.
He has called for a serious discussion of the available options, potentially including arrangements that would bring the UK closer to the EU’s single market or customs union. Full membership has also entered the wider political debate.
That does not mean Britain is about to rejoin the EU.
Rejoining would require a far more extensive political and legal process, including negotiations with the bloc’s 27 existing member states. Britain would also need to address the terms of membership, financial contributions, regulatory obligations and other conditions.
Any government seeking such a change would face difficult questions about democratic legitimacy and public consent.
Burnham has said that the British public should have the final say on the country’s future relationship with Europe. He has presented the immediate negotiations as a practical first step rather than an announcement that Brexit will be reversed overnight.
Still, the change in political tone is significant. Instead of treating the referendum as the end of the debate, Burnham wants Britain to consider whether its current arrangements remain appropriate.
For Brexit supporters, this raises fears that a limited trade agreement could become the starting point for a much broader shift.
For supporters of closer European ties, it creates an opportunity to discuss alternatives that were politically difficult to raise in previous years.
Kemi Badenoch and the Conservative Opposition
Badenoch and other Conservative critics are likely to scrutinise the government’s proposals closely.
Their central argument is that closer integration should not be presented as an easy solution to Britain’s economic challenges. They will want to know what concessions the EU expects, whether British businesses would face additional obligations and how much control the UK would retain.
They may also argue that the government risks reopening the Brexit divide at a time when the public expects politicians to focus on living standards, public services and economic performance.
Burnham’s supporters respond that refusing to reconsider the current arrangement would be equally irresponsible if there are practical opportunities to improve growth and cooperation.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether Britain should be closer to Europe. It is about how the country should balance economic benefits, democratic accountability and national autonomy.
The coming negotiations will provide a clearer indication of the government’s priorities. The more specific the proposals become, the easier it will be for Parliament and the public to assess the advantages and disadvantages.
What Happens at the November Summit?
The summit scheduled for 20 November is expected to provide an important opportunity to advance discussions on the new agreements.
But even if the two sides reach an understanding, negotiations and implementation may take time. Technical arrangements, legal requirements and oversight mechanisms will all need to be addressed.
The government will also have to manage opposition from politicians who believe that the proposed concessions go too far. Some Labour MPs may be concerned about reopening Brexit arguments in constituencies where voters strongly supported leaving the EU.
At the same time, businesses affected by trade barriers will be looking for concrete results rather than another round of political promises.
The negotiations could therefore become a test of whether Burnham can turn his broader vision into agreements that are both economically useful and politically sustainable.
The EU will also have its own priorities. Britain cannot assume that European leaders will accept every proposal simply because the UK wants a closer relationship.
Successful negotiations will require compromises on both sides.
A Turning Point for Britain’s Relationship With Europe?
Andy Burnham’s proposed new EU deal has reopened a fundamental question about Britain’s future: should Brexit be treated as a settled destination, or should the country continue adjusting its relationship with Europe as circumstances change?
There is no single answer that removes every difficulty.
Closer cooperation could reduce barriers for businesses, create new opportunities for young people and strengthen coordination on shared challenges. It could also require Britain to accept rules or obligations that some voters consider incompatible with the promises made during the referendum campaign.
The immediate agreements under discussion do not amount to an automatic return to EU membership. Their impact will depend on the terms negotiated and how effectively they are implemented.
Nevertheless, Burnham’s willingness to discuss the long-term options marks a significant development in Britain’s political debate.
The real test will be whether the government can demonstrate tangible benefits while being transparent about the compromises involved.
For now, the proposed deal remains a negotiation rather than a completed settlement. The November summit may provide the next major indication of how far Britain and the EU are prepared to go.
Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: Brexit remains a defining issue in British politics, and the argument over Britain’s relationship with Europe is far from over.